Question: "Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?"
Answer: The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation.
The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9).
The Roman Catholic Church rejects this.
The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is
that a person must believe in Jesus Christ
AND be baptized
AND receive the Eucharist
along with the other sacraments
AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church
AND perform meritorious works
AND not die with any mortal sins
AND etc., etc., etc.
Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that
yes, Catholicism is a false religion.
If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved.
Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
While salvation by faith is the most crucial issue, in comparing Roman Catholicism with the Word of God, there are many other differences and contradictions as well.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares.
These include apostolic succession,
worship of saints or Mary,
prayer to saints or Mary,
the pope / papacy,
infant baptism,
transubstantiation,
plenary indulgences,
the sacramental system,
and purgatory.
While Catholics claim Scriptural support for these concepts,
none of these teachings have any solid foundation in the clear teaching of Scripture.
These concepts are based on Catholic tradition,
not the Word of God. in scripture
In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles.
In regards to the question “Are Catholics saved?”,
this is a more difficult question to answer.
It is impossible to give a universal statement on the salvation of all members of any denomination of Christianity. Not ALL Baptists are saved.
Not ALL Presbyterians are saved. Not ALL Lutherans are saved. Salvation is determined by personal faith in Jesus alone for salvation, not by titles or denominational identification.
Despite the unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, there are genuine believers who attend Roman Catholic churches. There are many Roman Catholics who have genuinely placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. However, these Catholic Christians are believers despite what the Catholic Church teaches, not because of what it teaches. To varying degrees, the Catholic Church teaches from the Bible and points people to Jesus Christ as the Savior.
As a result, people are sometimes saved in Catholic churches. The Bible has an impact whenever it is proclaimed (Isaiah 55:11). Catholic Christians remain in the Catholic Church out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church truly stands for, out of family tradition and peer pressure, or out of a desire to reach other Catholics for Christ.
At the same time, the Catholic Church also leads many people away from a genuine faith relationship with Christ. The unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church have often given the enemies of Christ opportunity to blaspheme. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus Christ established. It is not a church that is based on the teachings of the Apostles (as described in the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles). While Jesus’ words in Mark 7:9 were directed towards the Pharisees, they accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.
Monday, November 30, 2009
With training you can believe anything !!
Hail Mary! Hail Satan!
CATHOLICISM, MOTHER OF HARLOTS
Below is Time Magazine's March 2005 Issue, featuring the Great Whore
Satanism in the Vatican | Immaculate Deception | Proof That Catholics Worship Mary
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." (King James Bible, Exodus 20:4,5).
Woe unto the Catholic Church—a prisonhouse of religion! And woe unto Protestants who are following the Mothers of Harlots! The Bible clearly warns against even BOWING to a graven image. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that the Catholic Church has deceitfully removed the 2nd of the Ten Commandments, which forbids BOWING to statues. God is a jealous God and will not share His rightful glory and praise with another...
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." —Isaiah 42:8
Does the Pope need glasses? Isaiah 42:8 can only be interpreted one way—God will not share glory and praise due to Him only. It really makes God angry when anyone hails (praises) Mary. Mary was a dirty, rotten sinner, just like you and me. Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Furthermore, I have news for you my friend, Mary did not remain a virgin. After Jesus was virgin born through a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit of God, Mary and Joseph married and had many children (Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55-56). Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem when He was 12 (Luke 2:42). Why would Joseph be present if he weren't Mary's husband? Mary did not remain a virgin!
As mentioned, Mary was a SINNER, just like you and me. Mary had to trust Jesus Christ to forgive her sins or else should couldn't have gone to Heaven. Read what Mary said about Jesus in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Mary is in Heaven today ONLY because she believed on Jesus Christ as her Savior to forgive her sins.
Oh, listen my friend, God wants you to be saved. The only way to Heaven is through Jesus. John 14:6 is very clear...
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
The Catholic religion is so wicked that millions claim Mary is Jesus' co-redeemer. Look at the blasphemous scars in Mary's hands in the photo below...
Roman Catholicism is the biggest false CULT in the world! There is NOTHING in the Bible about purgatory. There is NOTHING in the Bible about praying to dead saints.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
DumB ...as they...
... hello.. pat.. tricks..
i really don't believe what you said.. in red.. is true..
]
but.. that is why i have asked you what spiritual manafestations.. have you seen and observed..
and actually.. Jesus .. and YAWAH.. with the past prophets.. got pissed many times .. when religious leaders.. were shoulving out Bull shit.!!
As alvin glombowski and i talked about.. and if u speak to roman catholic priests.. they may.. tell you that they believe that 50% of roman catholics are going to hell..
and i certainly can understand .. why.. this is the case.. ..
Alvin Glombowski.. like many brothers of the un-holy cross.. like to believe what they want to believe..
and about the LORDS prayer.. i spoke to alvin about that .. recently..
and it is spoken at every mass.. with out any understanding..
GOD(YAWAH) lead us not into temptation.. or a time of testing.. etc etc,,.
EACH.. religious organization.. Christian.. or other wise.. offers.. a path to .. what ever god.. they claim to have an avenue to..
JUST as i believe ... it is a horrible travesty... that all these Roman Catholic un-trained and un-educated.. people are praying to mary and other familar spirits..
BUT u .. believe in your leadership.. as if they know the truth.. not so..
pope john paul 2 is is hell.. for promoting.. mejorgi and praying to familar spirits.. and the Roman CAtholic church.. wants to make him a saint.. so people can pray to him??
sorry but that is insane..
BUT it dosen't matter to me PERSONALLY.. your opinion... my salvation.. is secure..
so again.. i m asking .. when did Jesus appear to you??... or some familar spirit..??
and you have no clue.. on what a prophetic word.. >>(for... telling) is all about..
kim clement is a popular one.. i liked paul Cain... and Kennth E Hagen .. was one of my teachers..
but it is obvious you have not ... or rather ,.. do not realize .. that you are spiritually dead... just as alvin Glombowski... is spiritually dead..
.. A nother pastor .. is the Shepards Chapel... ARnold Murry...
he would refer to Alvin Glombowski as "A one verse Charlie"
because that is about all he knows..
as your stand.. on forgiveness... i forgive all the low lifes.. i have known..all the liars.. cheats .. thieves.. back stabbers.. etc ect..
they do as ther character directs them...
Now because you are spiritually dead.. you have to read the information.. some one tells you..
When i Pray.. to YAWAH.. .. i get an answer.... either directly.. or some one will .. call me up.. and tell me what YAWAH thru the HOLY SPIRIT
told them..
BUT ..THIS.. IS EASLY DOCUMENTED with some of the christian TV showes.. (with decernment)
Welll you like the Roman Catholic Church version...
big ... wopp..
finally.. i suggest you read 2 cron 34...
The Book of the Law Found
14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan.
16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, [a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."
yes pat..trick... i have found that the Roman Catholic church.. dosen't really...
1,.. teach scripture
2.. apply the teaching
3.. DEMENSTRATE.. the application of scripture..
Jesus was continually... being corrected by religious leaders.. who could not apply the teaching of scriptures.. or demenstrate. the application
and if memory serves me correctly... didn't they full -fill scripture by Killing him? only they didn't know it ....Hmmm
do you think they were spiritually blind..??
BUT THANKS FOR CLARIFYING... WHAT PERSONAL DECEPTION IS .. for a Roman Cathoic.. all thou... Alvin Glombowski, and Maureen Barledge..
are good examples of what to advoid..
OH... How many years have you been a teacher in the Public School system??
I was directed by YAWAH .. to teach .. for going on 9 years now..
as scripture says.. "the steps of a Righteous man are ordered by the LORD"
I don't know what lord.. you are following..... and i asked Alvin.. which god he was trying to please.. he said "the father"
but his understanding like yours is not founded in the old testement scriptures..
so i don't know which god you are trying to please.. and who you are in covenent with..
BUT when YAWAH
.. told me me to buy a ranch in arizona.. .. i did it.. and moved here..
When Yawah told me to work and study in portland oregon.. i went and did it..
when Yawah told me to not take a particular job .. there.. and to apply to the Christian radio station's and work as a DJ i did it..
i really did n't want to do that.
but that's overr your head... just like .. most things are over Alvin A (dummy) Glombowski
his stupid .. comment was "what language did the Holy Spirit speak !!"
yes pat..trick... over 40 years of talking with alvin Glombowski... and he dosen't have a clue.. personal loyality is one thing.. but.. it can get in the way of realizing the cleverness of deception
so i understand why he could MENTOR you... like attracts like..
and Alvin likes to hear ... what he wants to hear.. not toooo original
he is not going to hear the truth from you..
ther should be a sucking sound... when some one removes their .. head from their Ass Hole..
do you hear it yet???
p1saint
oh .. we are still friends !!! arn't we ???
i really don't believe what you said.. in red.. is true..
]
but.. that is why i have asked you what spiritual manafestations.. have you seen and observed..
and actually.. Jesus .. and YAWAH.. with the past prophets.. got pissed many times .. when religious leaders.. were shoulving out Bull shit.!!
As alvin glombowski and i talked about.. and if u speak to roman catholic priests.. they may.. tell you that they believe that 50% of roman catholics are going to hell..
and i certainly can understand .. why.. this is the case.. ..
Alvin Glombowski.. like many brothers of the un-holy cross.. like to believe what they want to believe..
and about the LORDS prayer.. i spoke to alvin about that .. recently..
and it is spoken at every mass.. with out any understanding..
GOD(YAWAH) lead us not into temptation.. or a time of testing.. etc etc,,.
EACH.. religious organization.. Christian.. or other wise.. offers.. a path to .. what ever god.. they claim to have an avenue to..
JUST as i believe ... it is a horrible travesty... that all these Roman Catholic un-trained and un-educated.. people are praying to mary and other familar spirits..
BUT u .. believe in your leadership.. as if they know the truth.. not so..
pope john paul 2 is is hell.. for promoting.. mejorgi and praying to familar spirits.. and the Roman CAtholic church.. wants to make him a saint.. so people can pray to him??
sorry but that is insane..
BUT it dosen't matter to me PERSONALLY.. your opinion... my salvation.. is secure..
so again.. i m asking .. when did Jesus appear to you??... or some familar spirit..??
and you have no clue.. on what a prophetic word.. >>(for... telling) is all about..
kim clement is a popular one.. i liked paul Cain... and Kennth E Hagen .. was one of my teachers..
but it is obvious you have not ... or rather ,.. do not realize .. that you are spiritually dead... just as alvin Glombowski... is spiritually dead..
.. A nother pastor .. is the Shepards Chapel... ARnold Murry...
he would refer to Alvin Glombowski as "A one verse Charlie"
because that is about all he knows..
as your stand.. on forgiveness... i forgive all the low lifes.. i have known..all the liars.. cheats .. thieves.. back stabbers.. etc ect..
they do as ther character directs them...
Now because you are spiritually dead.. you have to read the information.. some one tells you..
When i Pray.. to YAWAH.. .. i get an answer.... either directly.. or some one will .. call me up.. and tell me what YAWAH thru the HOLY SPIRIT
told them..
BUT ..THIS.. IS EASLY DOCUMENTED with some of the christian TV showes.. (with decernment)
Welll you like the Roman Catholic Church version...
big ... wopp..
finally.. i suggest you read 2 cron 34...
The Book of the Law Found
14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan.
16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, [a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."
yes pat..trick... i have found that the Roman Catholic church.. dosen't really...
1,.. teach scripture
2.. apply the teaching
3.. DEMENSTRATE.. the application of scripture..
Jesus was continually... being corrected by religious leaders.. who could not apply the teaching of scriptures.. or demenstrate. the application
and if memory serves me correctly... didn't they full -fill scripture by Killing him? only they didn't know it ....Hmmm
do you think they were spiritually blind..??
BUT THANKS FOR CLARIFYING... WHAT PERSONAL DECEPTION IS .. for a Roman Cathoic.. all thou... Alvin Glombowski, and Maureen Barledge..
are good examples of what to advoid..
OH... How many years have you been a teacher in the Public School system??
I was directed by YAWAH .. to teach .. for going on 9 years now..
as scripture says.. "the steps of a Righteous man are ordered by the LORD"
I don't know what lord.. you are following..... and i asked Alvin.. which god he was trying to please.. he said "the father"
but his understanding like yours is not founded in the old testement scriptures..
so i don't know which god you are trying to please.. and who you are in covenent with..
BUT when YAWAH
.. told me me to buy a ranch in arizona.. .. i did it.. and moved here..
When Yawah told me to work and study in portland oregon.. i went and did it..
when Yawah told me to not take a particular job .. there.. and to apply to the Christian radio station's and work as a DJ i did it..
i really did n't want to do that.
but that's overr your head... just like .. most things are over Alvin A (dummy) Glombowski
his stupid .. comment was "what language did the Holy Spirit speak !!"
yes pat..trick... over 40 years of talking with alvin Glombowski... and he dosen't have a clue.. personal loyality is one thing.. but.. it can get in the way of realizing the cleverness of deception
so i understand why he could MENTOR you... like attracts like..
and Alvin likes to hear ... what he wants to hear.. not toooo original
he is not going to hear the truth from you..
ther should be a sucking sound... when some one removes their .. head from their Ass Hole..
do you hear it yet???
p1saint
oh .. we are still friends !!! arn't we ???
DumB ...as they...
... hello.. pat.. tricks..
i really don't believe what you said.. in red.. is true..
]
but.. that is why i have asked you what spiritual manafestations.. have you seen and observed..
and actually.. Jesus .. and YAWAH.. with the past prophets.. got pissed many times .. when religious leaders.. were shoulving out Bull shit.!!
As alvin glombowski and i talked about.. and if u speak to roman catholic priests.. they may.. tell you that they believe that 50% of roman catholics are going to hell..
and i certainly can understand .. why.. this is the case.. ..
Alvin Glombowski.. like many brothers of the un-holy cross.. like to believe what they want to believe..
and about the LORDS prayer.. i spoke to alvin about that .. recently..
and it is spoken at every mass.. with out any understanding..
GOD(YAWAH) lead us not into temptation.. or a time of testing.. etc etc,,.
EACH.. religious organization.. Christian.. or other wise.. offers.. a path to .. what ever god.. they claim to have an avenue to..
JUST as i believe ... it is a horrible travesty... that all these Roman Catholic un-trained and un-educated.. people are praying to mary and other familar spirits..
BUT u .. believe in your leadership.. as if they know the truth.. not so..
pope john paul 2 is is hell.. for promoting.. mejorgi and praying to familar spirits.. and the Roman CAtholic church.. wants to make him a saint.. so people can pray to him??
sorry but that is insane..
BUT it dosen't matter to me PERSONALLY.. your opinion... my salvation.. is secure..
so again.. i m asking .. when did Jesus appear to you??... or some familar spirit..??
and you have no clue.. on what a prophetic word.. >>(for... telling) is all about..
kim clement is a popular one.. i liked paul Cain... and Kennth E Hagen .. was one of my teachers..
but it is obvious you have not ... or rather ,.. do not realize .. that you are spiritually dead... just as alvin Glombowski... is spiritually dead..
.. A nother pastor .. is the Shepards Chapel... ARnold Murry...
he would refer to Alvin Glombowski as "A one verse Charlie"
because that is about all he knows..
as your stand.. on forgiveness... i forgive all the low lifes.. i have known..all the liars.. cheats .. thieves.. back stabbers.. etc ect..
they do as ther character directs them...
Now because you are spiritually dead.. you have to read the information.. some one tells you..
When i Pray.. to YAWAH.. .. i get an answer.... either directly.. or some one will .. call me up.. and tell me what YAWAH thru the HOLY SPIRIT
told them..
BUT ..THIS.. IS EASLY DOCUMENTED with some of the christian TV showes.. (with decernment)
Welll you like the Roman Catholic Church version...
big ... wopp..
finally.. i suggest you read 2 cron 34...
The Book of the Law Found
14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan.
16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, [a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."
yes pat..trick... i have found that the Roman Catholic church.. dosen't really...
1,.. teach scripture
2.. apply the teaching
3.. DEMENSTRATE.. the application of scripture..
Jesus was continually... being corrected by religious leaders.. who could not apply the teaching of scriptures.. or demenstrate. the application
and if memory serves me correctly... didn't they full -fill scripture by Killing him? only they didn't know it ....Hmmm
do you think they were spiritually blind..??
BUT THANKS FOR CLARIFYING... WHAT PERSONAL DECEPTION IS .. for a Roman Cathoic.. all thou... Alvin Glombowski, and Maureen Barledge..
are good examples of what to advoid..
OH... How many years have you been a teacher in the Public School system??
I was directed by YAWAH .. to teach .. for going on 9 years now..
as scripture says.. "the steps of a Righteous man are ordered by the LORD"
I don't know what lord.. you are following..... and i asked Alvin.. which god he was trying to please.. he said "the father"
but his understanding like yours is not founded in the old testement scriptures..
so i don't know which god you are trying to please.. and who you are in covenent with..
BUT when YAWAH
.. told me me to buy a ranch in arizona.. .. i did it.. and moved here..
When Yawah told me to work and study in portland oregon.. i went and did it..
when Yawah told me to not take a particular job .. there.. and to apply to the Christian radio station's and work as a DJ i did it..
i really did n't want to do that.
but that's overr your head... just like .. most things are over Alvin A (dummy) Glombowski
his stupid .. comment was "what language did the Holy Spirit speak !!"
yes pat..trick... over 40 years of talking with alvin Glombowski... and he dosen't have a clue.. personal loyality is one thing.. but.. it can get in the way of realizing the cleverness of deception
so i understand why he could MENTOR you... like attracts like..
and Alvin likes to hear ... what he wants to hear.. not toooo original
he is not going to hear the truth from you..
ther should be a sucking sound... when some one removes their .. head from their Ass Hole..
do you hear it yet???
p1saint
oh .. we are still friends !!! arn't we ???
i really don't believe what you said.. in red.. is true..
]
but.. that is why i have asked you what spiritual manafestations.. have you seen and observed..
and actually.. Jesus .. and YAWAH.. with the past prophets.. got pissed many times .. when religious leaders.. were shoulving out Bull shit.!!
As alvin glombowski and i talked about.. and if u speak to roman catholic priests.. they may.. tell you that they believe that 50% of roman catholics are going to hell..
and i certainly can understand .. why.. this is the case.. ..
Alvin Glombowski.. like many brothers of the un-holy cross.. like to believe what they want to believe..
and about the LORDS prayer.. i spoke to alvin about that .. recently..
and it is spoken at every mass.. with out any understanding..
GOD(YAWAH) lead us not into temptation.. or a time of testing.. etc etc,,.
EACH.. religious organization.. Christian.. or other wise.. offers.. a path to .. what ever god.. they claim to have an avenue to..
JUST as i believe ... it is a horrible travesty... that all these Roman Catholic un-trained and un-educated.. people are praying to mary and other familar spirits..
BUT u .. believe in your leadership.. as if they know the truth.. not so..
pope john paul 2 is is hell.. for promoting.. mejorgi and praying to familar spirits.. and the Roman CAtholic church.. wants to make him a saint.. so people can pray to him??
sorry but that is insane..
BUT it dosen't matter to me PERSONALLY.. your opinion... my salvation.. is secure..
so again.. i m asking .. when did Jesus appear to you??... or some familar spirit..??
and you have no clue.. on what a prophetic word.. >>(for... telling) is all about..
kim clement is a popular one.. i liked paul Cain... and Kennth E Hagen .. was one of my teachers..
but it is obvious you have not ... or rather ,.. do not realize .. that you are spiritually dead... just as alvin Glombowski... is spiritually dead..
.. A nother pastor .. is the Shepards Chapel... ARnold Murry...
he would refer to Alvin Glombowski as "A one verse Charlie"
because that is about all he knows..
as your stand.. on forgiveness... i forgive all the low lifes.. i have known..all the liars.. cheats .. thieves.. back stabbers.. etc ect..
they do as ther character directs them...
Now because you are spiritually dead.. you have to read the information.. some one tells you..
When i Pray.. to YAWAH.. .. i get an answer.... either directly.. or some one will .. call me up.. and tell me what YAWAH thru the HOLY SPIRIT
told them..
BUT ..THIS.. IS EASLY DOCUMENTED with some of the christian TV showes.. (with decernment)
Welll you like the Roman Catholic Church version...
big ... wopp..
finally.. i suggest you read 2 cron 34...
The Book of the Law Found
14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan.
16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, [a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."
yes pat..trick... i have found that the Roman Catholic church.. dosen't really...
1,.. teach scripture
2.. apply the teaching
3.. DEMENSTRATE.. the application of scripture..
Jesus was continually... being corrected by religious leaders.. who could not apply the teaching of scriptures.. or demenstrate. the application
and if memory serves me correctly... didn't they full -fill scripture by Killing him? only they didn't know it ....Hmmm
do you think they were spiritually blind..??
BUT THANKS FOR CLARIFYING... WHAT PERSONAL DECEPTION IS .. for a Roman Cathoic.. all thou... Alvin Glombowski, and Maureen Barledge..
are good examples of what to advoid..
OH... How many years have you been a teacher in the Public School system??
I was directed by YAWAH .. to teach .. for going on 9 years now..
as scripture says.. "the steps of a Righteous man are ordered by the LORD"
I don't know what lord.. you are following..... and i asked Alvin.. which god he was trying to please.. he said "the father"
but his understanding like yours is not founded in the old testement scriptures..
so i don't know which god you are trying to please.. and who you are in covenent with..
BUT when YAWAH
.. told me me to buy a ranch in arizona.. .. i did it.. and moved here..
When Yawah told me to work and study in portland oregon.. i went and did it..
when Yawah told me to not take a particular job .. there.. and to apply to the Christian radio station's and work as a DJ i did it..
i really did n't want to do that.
but that's overr your head... just like .. most things are over Alvin A (dummy) Glombowski
his stupid .. comment was "what language did the Holy Spirit speak !!"
yes pat..trick... over 40 years of talking with alvin Glombowski... and he dosen't have a clue.. personal loyality is one thing.. but.. it can get in the way of realizing the cleverness of deception
so i understand why he could MENTOR you... like attracts like..
and Alvin likes to hear ... what he wants to hear.. not toooo original
he is not going to hear the truth from you..
ther should be a sucking sound... when some one removes their .. head from their Ass Hole..
do you hear it yet???
p1saint
oh .. we are still friends !!! arn't we ???
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
The Eight Commandment
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
" The eighth commandment forbids misinterpreting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. [252]
It was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn." [253]
The eighth commandment forbids misinterpreting the truth in our relations with others.
This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant ...
The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it."
(252. Ex 20:16; cf. Deut 5:20; 253. Mt 5:33.)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church, USSC Inc, 1994, p. 591-3.)
And he went out from thence, and came into his own country;
And his disciples follow him.
And when the sabbath day was come, He began to teach in the synagogue:
And many hearing him were astonished, saying,
From whence hath this man these things?
And what wisdom is this which is given unto him,
That even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses,
And of Juda, and Simon?
And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Mark 6:1-3
what lies do u believe
No Clever Tricks
Previous Program Next Program RSS October 29, 2009
Series: Belief And Behavior - Volume 1
When the Apostle Paul traveled to 1st century cities to spread the Gospel, he was met with intense opposition and criticism. In his 1st letter to his friends in Thessalonica, we read his touching words about this season of his life. That’s our subject when Alistair Begg presents a message called “No Clever Tricks.”
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Use full..IDOIT.. or pervert
TaLk to the Wall... it willll
listen better than ...U..... or ???
as the liars and thieves i worked with said... "You are supposted to tell "everyone.. what ever they want to hear..!! and it dosen't matter if it is true or not !
this may seem to be a personal.. slam.. but it is really a "Label" to describe your .. apperent useful position..for alvin G.and maureen the situational whore..
and as you may not have guessed.. i relate better to "Former Roman Catholics"
G. Patrick Ziemann dies at 68; embattled former Roman Catholic ...
Oct 23, 2009 ... G. Patrick Ziemann, the former Roman Catholic bishop of Santa Rosa who resigned in 1999 amid sexual and financial scandals, has died.
www.latimes.com/.../la-me-patrick-ziemann23-2009oct23,0,1532784.story - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic
I'm a former Roman Catholic now for 17 years and can surely testify about the lies I was taught as a Roman Catholic, comfortable and appealing lies. ...
www.seekgod.ca/cmtestimony.htm - Similar -
Berean Beacon proclaims the Good News of Salvation, The Gospel of ...
- Sep 28
The President and founder is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic Priest. Read Richard's Testimony. The Lord Jesus Christ is personally All Holy; ...
www.bereanbeacon.org/ - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of former Roman Catholic Sister of St. Benedict - Mary ...
- Oct 5
Catholic nuns - Why do some give up their Catholic religion to follow Christ?
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r010.html - Cached - Similar -
Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the ...
Pages in category "Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century". The following 5 pages are in this category, out of 5 total. ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../Category:Former_Roman_Catholic_church_buildings_established_in_the_15th_century - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic Priest Video
- Sep 28
You've added this video with the title "Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic Priest". To change this title, or add tags or comments, click here. ...
yes.. patrick.. has.. a better understanding..of the "CONTENT" of what is in the bible scripture.. than Alvin Glombowski
but .. context.. is always .. different .. for each religious group.. that lack the direct connection to the Holy Ghost..
Roman Catholics.. are not viewed.. as Spirit Filled.. or "Saved" .. by other christian groups...
NOR is "Transsubstation viewed as "factual" to other christian groups
example:
Refuted: The false doctrine of Catholic "transubstantiation" and Orthodox "Real Presence"
The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)
Introduction:
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:
No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation.
Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said,
"this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as,
"fruit of the vine".
If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood".
This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place.
To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
hello pat...trick ---the --pervert... and USefull Idoit !!
Gee wis.. you certanily have demenstrated .. that you can pervert the meaning and intention of any thing .. some-- one may say to you/.. i guess lucer.. the deceiver must be your close friend...
just like Alvin Glombowski... .. and alvin Glombowski .. asked you to be "a useful idoit 4 HIM.". and by golly.. you accepted that chalenge!!
Well it surprised me when i found that maureen (the goldigger and slander) Barledge.. attacking my character.. and "Accusing me of activities that were "UNtrue"
when i corrected her and Alvin.. his response was "it isn"t??" DUh ??
No Alvin {dumb as they come} Glombowski...
so i asked him.. what was the "pennance" that your priest told you to do .. when you slandered my character.. and sullied my good name ??
he answered ..Duh/?? it is none of your business....!!..
11 " 'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.
15 " 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
16 " 'Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
" 'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD.
i told him not accoring to the bible.. and the old testment.. what YAWAH.. says... is different than you or your roman catholic priest .. believe..
When Alvin Glombowski and Maureen {the swindler and thief} barledge.. robbed me of my Gold and silver... i asked ... what did the roman catholic priest tell you to do?? DUh??
Welll... PAT...TRICK... THE USEFUL IDOIT... ... what is your verson of what the bible says to do???
because YAWAH/... says to return it.. X4... or X7... gee that is the pennence...?? alvin dosen't like that...
so i guess.. at todays value... my Gold and Silver .. is worth either... 24,000 dollars... or 42,000 thousand dollars...
so partrick... being Alvins ... useful idoit... why don't you... pick up his tab???
and by the way... will you also send me the name and phone number of the Roman Catholic priest.. you go to confession too??
because you feel jstified to attack my relationship with YAWAH .. and or with the HOly Spirit...
and my character..
I have turned promotions and advancements in business.. because the Holy Ghost directed me to.. and i have left 4 different employment jobs.. when they told me that my employment included .. be a situational liar and deceiver..
sorry i told them... i don't lie cheat and defraud.. anyone on your command..
Gosh... thay said i "had an attitude problem" and musch worse ..
but i kept a journal.. on their activities... incase i needed to sue them for fraud.. and character defermation..
HUH ??? you might say...
because Alvin Glombowski is and has been dishonest and a "tail barrer" and slander 2 me.. i don't believe any thing he has to say.. Maureen barledge.. is also a liar and slander and thief.. so they are iff fact untrust-worthly..
Witnesses
15 One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.
but did i "forgive them 4 lying , stealing and slandering me ..
well yes of course..
Duh!!!
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
so don't start quoting scripture.. to me.. pat..trick the old man..
( i did actually watch a lying spirit enter into him in to alvin in 1984)
Now because you are unable to identify.. their "self deceite" and Self rightious behavior..
it is obvious that you lack the same Holy spirit .. that i ... relate too.
Gee... not a surprise???
Yes as i said... i have been able to evualate 5 generations of my family.. to recognize that they have been taught wrong by the Roman Catholc church..
but if a man does any research over the last 1700 hundred years...
it is easy to see the Roman catholic church has tried to supppress the truth of the scripture..
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
the roman catholic church murdered tendale wiclief.. and many others...
to control .. the masses...of people
John Wycliffe (pronounced /ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (mid-1320s – 31 December 1384) was an English theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformist and university teacher who was known as early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers are known as Lollards, an Evangelical movement which preached a New Testament Gospel.[1] He is considered the founder of the Lollard movement,[1] a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, he is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
English biblical translator, humanist, and Protestant martyr.
Tyndale was educated at the University of Oxford and became an instructor at the University of Cambridge, where, in 1521, he fell in with a group of humanist scholars meeting at the White Horse Inn. Tyndale became convinced that the Bible alone should determine the practices and doctrines of the church and that every believer should be able to read the Bible in his own language.
After church authorities in England prevented him from translating the Bible there, he went to Germany in 1524, receiving financial support from wealthy London merchants. His New Testament translation was completed in July 1525 and printed at Cologne and, when Catholic authorities suppressed it, at Worms. The first copies reached England in 1526. Tyndale then began work on an Old Testament translation but was captured in Antwerp before it was completed; he was executed at Vilvoorde in 1536.
At the time of his death, several thousand copies of his New Testament had been printed; however, only one intact copy remains today at London’s British Library. The first vernacular English text of any part of the Bible to be so published, Tyndale’s version became the basis for most subsequent English translations, beginning with the King James Version of 1611.
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
thanks for your demenstration .. of why the roman catholic church.. is so full of perverts and child molesters..
i have stories about the 5 or 6 churches.. i attended in Detroit before moving to arizona...
oh.. Yawah.. the Holy Ghost... told me to move to Arizona..
when i was in cleveland tennesea... he said to buya ranch.. here..
which i did 3 or 4 years later.. when he sent me to Detroit.. to complete a project there..
Gee... it's lamost like .. going to "daily mass"
but... more complex... and doing what he tells you.. may cost money!!
Ya there are alot better Christian religions... than the perverts that are in the Roman Catholic Family..
and they wiilll treat you better than a Roman Catholic.....
ask a Roman Catholic 4 help.. and they will have a mass ssaid 4 u..
or pray to mary the familar spirit.. on your behalf
that's about it!!
listen better than ...U..... or ???
as the liars and thieves i worked with said... "You are supposted to tell "everyone.. what ever they want to hear..!! and it dosen't matter if it is true or not !
this may seem to be a personal.. slam.. but it is really a "Label" to describe your .. apperent useful position..for alvin G.and maureen the situational whore..
and as you may not have guessed.. i relate better to "Former Roman Catholics"
G. Patrick Ziemann dies at 68; embattled former Roman Catholic ...
Oct 23, 2009 ... G. Patrick Ziemann, the former Roman Catholic bishop of Santa Rosa who resigned in 1999 amid sexual and financial scandals, has died.
www.latimes.com/.../la-me-patrick-ziemann23-2009oct23,0,1532784.story - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic
I'm a former Roman Catholic now for 17 years and can surely testify about the lies I was taught as a Roman Catholic, comfortable and appealing lies. ...
www.seekgod.ca/cmtestimony.htm - Similar -
Berean Beacon proclaims the Good News of Salvation, The Gospel of ...
- Sep 28
The President and founder is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic Priest. Read Richard's Testimony. The Lord Jesus Christ is personally All Holy; ...
www.bereanbeacon.org/ - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of former Roman Catholic Sister of St. Benedict - Mary ...
- Oct 5
Catholic nuns - Why do some give up their Catholic religion to follow Christ?
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r010.html - Cached - Similar -
Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the ...
Pages in category "Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century". The following 5 pages are in this category, out of 5 total. ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../Category:Former_Roman_Catholic_church_buildings_established_in_the_15th_century - Cached - Similar -
Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic Priest Video
- Sep 28
You've added this video with the title "Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic Priest". To change this title, or add tags or comments, click here. ...
yes.. patrick.. has.. a better understanding..of the "CONTENT" of what is in the bible scripture.. than Alvin Glombowski
but .. context.. is always .. different .. for each religious group.. that lack the direct connection to the Holy Ghost..
Roman Catholics.. are not viewed.. as Spirit Filled.. or "Saved" .. by other christian groups...
NOR is "Transsubstation viewed as "factual" to other christian groups
example:
Refuted: The false doctrine of Catholic "transubstantiation" and Orthodox "Real Presence"
The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)
Introduction:
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:
No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation.
Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said,
"this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as,
"fruit of the vine".
If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood".
This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place.
To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
hello pat...trick ---the --pervert... and USefull Idoit !!
Gee wis.. you certanily have demenstrated .. that you can pervert the meaning and intention of any thing .. some-- one may say to you/.. i guess lucer.. the deceiver must be your close friend...
just like Alvin Glombowski... .. and alvin Glombowski .. asked you to be "a useful idoit 4 HIM.". and by golly.. you accepted that chalenge!!
Well it surprised me when i found that maureen (the goldigger and slander) Barledge.. attacking my character.. and "Accusing me of activities that were "UNtrue"
when i corrected her and Alvin.. his response was "it isn"t??" DUh ??
No Alvin {dumb as they come} Glombowski...
so i asked him.. what was the "pennance" that your priest told you to do .. when you slandered my character.. and sullied my good name ??
he answered ..Duh/?? it is none of your business....!!..
11 " 'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.
15 " 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
16 " 'Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
" 'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD.
i told him not accoring to the bible.. and the old testment.. what YAWAH.. says... is different than you or your roman catholic priest .. believe..
When Alvin Glombowski and Maureen {the swindler and thief} barledge.. robbed me of my Gold and silver... i asked ... what did the roman catholic priest tell you to do?? DUh??
Welll... PAT...TRICK... THE USEFUL IDOIT... ... what is your verson of what the bible says to do???
because YAWAH/... says to return it.. X4... or X7... gee that is the pennence...?? alvin dosen't like that...
so i guess.. at todays value... my Gold and Silver .. is worth either... 24,000 dollars... or 42,000 thousand dollars...
so partrick... being Alvins ... useful idoit... why don't you... pick up his tab???
and by the way... will you also send me the name and phone number of the Roman Catholic priest.. you go to confession too??
because you feel jstified to attack my relationship with YAWAH .. and or with the HOly Spirit...
and my character..
I have turned promotions and advancements in business.. because the Holy Ghost directed me to.. and i have left 4 different employment jobs.. when they told me that my employment included .. be a situational liar and deceiver..
sorry i told them... i don't lie cheat and defraud.. anyone on your command..
Gosh... thay said i "had an attitude problem" and musch worse ..
but i kept a journal.. on their activities... incase i needed to sue them for fraud.. and character defermation..
HUH ??? you might say...
because Alvin Glombowski is and has been dishonest and a "tail barrer" and slander 2 me.. i don't believe any thing he has to say.. Maureen barledge.. is also a liar and slander and thief.. so they are iff fact untrust-worthly..
Witnesses
15 One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.
but did i "forgive them 4 lying , stealing and slandering me ..
well yes of course..
Duh!!!
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
so don't start quoting scripture.. to me.. pat..trick the old man..
( i did actually watch a lying spirit enter into him in to alvin in 1984)
Now because you are unable to identify.. their "self deceite" and Self rightious behavior..
it is obvious that you lack the same Holy spirit .. that i ... relate too.
Gee... not a surprise???
Yes as i said... i have been able to evualate 5 generations of my family.. to recognize that they have been taught wrong by the Roman Catholc church..
but if a man does any research over the last 1700 hundred years...
it is easy to see the Roman catholic church has tried to supppress the truth of the scripture..
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
the roman catholic church murdered tendale wiclief.. and many others...
to control .. the masses...of people
John Wycliffe (pronounced /ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (mid-1320s – 31 December 1384) was an English theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformist and university teacher who was known as early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers are known as Lollards, an Evangelical movement which preached a New Testament Gospel.[1] He is considered the founder of the Lollard movement,[1] a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, he is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
English biblical translator, humanist, and Protestant martyr.
Tyndale was educated at the University of Oxford and became an instructor at the University of Cambridge, where, in 1521, he fell in with a group of humanist scholars meeting at the White Horse Inn. Tyndale became convinced that the Bible alone should determine the practices and doctrines of the church and that every believer should be able to read the Bible in his own language.
After church authorities in England prevented him from translating the Bible there, he went to Germany in 1524, receiving financial support from wealthy London merchants. His New Testament translation was completed in July 1525 and printed at Cologne and, when Catholic authorities suppressed it, at Worms. The first copies reached England in 1526. Tyndale then began work on an Old Testament translation but was captured in Antwerp before it was completed; he was executed at Vilvoorde in 1536.
At the time of his death, several thousand copies of his New Testament had been printed; however, only one intact copy remains today at London’s British Library. The first vernacular English text of any part of the Bible to be so published, Tyndale’s version became the basis for most subsequent English translations, beginning with the King James Version of 1611.
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
thanks for your demenstration .. of why the roman catholic church.. is so full of perverts and child molesters..
i have stories about the 5 or 6 churches.. i attended in Detroit before moving to arizona...
oh.. Yawah.. the Holy Ghost... told me to move to Arizona..
when i was in cleveland tennesea... he said to buya ranch.. here..
which i did 3 or 4 years later.. when he sent me to Detroit.. to complete a project there..
Gee... it's lamost like .. going to "daily mass"
but... more complex... and doing what he tells you.. may cost money!!
Ya there are alot better Christian religions... than the perverts that are in the Roman Catholic Family..
and they wiilll treat you better than a Roman Catholic.....
ask a Roman Catholic 4 help.. and they will have a mass ssaid 4 u..
or pray to mary the familar spirit.. on your behalf
that's about it!!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Jesus is busy..but Mary has the time/ dut:13
Deuteronomy 13 (King James Version)
Deuteronomy 13
1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
The Catholic Church later built a shrine in Fatima, which is visited each year by millions of people from around the world. More than 100,000 people from dozens of countries routinely attend the annual commemorations of the sightings.
The pope has visited three times since becoming pontiff in 1978, spending a few minutes with Lucia during a 1991 trip to the site. He has claimed the Virgin of Fatima saved his life after he was shot by a Turkish gunman in St. Peter's Square in 1981. The attack, on May 13, coincided with the feast day of Our Lady of Fatima, and John Paul credits the Virgin's intercession for his survival.
In 2000, he visited Fatima to beatify Jacinta and Francisco.
It returned for the third time in July 1915.
By now everyone in Aljustrel had heard about these incidents and joked about them. An irate Maria Rosa confronted Lucia. "Now let us see. What was it you say you saw over there?"
"I don't know, Mama," Lucia replied, "I don't know what it was."
Well, first it was the UFO. Then it was an angel. Then the Archangel Michael and the Angel of Peace,
and finally, on May 13, 1917, a visit from the Virgin Mary, who swore the children to secrecy. [Yeah,
right -- I'm going to believe a paranormal manifestation when it says who it is - why would it lie? duh - ww]
Jacinta meant to keep the promise. But, after all, she was only seven years old, and this was the biggest
thing that had ever happened to her. She just had to share it with the most important person in her life--
her mother.
"The child ran to clasp her about the knees. And out it came...'Mother, I saw Our Lady today at Cova
da Iria!'" Olimpia merely laughed. "I believe you, child. Oh, yes, you are such a good saint that you see
Our Lady!" "But I saw her!" Jacinta insisted. Something in Jacinta's tone of voice convinced Olimpia.
But tragedy was on the horizon. The Spanish influenza epidemic that ravaged Europe in 1919 arrived in Aljustrel in January. Francisco succumbed quickly. Jacinta came down with pleurisy and lingered for months.
In April 1919, she told Lucia, "Our Lady says my mother will take me to a hospital in a dark building, and that
I would not get well."
In July 1919, Manuel took his dying daughter to the hospital in Ourem. It was a white, well-lit building, and the family thought that, for once, a Jacinta prediction had not come true.
On December 29, 1919, Jacinta had a second vision of what she called "the dark hospital," telling cousin Lucia, "Our Lady told me I am going to Lisboa, to another hospital. I will die there, but someday I will return to Cova da Iria."
On February 2, 1920, Jacinta was taken to the Hospital of Dona Stefania in Lisboa. It was, just as she
predicted, a dark, dreary old building. Upon admission, she was assigned to Bed #38 in the children's ward
on the first floor. Two weeks later, on February 16, 1920, at 10:30 p.m.,Jacinta Marto passed away. She was twenty- four days shy of her tenth birthday.
The miracles, however, did not end with Jacinta's death. In 1935, her grave was opened, and the little girl's
body was found to be perfectly preserved. There was no trace of deterioration. A witness commented, "She looked as if she were sleeping."
In 1972, one of the people in attendance at a Marian apparition in Bayside, New York, USA took Polaroid photographs of strange lights in the night sky over the old Vatican pavilion at the former site of the 1964 New York World's Fair. When the Polaroid photo developed, it showed a name written in light, Jacinta, in the girl's
own handwriting.
Deuteronomy 13
1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
The Catholic Church later built a shrine in Fatima, which is visited each year by millions of people from around the world. More than 100,000 people from dozens of countries routinely attend the annual commemorations of the sightings.
The pope has visited three times since becoming pontiff in 1978, spending a few minutes with Lucia during a 1991 trip to the site. He has claimed the Virgin of Fatima saved his life after he was shot by a Turkish gunman in St. Peter's Square in 1981. The attack, on May 13, coincided with the feast day of Our Lady of Fatima, and John Paul credits the Virgin's intercession for his survival.
In 2000, he visited Fatima to beatify Jacinta and Francisco.
It returned for the third time in July 1915.
By now everyone in Aljustrel had heard about these incidents and joked about them. An irate Maria Rosa confronted Lucia. "Now let us see. What was it you say you saw over there?"
"I don't know, Mama," Lucia replied, "I don't know what it was."
Well, first it was the UFO. Then it was an angel. Then the Archangel Michael and the Angel of Peace,
and finally, on May 13, 1917, a visit from the Virgin Mary, who swore the children to secrecy. [Yeah,
right -- I'm going to believe a paranormal manifestation when it says who it is - why would it lie? duh - ww]
Jacinta meant to keep the promise. But, after all, she was only seven years old, and this was the biggest
thing that had ever happened to her. She just had to share it with the most important person in her life--
her mother.
"The child ran to clasp her about the knees. And out it came...'Mother, I saw Our Lady today at Cova
da Iria!'" Olimpia merely laughed. "I believe you, child. Oh, yes, you are such a good saint that you see
Our Lady!" "But I saw her!" Jacinta insisted. Something in Jacinta's tone of voice convinced Olimpia.
But tragedy was on the horizon. The Spanish influenza epidemic that ravaged Europe in 1919 arrived in Aljustrel in January. Francisco succumbed quickly. Jacinta came down with pleurisy and lingered for months.
In April 1919, she told Lucia, "Our Lady says my mother will take me to a hospital in a dark building, and that
I would not get well."
In July 1919, Manuel took his dying daughter to the hospital in Ourem. It was a white, well-lit building, and the family thought that, for once, a Jacinta prediction had not come true.
On December 29, 1919, Jacinta had a second vision of what she called "the dark hospital," telling cousin Lucia, "Our Lady told me I am going to Lisboa, to another hospital. I will die there, but someday I will return to Cova da Iria."
On February 2, 1920, Jacinta was taken to the Hospital of Dona Stefania in Lisboa. It was, just as she
predicted, a dark, dreary old building. Upon admission, she was assigned to Bed #38 in the children's ward
on the first floor. Two weeks later, on February 16, 1920, at 10:30 p.m.,Jacinta Marto passed away. She was twenty- four days shy of her tenth birthday.
The miracles, however, did not end with Jacinta's death. In 1935, her grave was opened, and the little girl's
body was found to be perfectly preserved. There was no trace of deterioration. A witness commented, "She looked as if she were sleeping."
In 1972, one of the people in attendance at a Marian apparition in Bayside, New York, USA took Polaroid photographs of strange lights in the night sky over the old Vatican pavilion at the former site of the 1964 New York World's Fair. When the Polaroid photo developed, it showed a name written in light, Jacinta, in the girl's
own handwriting.
.. Mary gives guidence ??.....a Carreer ??...........The uncorrupted body Fr. Solanus Casey
Father Solanus Casey had come to Detroit to be a Capuchin friar. During his years as a priest he spent time in other states, but he began and ended his career in Detroit.
Barney believed the Lord wished him to dedicate his life to Him and he decided to study for the priesthood. But he was having troubles academically. Then he planned a novena, prayers to Mary in preparation for her Dec. 8 feast of the Immaculate Conception. He became aware of the Blessed Virgin's presence: "Go to Detroit," he distinctly heard her say.
The thin, bald ascetic with horn-rimmed spectacles and a flowing gray beard spent 23 years at St. Bonaventure Monastery in Detroit. He was a man of rare holiness. A mystic.
During his 21 years as porter at St. Bonaventure, he filled seven notebooks with more than 6,000 requests for help from petitioners. And to some 700 of these he recorded reported cures from cancer, leukemia, tuberculosis, diphtheria, arthritis, blindness, and other maladies. These brief postscripts also report conversions of fallen-away churchgoers and favorable resolutions of domestic and business problems.
After his death, Clare Ryan, a former Detroiter, started the Father Solanus Guild. Mrs. Ryan believed that Father Solanus cured her on two occasions: of stomach cancer in the 1930s; and 20 years later, of paralysis of the legs.
The uncorrupted body of the ‘Venerable’ Fr. Solanus Casey O.F.M. Cap.,
or the “Best loved man in Detroit” as he is declared by many Michiganders, is interred at St. Bonaventure’s Monastery in Detroit, Michigan.
Buried in the cemetery at St. Bonaventure’s Monastery in 1957, his body was exhumed in 1987, and moved to a special crypt within the transept of the monastery’s chapel.
The Archbishop was witness to the fact that after thirty years the body of Fr. Solanus was found to be intact and lacking any signs of decomposition.
Fr.Casey was then re interred and sealed in a steel casket with the seal of the Archbishop and entombed in the chapel. There are still numerous pilgrims everyday that visit St. Bonaventure’s and many claim miraculous recoveries and many are brought back to the faith at this spot. In staggering numbers, actually.
So Michigan has it’s own uncorrupted saint, residing in death in Detroit. If you find yourself in that neck of the woods, might I suggest a side trip to St. Bonaventure’s in Detroit. Who knows, many still claim to be healed there.
Barney believed the Lord wished him to dedicate his life to Him and he decided to study for the priesthood. But he was having troubles academically. Then he planned a novena, prayers to Mary in preparation for her Dec. 8 feast of the Immaculate Conception. He became aware of the Blessed Virgin's presence: "Go to Detroit," he distinctly heard her say.
The thin, bald ascetic with horn-rimmed spectacles and a flowing gray beard spent 23 years at St. Bonaventure Monastery in Detroit. He was a man of rare holiness. A mystic.
During his 21 years as porter at St. Bonaventure, he filled seven notebooks with more than 6,000 requests for help from petitioners. And to some 700 of these he recorded reported cures from cancer, leukemia, tuberculosis, diphtheria, arthritis, blindness, and other maladies. These brief postscripts also report conversions of fallen-away churchgoers and favorable resolutions of domestic and business problems.
After his death, Clare Ryan, a former Detroiter, started the Father Solanus Guild. Mrs. Ryan believed that Father Solanus cured her on two occasions: of stomach cancer in the 1930s; and 20 years later, of paralysis of the legs.
The uncorrupted body of the ‘Venerable’ Fr. Solanus Casey O.F.M. Cap.,
or the “Best loved man in Detroit” as he is declared by many Michiganders, is interred at St. Bonaventure’s Monastery in Detroit, Michigan.
Buried in the cemetery at St. Bonaventure’s Monastery in 1957, his body was exhumed in 1987, and moved to a special crypt within the transept of the monastery’s chapel.
The Archbishop was witness to the fact that after thirty years the body of Fr. Solanus was found to be intact and lacking any signs of decomposition.
Fr.Casey was then re interred and sealed in a steel casket with the seal of the Archbishop and entombed in the chapel. There are still numerous pilgrims everyday that visit St. Bonaventure’s and many claim miraculous recoveries and many are brought back to the faith at this spot. In staggering numbers, actually.
So Michigan has it’s own uncorrupted saint, residing in death in Detroit. If you find yourself in that neck of the woods, might I suggest a side trip to St. Bonaventure’s in Detroit. Who knows, many still claim to be healed there.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The false doctrine of Catholic...(reinvent the wheel.).... "transubstantiation" and Orthodox "Real Presence"
Refuted: The false doctrine of Catholic "transubstantiation" and Orthodox "Real Presence"
The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)
Introduction:
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:
No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation.
Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said,
"this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as,
"fruit of the vine".
If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood".
This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place.
To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said:
"I am the bread," (John 6:41),
"I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door,"
(John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12),
"You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13),
"You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus’ own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.
The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.
The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!
B. Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent history:
Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century.
The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.
"The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
Orthodox writers misrepresent history, but correctly identify the Lord's Supper as a battle ground between Christians and Gnostics.
"In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 173)
The historically accurate way of saying this would be:
"In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed.
By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view.
It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation."
Some Gnostics groups refused to break bread altogether.
The only churches today that do not break bread at all, like the Gnostics, are groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army.
But even still, the 2nd century Gnostics and the church both viewed the elements of the Lord's Supper as symbolic. Transubstantiation was never the issue at this time.
But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.
"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine.
But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
Amazingly the language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church:
"they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
In truth, however, this literalistic language was typical of how everyone talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. But we want to note that the Orthodox statement is quite wrong when they say the Gnostics distinguished between transubstantiation and the symbolic view, for they in fact used the same identical literalistic language as the church.
For Roman Catholic and Orthodox historians to be consistent, they would need to admit, that if the literalistic language of "this is my body" proves transubstantiation, then they are forced to admit that the Gnostics at the time of Irenaeus in 180 AD, also believed in transubstantiation. Of course the truth is that both the church and Gnostics taught the symbolic view, while employing the same literalistic language.
In fact, the logic employed by early church leaders like Irenaeus to defeat Gnosticism, were specifically based upon a symbolic, non-transubstantiation view of communion. In other words, Irenaeus' whole argument would have been defeated, if he believed in Transubstantiation. The very logic of Irenaeus' argument is that the Lord's supper is composed of natural elements of common juice and bread.
"He (the Gnostic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)
The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be.
Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics.
The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
This is the kind of historical information that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep from their people. Both the early church and the Gnostics rejected transubstantiation and took the symbolic view.
C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:
Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council.
So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.
1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
2. Irenaeus (180 AD):
Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper.
Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
3. Tertullian (200 AD):
Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
4. Cyprian (200 AD):
Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure.
There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
4. Hippolytus (200 AD):
Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:
"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured 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. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)
For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
D. The Devil's Plan:
The devil wanted to get the church to go into apostasy. So he started with the Gnostics who argued Jesus only appeared to have literal flesh and blood, but in fact he did not. After 200 years of anti-Gnostic battling, the church, finally adopted a remarkably similar view! Transubstantiation teaches that, although the elements of the Lord's Supper appear to be literal grape juice and bread, they are not what they appear.
They are in fact different than what the 5 human senses tell us they really are: the literal blood and flesh of Christ. Our senses are deceiving us!
At first (100-200 AD) the church merely began to emphasize to the Gnostics, that the symbols of the Lord's Supper were based upon a literal flesh of Christ. In time, however, between 225 and 300 AD, the church began to counter the Gnostic theology in a new way. Whereas before, they had argued that the symbols of the bread and juice must be based upon a literal body, they suddenly began to emphasizing the literalistic language Jesus: "this is my body" against the Gnostics.
Although this new line of reasoning that began no sooner than 225 AD, was successful, it required an abandonment of the orthodox arguments used the century before, which were all directly based upon the symbolic view. But now the Devil had succeeded in getting the church to use one false doctrine (Transubstantiation) to defeat another: Gnosticism. Refuting one false doctrine with another is quite common in theological debates and the reader needs to be aware of this. For example, Seventh-day Adventists convert all kinds of Catholics to Saturday worship because Catholics mistakenly call Sunday the Sabbath.
The Adventist correctly points out that the 7th day Sabbath is Saturday, but completely overlooks the fact that the Sabbath law itself was abolished.
Thus Adventist false doctrine merely converts the Catholic from one false doctrine to another. In like manner, the church between 225 - 300 AD defeated the Gnostic false doctrine with the false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
E. Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnosticism:
While the Gnostics claimed the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ on the cross was different than what it appeared to be, so too the church began to claim that the bread and juice were not what they appeared to be. Transubstantiation, therefore, is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
F. The case of transubstantiation proves that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches reliance on "church tradition" is invalid:
When the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation, they are teaching something quite "unorthodox and uncatholic". Christ, the apostolic tradition and the early church up to 200 AD universally taught the symbolic view. But even if we accept their claim that transubstantiation is the view that church tradition verifies, we ask, "Then why do you disagree with each other?"
Remember, communion is a most basic and fundamental ordinance. In fact, since the earliest Christians gathered together for the express purpose of "breaking bread" (Acts 20:7) it obviously proves transubstantiation a non-biblical doctrine, because had it been taught by the apostles, the fourth century fight over the liturgy of the Lord's Supper would never have occurred.
"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)
The western church (which later developed into the Roman Catholic church, headed out of Rome) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was when the words "This is my body ... This is my blood" were spoken.
The eastern church (which later developed into the Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was in the prayer of thanksgiving.
Obviously then, "church tradition" does not lead to unity because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are irrevocably and bitterly divided over the Eucharist. Using the scriptures alone is the only way to settle all doctrinal matters.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches are not in "communion" with each other because they have huge differences over the "Eucharist". Christians use this as proof that "church tradition" is an invalid way to determine truth because both claim their different practices are based upon a traditions that date back to the Apostles.
Only Christians use the correct "Liturgy" of the Lord's supper:
Christians using Sola Scriptura
Catholics using Tradition
Orthodox using Tradition
Transubstantiation?
No
Yes
Yes
When does the change take place from bread to body, from juice to blood?
-
When you say the words, "this is my body"
When you offer thanks in prayer.
Both the bread and juice offered?
Yes
No, cup withheld from laity.
Yes
Bread and juice combined?
No, two separate sequences, first the bread is offered, then the juice, following the Bible pattern
No, but only the priests drink the cup.
Yes, the bread is placed in the juice and is the juice soaked bread is given in one step on a communion spoon to laity.
Is Unleavened Bread used?
Yes
Yes
No, leavened bread
Is Unleavened grape juice used?
Yes
No, leavened juice
No, leavened juice
How often?
Every Sunday (Acts 20:7)
Every day. Most Catholics commune weekly.
Every week. Most Orthodox commune usually only four times a year during the four Lents. (Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary)
Fasting requirement
None
Fast one hour prior
Complex calendar of fasting must be kept to partake weekly. Must fast the entire weeks of the four Lents.
Who is right?
Click here to locate the nearest congregation of Christians who follow the Bible pattern.
Christians
(click for a local church)
Roman Catholics
Greek Orthodox
Conclusion:
Transubstantiation is as much an assault against scripture and the earliest apostolic traditions of the church, as it is an assault on reality and common sense. It is not taught in scripture, the language of the church up to 200 AD unequivocally rejects transubstantiation.
They not only taught the symbolic view, they defeated the Gnostics on the basis of the symbolic view.
Transubstantiation is an assault on reality because "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck", it must be unleavened bread and grape juice!
Transubstantiation also illustrates a classic case of failure of church tradition to be a standard bearer of doctrinal unity and divine truth.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are bitterly divided to this very day over the Eucharist, both claiming their own "church tradition" is the correct one. (My don't they sound rather Protestant they way each one says they have the right tradition!)
While Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches rely on "manmade tradition",
Protestants rely upon their various human creeds.
Of course true Christians rely upon what the Bible says alone, to the exclusion of all tradition and all human creeds. Sola Scriptura leads us to the symbolic view, which is in keeping with Christ and the earliest post-apostolic tradition.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because:
Mt 26:28 proves transubstantiation wrong because Jesus calls the cup "fruit of the vine" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Jesus a liar by calling the cup "fruit of the vine" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Blood.
1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
Tertullian clearly rejects the idea of "real presence" and had never heard of transubstantiation since he taught the true symbolic view of the bread and juice, just as Jesus and Paul taught!
By Steve Rudd
The following From: Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107
The Language of the Real Presence About the Lord's Supper: "This is my body"
Some New Testament Texts: Mark 14:22 and parallels; John 6:35-65; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Timothy 4:4.
SOURCES
IGNATIUS: [The Docetists] avoid the eucharist and prayer because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness resurrected. (Smyrnaeans 7)
1 will make plain to you the dispensation in the new man Jesus Christ, by his faith, his love, by his passion and resurrection. Especially will I do so if the Lord should show me that all of you, to a man, come together in the common assembly in grace from his name in one faith and in Jesus Christ, "who was of the family of David according to the flesh," son of man and son of God. The intention is that you obey the bishop and presbytery with undisturbed mind, breaking the one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote in order that we should not die but live forever in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 20)
JUSTIN: And this food is called by us eucharist. It is not lawful for any other one to partake of it than the one who believes the things which have been taught by us to be true, and was washed with the washing for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and lives in the manner Christ taught. We receive these elements not as common bread and common drink. In the same manner as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh through the word of God and had flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we were taught that the food for which thanks have been given through the prayer of the word that is from him and from which our blood and flesh are nourished according to the bodily processes is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, delivered what was commanded them, that Jesus took bread, gave thanks and said: "Do this for my memorial; this is my body." Likewise taking the cup
IX. and giving thanks, he said: "This is my blood." And he gave it to them alone. (Apology I, 66)
IRENAEUS: How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? . . . How can they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and from his flesh comes to corruption and does not partake of life? Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view. We offer to God his own things, proclaiming rightly the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For as bread from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread but the eucharist, consisting of two things-one earthly and one heavenly-so also our bodies when they partake of the eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
But if the flesh is not saved, neither did the Lord redeem us with his blood nor is the cup of the eucharist a participation in his blood nor the bread which we break a participation in his body. . . . He acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life? (Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)
TERTULLIAN: Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body. (Against Marcion IV.40)
CYPRIAN: The cup which is offered in commemoration of him is offered mixed with wine. When Christ says, "I am the true vine," the blood of Christ is certainly not water but wine. Neither is it possible to see that his blood by which we are redeemed and made alive is in the cup when there is absent from the cup the wine by which the blood of Christ is shown forth. (Epistle 62 [631 :2)
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: The bread and the wine of the eucharist before the holy invocation of the worshipful Trinity was simple bread and wine, but when the invocation is done, the bread becomes the body of Christ and wine the blood of Christ. (Lectures on the Mysteries i.7 [= Catechetical Lectures XIX:7] )
For in the type of the bread there is given to you the body, and in the type of the wine there is given to you the blood, in order that you may become by partaking of the body and blood of Christ the same body and blood with him. For even so we become bearers of Christ since his body and blood are distributed in our members. (Ibid. iv. 3 [=XXII:3] )
We beseech the loving God to send forth the Holy Spirit upon what is offered in order that he may make the bread the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. For whatever the Holy Spirit touches he sanctifies and changes. (Ibid. v.7 [=XXIII:7] )
GREGORY OF NYSSA: He disseminates himself through that flesh whose substance comes from bread and wine in every one who believes in the economy of grace, blending himself with the bodies of believers, as if by this union with what is immortal, man too may become a partaker in incorruption. He gives these things by the power of the benediction through which he transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing. (Catechetical Oration 37)
AMBROSE: But this bread is bread before the words of the sacraments. When consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the body of Christ. Let us, therefore, prove this. How is it possible for that which is bread to be the body of Christ? By consecration. In whose words
then is the consecration? Those of the Lord Jesus. [The next chapter quotes the words of the last supper as repeated by the priest, and the explanation concludes:] Before the words of Christ the cup is full of wine and water. When the words of Christ have operated, then is made the blood which redeems the people. (On the Sacraments IV.iv.14-v.23)
DISCUSSION:
The questions raised in later ages, especially in the Reformation and post-Reformation controversies about the Lord's supper, were not raised in the earliest period. The dominant conceptions in regard to the Lord's supper were those noted in the last chapter-thanksgiving for God's gifts, the memorial action related to this, fellowship, and eschatological hopes. Other concepts, however, were also present which were to have a great development in the future. These ideas introduce us to the origins of Catholic sacramental theology. It is well to look at these in order to determine more clearly what these ideas meant at the beginning. That will be the task of this and the following chapter.
In discussing the language of the real presence in the early centuries, three aspects of the problem are to be kept in mind: #1: the identification of Christ with the elements of the Lord's supper, #2: the benefits conferred by communion, #3: and the consecration which effects the change in the elements. These aspects are distinct but in time merged in their significance.
#1: The basis for the identification
The basis for the identification of Christ with the elements was the words of institution by Jesus at the last supper, "This is my body," "This is my blood." A certain amount of the "realistic" language in the early church is simply the repetition of the New Testament language, with no reflection on its meaning. The main context, however, in which the close identity of the elements and the flesh and blood of Jesus is stressed is to be found in the opposition to heretical teaching. A major threat to early Christian beliefs came from Docetism. The word is derived from the Greek verb "to seem," "to appear." There were those who believed that Jesus did not have a real or true human body but that he only seemed or appeared to be a real man. He came in appearance, so there was not a true incarnation. This view was continued by the Gnostics of the second century, with whom it was linked with the belief that matter is essentially evil. Thus the divine Spirit, Christ, could not have been contaminated by an actual involvement in all that pertains to fleshly life. This is why Ignatius and Tertullian, for instance, use the word "flesh" and not "body" in talking about the elements of the Lord's supper. The "realism" of the early writers was an opposition to the Gnostic denial of the flesh. Orthodox writers affirmed that union of flesh with Spirit is possible. Of course, the use of actual material elements from the created world in the Lord's supper gave them a powerful argument against the heretical denial of the goodness of creation. It also gave them an argument for the real human nature of Jesus. He was true flesh and blood, since it was the material objects bread and wine which he had used to show forth the nature of his human body. This circumstance accounts for much of the literal language of early Christians about the Lord's supper.
The anti-heretical thrust of the language of the real presence makes it difficult to determine any metaphysical thought about the real presence. Indeed the case might be made that initially there was none. In Hebrew thought it is function that is important (word equals deed). In prophetic symbolism deeds and words stood for the reality they represented and had the power to effect that for which they stood.' If Jesus' actions at the last supper are interpreted in this frame of reference, then the elements had the power or function of the body and blood. On the other hand, in Greek philosophy substances are important. An important aspect of the development of Christian doctrine was the putting of Christian beliefs, which grew out of a primarily Hebraic-Jewish context, into the language of Greek philosophy.2
This process may be illustrated in the development of the Christological controversies of the ancient period. A similar development may be postulated in regard to the Lord's supper. Hellenistic Christianity defined the value of the Lord's supper in terms of a change in the elements, not just a change in their use or function.
#2: Benefits conferred:
As to the second aspect of this study, the benefits conferred by partaking of the elements, John 6 appears to have been the source. Immortality was thought to be conferred through partaking of the elements endowed with the life-giving power of the Savior. The ideas of the Synoptic institution narrative ("This is my body") and John ("He who eats this bread will live forever") are united in Irenaeus. Participation in the elements brings about union with Christ and his resurrection. The blessings of life and immortality are spiritually received through the power of Christ.
#3: The consecration which effects the change:
That which gave the special character to the elements, whether as "body and blood" or as vehicles of spiritual life, was the consecration. Prayer consecrated something to a special use, according to Jewish and early Christian thought. Prayer over the meal dedicated it to the use of the participants for their nourishment, in accordance with God's creative design. Similarly, prayer over the bread and wine dedicated the elements to their particular use as a memorial of Christ. They were no longer "common" bread and wine. They had become "holy" through the special association which now attached to them. No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change. If one followed the "institution" narrative strand of thought, then it was natural to conclude that the repetition of the words of Jesus constituted the decisive moment. This was the emphasis in the West, as may be seen in Ambrose (IX. 12). If one thought in terms of the coming of the divine life as the important aspect, then it was natural to make the invocation of the Holy Spirit or the personal Word as the decisive moment when the divine power entered the elements. This was the line followed in the eastern churches and may be seen in Cyril of Jerusalem (IX.10). Both developments are late and the second-century texts can best be explained if the reader understands the prayer of thanksgiving as a whole rather than some particular part of it as constituting the "consecration" of the elements.
With this sketch of our understanding of the main ideas we may turn to look at some of the specific texts.
Ignatius clearly represents the anti-heretical thrust in his references to the Lord's supper . He indicates that some Docetists were so "spiritual" in their religion that they abstained from the church's services of prayer and eucharist so as to avoid the material elements (IX. 1). Ignatius repeatedly emphasizes the humanity of Jesus Christ, at once both God and man.3 The material elements indicate a real flesh, and their use is a defense against a Docetic view of Christ. The one assembly of the faithful was a safeguard against the divisive influences of the false teachers. Ignatius has a great deal to say about unity, the oneness of the Christian faith (VIll. 1).4 The "altar," or "place of sacrifice" for him is the church in assembly where the sacrifice of prayer is offered to Gods Selections VIII.1 and IX.1 demonstrate that Ignatius' organizational concern had to do with the unity of the church; the "one bishop" with the presbytery and deacons, like the one eucharist, was a center of loyalty, and this oneness may be stressed more in theory and polemic than was practiced in reality (see ch. XIV).
Ignatius also appears to give the first statement about the supernatural benefits to be found in the partaking of the eucharist in his phrase "the medicine of immortality" (IX.2). "Breaking one bread" is the "antidote that we should not die." Once more, the anti-heretical emphasis on unity is in the forefront. But Ignatius seems to give special powers to the bread itself. The material element was a means of spiritual blessing. Nevertheless, it has been argued that Ignatius is attributing the medicinal value not to the bread but to the "breaking of bread. "6 In other words, the gift of eternal life is found in the common assembly where one is united with Christ in the one faith. To partake of false teaching, in contrast, is to take deadly medicine.?
Justin's explanation of the eucharist (IX.3), which follows his account of the rite (VIIIA), has been a battleground, for every-one has read his opinion into Justin's words. This is possible, because, with some elaboration, Justin repeats the words of the Scriptures. The bread and wine are real material elements. Even after the prayer of consecration they are what nourish the body through the change which takes place in digestion. The interest in Justin's statement especially derives from the implication that some change takes place before this. The elements are not "common" food any more. This may not be significant, but Justin's further statement compares them to the incarnation. As Christ became flesh, so the bread and wine become flesh and blood. Does Justin mean a conversion has been effected? Or does he suggest, like Irenaeus after him (IX.4), that as the divine has become human, so the material now has a heavenly reality added to it? Or does he only stress the reality of the incarnation since we have to do with material reality? We prefer the last, because realist terminology in the second century is so often anti-Gnostic. The second alternative is possible, since on many points Irenaeus seems to be an elaboration of anticipations in Justin. The first we consider unlikely, at least as regards any extreme change in the nature of the elements. The true literalists in the second century were some fringe Gnostic groups who introduced ideas of magic. Elsewhere Justin is explicit that the bread and wine are a "memorial" of the body and blood.9 We would conclude that the only "change" is the change involved in the consecration of the elements as a memorial of the body and blood. That leads us to the next problematic feature of Justin's cryptic description: the prayer which effects the consecration.
The common term in the comparison between the incarnation and the consecration of bread and wine as the body and blood is the "word" (logos). Jesus Christ became flesh "through the word of God," and the "eucharistizing" takes place "through the prayer of the word that is from him." Almost every word in the Greek is ambiguous and even a literal English translation does not adequately suggest the options. The central issue is whether "word," if used with same meaning in both places, is the spoken word or the personal Word. The principal interpretations, based on later liturgical developments, have been that Justin refers either to the words spoken by Jesus at the institution or to an invocation of the heavenly Word. Either interpretation may be defended, but each is full of objections. If "word" in both places is the divine Logos, then there is support for the second interpretation of the preceding paragraph. But we look in vain for other examples of an invocation of the Logos in early literature and the construction is strained. If the parallel use of "word" is not to be stressed, and if "word" in the second part is the narrative of institution, there is agreement with the following quotation of these words. But is that properly a "prayer"? Perhaps it would be better to think of the "word" as an unspecified formula of prayer which Justin thought derived from Christ10 or the pattern of thanks-giving which Christ had set. Returning to the idea of a parallel usage of "word," we have the possibility that it is God's creative or declarative word, in which case the second clause is a prayer for God's word to be operative in making bread and wine equal the body and blood and so a "consecration by the word of God and prayer."
Irenaeus shows the change from the early Docetism combated by Ignatius to the later Gnosticism (IX.4, 5; X.4), for the issues now were not just the nature of Christ but also the nature of the material creation, the relation of Christ to the Creator, and the resurrection of the body. Irenaeus argues that the heretics must acknowledge that the earth is the Lord's or cease to employ those elements which they deny are his. Christ could not have acknowledged the bread and the mixed cup as his body and blood if he belonged to another Father." Since the material elements receive the divine potency of the body and blood, our flesh which is nourished with the eucharist does not go to corruption but partakes of life.
Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted. The bread has the effect of the body; it is sanctified but is not changed materially. Although there is no change of the elements, they are made capable of something else. A heavenly reality is added to the earthly reality. The genuine writings of Irenaeus do not explain what this heavenly "thing" is, whether the Holy Spirit, 12 the literal body and blood (unlikely), or the heavenly Logos.
Irenaeus is the first to speak explicitly of a consecration- "when it receives the invocation of God." Irenaeus has been seen as referring to an invocation (epiclesis) for the Holy Spirit. His other references to the body and blood would indicate the use in his services of the words of institution, but that they were thought of as consecratory is not said. It is best to take his "invocation of God" as a general reference to the prayer of thanksgiving. Elsewhere he speaks of the "sanctifying" of the gifts through "giving thanks."13 The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements. The prayer of thanksgiving effected the hallowing of the material for a spiritual purpose. 14
The Alexandrian writers Clement and Origen viewed the elements as a symbol, or an allegory. They preserved the distinction between the elements and' that which they symbolized. 15 The presence of Christ is a spiritual one, more real because spiritual in their view of things. Consecration gives to the elements the potency of the heavenly reality of which the material elements are a type. Here it is well to remember that in ancient thought a symbol partakes of the reality symbolized to a degree greater than is true in modern thought. Some symbols can be very meaningful to us-the wedding ring or the national flag. If we think of our emotional reaction to a desecration of such a symbol, we may get closer to the realm of ancient perceptions. At any rate, just the language of "symbolism" does not mean what we might think. Although there is a distinction between the symbol and the thing symbolized, the "reality" is in some sense "there." But neither does this agree with later Medieval views of a change into a real body and blood of Christ.
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian. When they use the language of popular piety they call the elements the body and blood of Christ. Thus Tertullian can speak of the flesh that "feeds on the body and blood of Christ" that the soul might be nourished on its God. 16 He speaks of the pain felt when any bread or wine falls on the ground. 1 7 This is carried further by Cyprian who can pass on almost superstitious sounding stories about the results of profanation of the consecrated elements. 18 Yet both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. The realism concerns the spiritual gift that the sign carries with it.19 For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed.20 His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements.
Popular piety tended to make a straight identification of the elements with Christ. This simple, unreflective type of realism is seen in the inscription of Abercius, which speaks of receiving the fish, Christ, in the eucharist (XIII.11 and discussion there, especially note 33 and cf. Plate III).
In the fourth century the idea of a change in the elements themselves, and not just in their purpose (use) or power (effects), becomes explicit. There also appears the distinctive western and eastern explanations of what it is that accomplishes the change, whether the repetition of the words of institution or the invocation of the Holy Spirit.21 In general the East was more "mystical" and the West more "literal."
Cyril of Jerusalem (IX.9, 10) tries to explain what happens. The Holy Spirit, sent down upon the elements by God in response to the celebrant's prayer, not only sanctifies but also changes. One becomes united with Christ through the participation. The moment of the change is identified with the invocation (epiclesis). This may still refer to the prayer as a whole in our first selection but is a specific petition for the Holy Spirit in the third. Gregory of Nyssa (IX.11) had a more elaborate explanation: the food becomes the body of Christ (itself nourished with the same kind of food), and the physical body is absorbed in his Deity. So,. by taking of his body, one shares in Christ's immortality. By "body" it seems clear that he and Cyril are thinking of the glorified body and not just the crucified body. The novelty of Gregory's thought is in a measure indicated by the new terminology he employs. The gifts are "trans-elemented" into something else.
As Cyril and Gregory have followed the invocation and communion strand of thought, Ambrose (IX.12) picks up the institution and "giving of thanks" strand. But he is no less explicit in his realism about the body and blood. If the treatise On the Sacraments is genuine,22 Ambrose gave the first full and clear definitions to what became characteristic in the Latin church. It was climaxed in the definition of the dogma of transubstantiation. According to that dogma the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood while the accidental properties of taste and appearance remain those of bread and wine.
It seems there was a twofold line of development that went something like this. On one hand consideration of the benefits of partaking of the Lord's supper led to a consideration of the divine life received. The idea of the power in the elements led to a consideration of the invocation of the Holy Spirit as the means that brought about the spiritual blessings. On the other hand, the realist language in the anti-heretical polemic emphasized a literal identity of Christ with the elements. This centered attention on the words of institution and made them the central idea in effecting the presence of Christ. The introduction of the sacrificial idea produced the concept of the Mass. But the idea of sacrifice had to develop from the prayers to the elements to the Christ present in the elements. To that development we turn in the next chapter.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lampe, G.W.H. "The Eucharist in the Thought of the Early Church," Eucharistic Theology Then and Now. "Theological Collections," 9. London: S.P.C.K., 1968.
MacDonald, A. J., ed. The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1930.
NOTES
For the acceptance of prophetic symbolism in the interpretation of the Christian sacraments cf. A. D. Nock, "Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments," in Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1964), p. 125. Note H. Wheeler Robinson's phrase "representative realism" in his article "He-brew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism," Journal of Theological Studies 43(1942), pp. 135, 137f.
A thesis of Adolf Harnack's History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buch-anan (New York: Dover, 1961 reprint), pp. 41ff.
For example 11.3; XIII.2; Smyrnaeans 1; Romans 3; Ephesians 19.
Cf. also Magnesians 7; Ephesians 13.
VIIIA; Ephesians 5 and see our next chapter.
Graydon F. Snyder, "The Text and Syntax of Ignatius, Pros Ephe-sious 20:2c," Vigiliae Christianae 22 (1968), pp. 8-13, argues the case on textual, syntactical, and interpretive grounds. It may be added that this view fits better the context and Ignatius' stress on the assembly of the church against schismatic assemblies.
Trall fans 6.
The Gnostic Marcus managed to color the wine during his consecratory prayer to give the appearance of actual blood-Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.xiii.2. Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 82 speaks of "bread . . . sanctified by the power of the name and not the same in appearance as when received, but transformed by power into spiritual power." Did the kind of realism represented by these Gnostics have something to do with the orthodox emphasis on spiritual benefits?
Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
