Removing Jesus

White Horse Inn ^ | June 1, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[RnMomof7]

Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).

If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).

In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:

“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)

Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father …  I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.”

So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:

“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”

So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”

It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:

“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? …  The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)

It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.

So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one?  Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.

But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:

“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)

But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:

“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. …  these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. …  all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).

One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.

But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:

“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).

That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:

“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”

Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:

“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”

Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.

Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.”  The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):

“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)

“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)

So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?

Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1).  “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.

Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.

Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.

Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).

When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”

We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:

“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).

The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is a great link, aMPU. Thank you for sending it. I will be glad to familiarize myself with your catechism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

AMPU, as you surely know, when I referred to "Fun-House Mirror reflections about what Catholics believe", the phrase "Fun-House mirror" modifies the word "reflections", not "what Catholics believe" -- in other words, your (and other people's) reflections have a "fun-house" quality which distorts the true picture of what Catholics actually believe.

If you don't see that --- ahem--- please diagram that sentence. (My irrepressible schoolmarmism comes through once again!)

The problem is that YOU evidently believe the "fun-house mirror reflection" is not a distortion, but the reality. It does not accurately convey Catholic doctrine.

Since you are interested in scholarship, wouldn't you want to pursue that?

Anyhow, thanks for sending me the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Here's the Catechism of the Catholic Church right back at'cha.

Reading each others' catechisms does seem like a strangely fair-minded and sensible thing to do, in the midst of these FReepin' fracases.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You’re welcome. There are many here who come from a Reformed Background. I do not. We share a common faith in every major way.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” The problem is that YOU evidently believe the “fun-house mirror reflection” is not a distortion, but the reality. It does not accurately convey Catholic doctrine. “

It is not a problem. Nor do I believe it is a “fun-house” reflection. I believe it is the essence of what Catholic belief means.

I acknowledge you do not see it that way. You cannot.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’m not sure you are reading my replies today. I went through the catholic catechism prior to my confirmation back before I came to Christ.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I went through the catholic catechism prior to my confirmation"

Sorry, didn't see that - I thought when you were talking about "every chapter, every verse" you were talking about Scripture. What Catholic Catechism did you study before you were Confirmed? The Baltimore? Because the CCC wasn't published until 1992.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Sorry, didn’t see that - I thought when you were talking about “every chapter, every verse” you were talking about Scripture.”

I was talking about the Bible.

“What Catholic Catechism did you study before you were Confirmed? The Baltimore? Because the CCC wasn’t published until 1992.”

Whatever one was used leading up to my confirmation.

[Springfield Reformer]

Dear and scholarly SR, I think you've done a great philosophical work by turning a short truth into a long problem.

LOL! My dad used to say, "What's the difference between a scientist and a philosopher?  Well, a scientist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.  Whereas a philosopher knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything."  :)

So no, I do not purport to be a philosopher.  Indeed, my treatment of the doctrine of substances has been ridiculously brief and inadequate.  But we do have a problem.  The doctrine does present the dilemma I raised concerning cannibalism.  That is the question presented, as they say, and that's what I was trying to address, that while nothing in the NT narrative requires a conclusion of cannibalism, transubstantiation misses the mark, and presents as dogma a position that cannot be anything but cannibalism, albeit of a very sophisticated nature.  

So while it may be that others can come at this without having to deal with its implications, I cannot unsee what I have seen.  Transubstantiation, to my current understanding, does imply cannibalism, however convoluted.  To get past that, it would be necessary for Rome to completely dispense with the Aristotelian-Aquinan formula, and I do not expect Rome to do that at my request.  It is an impassible boundary.

Rather, I am bound to the simplicity of Scripture.  I agree with what you said about "literal."  Half my reason for even bringing that up was to show how useless it is as a means of understanding.  I felt compelled to mention it only because it is so often raised by your fellow RCs, presumably as a means of establishing contrast with the Protestant/evangelical understanding of metaphor.  It's kind of a straw man.  The right way to interpret a passage is to understand it the way the writer meant it.  Sometimes that's totally concrete. Very often there is much more there, including metaphor.  That's why, in terms of methodology, just plain old honest use of language is probably the single most important thing on can do to get the right meaning.  It would certainly help our Supreme Court do a better job with the Constitution.

As for Jesus, He did use the word "alethos" ("true") in John 6, discussing how His body and blood are true food.  But he used the same word here:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed ("truly");
(John 8:31)

So the use of the word "true" does not confine one to physical or even quasi-physical things.  Being a true disciple of Christ is a spiritual thing.  God desires that we worship Him is spirit and in truth.  God is a spirit and nothing is more true than God.  You see my problem here.  "True" by itself does not tell us whether Jesus means physical, Aristotelian substantive, spiritual, or anything else in that ontological area. In fact, I'd say inserting ontology here completely misses the point.  He is saying what He said in verse 35.  What is the telos (purpose) of food? To satisfy hunger.  What is the telos of drink? To satisfy thirst.  Come to Jesus in faith, and you will have the truest food and truest drink you have ever consumed, because for the first time in your life, you will know permanent satisfaction.  How? Believe on Him.  So he's not addressing the ontology, but the teleology.

Anyway, thank you for your kind response.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

A response with some profound reasoning, which is above the usual class of responses we see here, and is more than i can comment on now, but worth being shared.

We are constantly reminded here that "Real Presence" means the body and blood are "really present" in the host, that "is" must be taken literally, not metaphorically, etc. But even if we grant that (which we do not), what have we granted? Real in what way? Literal how? We must drill deeper to specifics, or we will never know what those words mean.

And the more it is examined, the more it become evident that Eucharistic theology is not taught in Scripture, but is a contrived explanation necessitated by the literalistic interpretation of words in the Lord's Supper and Jn. 6. But which are easily understood metaphorically, and is the only one that is consistent with all of Scripture, and requires none of the neoPlatonic eisegesis that Catholicism engages in to justify its literalistic interpretation.

The property cannot be removed without losing the substance as well.

Thus a special unique miracle must be claimed, like as with the Immaculate Conception, etc. In which a miracle is claimed that the Bible does not teach occurred to the person, but which is not the basis for the veracity of the claim anyway, which instead is the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome.

Notice the problem this presents to transubstantiation. If all accidents must have a subject, i.e., a substance of which they are the expression, then removal of the substance of bread and wine would take the accidents away as well. There would be no bread and wine to express. Only body and blood. The perception of bread and wine depends on there really being bread and wine present. The explanation for which sounds too much like what Scalia referred to as to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" in SCOTUS judging sodomite marriage as a right all States must affirm.

[metmom]

Outstanding as usual.

[Elsie]

A Japanese android with cloud computational enhancement could do that easily even today.

And with just as many results; too!

[Elsie]

The angels, who are fond of you, are are giggling at your simplicity.

Demons, who HATE! you, are marveling at your acceptance of their simple plans.

[Elsie]

I didn't say the teaching was in error to begin with.

Of COURSE you won't!

I presume you mean the Apostles' teaching.

Almost.

Somewhere between their 'perfect' teaching and John's revelation to the seven Catholic churches in Asia; SOMETHING sure got screwed up!

[Elsie]

I don't see the problem.

Of COURSE not!

[Elsie]

Could you please clarify for your readers here that these are not doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church?

Could you please clarify for your readers here that these NON-doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church are therefore a WASTE of time??

[Elsie]

(In contrast to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who Elsie has calculated can process 139 requests per second, if Catholics are praying as they ought!)

Not much calculation to it.

I plucked some random numbers out of thin air and then did some simple math.

[Elsie]

I plucked some random numbers out of thin air ...

Hey!

I could come up with some Catholic NON-doctrine this way!

[Elsie]

Well, thanks for confirming what I strongly suspected: that you don't really care about factually ascertaining what Catholic Doctrine actually IS.

HMMMmmm...

Doctrine or NOT???

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

[Elsie]

"A scientist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. Whereas a philosopher knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything."

And then there is ELSIE; somewhere in the middle...

If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

1 Corinthians 8:2

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Somewhere between their 'perfect' teaching and John's revelation to the seven Catholic churches in Asia; SOMETHING sure got screwed up!

They must have departed from the perfect teaching.