ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

Apprising Ministries ^ | January 16, 2008 | Ken Silva

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Speaking The Truth In Love

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.

[Quix]

Naw. I think Dr E et al covered that sufficiently.

There may be another time for a new crop of lurkers . . . but for now, I have plenty of peace about that.

[rbosque]

You’re misguided on the salvific grace of the Eucharist. We Catholics have had it since the last supper.

In Matthew 26:26, He said, “Take and eat; THIS IS MY BODY.”
In Matthew 26:27-28 He said, “All of you drink of this; FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, WHICH IS BEING SHED FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.”

In Mark 14:22-24, are recorded, “Take; THIS IS MY BODY”, and “THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, WHICH IS BEING SHED FOR MANY.”

In Luke 22:19-20, are recorded, “THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH IS BEING GIVEN FOR YOU; DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”, and “THIS CUP IS THE NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22(Mystagogic 4)6, 350AD
“Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37, 383AD
“Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the Word of GOD has been made over into the Body of GOD the Word.”

St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments, 4:4:14, 390AD
“You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the Flesh of Christ.”

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Corinthians, 24:4:7, 392AD
“When you see the Body of Christ lying on the altar, say to yourself, Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner but free...This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood, the other of water, for all the world. This is the body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love.”

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. If you don’t believe that then your church went off the rails.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We are spiritual beings, and we remember Him spiritually. We honor Him spirituallly. We live with Him and for Him and by Him spiritually until the last day when we will be physically reunited to Him.

And not until then. The RCC mass venerates the creation and not the Creator; matter over spirit; the corrupt over the incorruptible. It denies Hebrews 10 and the fact that Christ's one-time sacrifice forgave ALL the sins of His flock for all time.

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." -- 2 Corinthians 6:16

[Petronski]

I did not know you did not believe in eternal life. My mistake.

[HarleyD]

You’re misguided on the salvific grace of the Eucharist. We Catholics have had it since the last supper. In Matthew 26:26, He said, “Take and eat; THIS IS MY BODY.”...

Funny, but I don't recall our Lord Jesus ripping off His finger to give it to them. The idea that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ is a bit silly in my mind. I don't think anyone at the Last Supper actually believed they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Lord Jesus as He was sitting right with them.

[Petronski]

Your "accurate" numbers?

I'm not here to debate your efforts to deceive, only to expose them as such.

[rbosque]

No, you purposefully put that post to illicit a reaction from Catholics on FR. Your own smug sense of self-righteousness compelled you to post it. Judging from the number of posts to this thread, there has been a strong reaction. I’d be pretty naive to think that I wouldn’t get a reaction form protestants if I went on an anti-protestant rant. But you are free to post anything (with in reason) here, but if you’re going to argue Apostalicity, then I hope you have extra-Biblical documentation to back it up. Anyone can sling verses even Satan.
Christ founded the Catholic Church which in turn established the Canon of the Bible. The Bible doesn’t establish churches. There was only meant to be one Church because there in one God (”...and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD.” John 10:16) The Bible is a Catholic book and if you think that the Bible is authentic, you would have to acknowledge the Catholic Church who made the canon authentic. They put it together from hundreds of other epistles and other versions of the Gospels.

But a new protestant church is born every few weeks even thought the Bible doesn’t tell you to do so. Who’s interpretation is correct? They can’t all tell the truth. That is why it says in 2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, “This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.” I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?

2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, “...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS.”
Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture.

Even the early Church acknowledges the headship of Peter.

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

To say the Church failed is to say Christ lied when He said, he’d be with his Church until the end.

[rbosque]

Then you need to do a little research because the early Church did believe it.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

“’And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But it appears that the adult baptizer believes this grace through faith is imparted at baptism because it is a requirement that the person "believes." 1000silverlings said exactly that. He said those who had been baptized as children weren't actually baptized at all. As if those who are among the elect aren't really among the elect if they're not baptized. Which is false. God named His family from the beginning.

This entire discussion doesn't hinge on how we know that our children are elect.

We don't.

The discussion hinges on whether or not God does in fact give the promise of salvation to believers and their children.

He does.

Baptism doesn't confer grace; it acknowledges indwelling grace given by God before the foundation of the world.

But if a public testimony is required before the grace of God's adoption is given, then you are putting a condition on God's grace. And there are NO conditions on God's grace. It is free and unmerited.

It's like believing that the grace of God does not exist unless and until that person makes a public testimony of his faith. And that denies God's predestining grace.

The Baptist has to be consistent. Either grace saves or faith saves. Scripture tell us it is grace that saves through faith. Therefore, an infant who is among the elect already possesses God's grace as his birthright, and at a time of God's choosing, that grace will produce faith.

And by our faith we believe our children are holy because they are gifts from God to those who love Him. None of us knows this for a fact; and God can give us a devil child if He so desires. But as He tells us in the Bible, God deals in families. Not racially. Not through the blood. Not through genealogies. But spiritually, through grace. His family is ONE family. You and I are truly spiritual brother and sister in Christ. The blessing from the foundation of the world continues on into tomorrow...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I know the feeling. 8~)

[Religion Moderator]

No, you purposefully put that post to illicit a reaction from Catholics on FR. Your own smug sense of self-righteousness compelled you to post it.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

Attributing motives and other forms of reading another poster's mind is "making it personal."

For more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for that terrific post. Sometimes it's difficult to articulate these points, and you've done that perfectly.

Because of the baptistic tendency toward revivalism and the evidence of faith being an emotional encounter with God one wonders of the children who being raised by godly parents and perhaps always having an implicit faith in God how they must doubt themselves for lacking an emotional experience, if that be the case? I think this is a terrible burden to put on them.

Exactly. Which is why adult baptism fits so much more neatly into the Arminian construct than the reformed one.

I tell my children they are God's creation and members of God's family. I tell them God loves them without qualification and that He will never leave them and that every step they take is by and for and through Jesus Christ alone.

Am I 100% certain of the truth of this statement? No, because none of us knows for certain the destiny of anyone but ourselves. But God commanded that I give my children this total assurance that Christ died for their sins and rose to prove it true. God willing, my children are among His children.

Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign. -- Calvin's Commentaries, 1st Peter

AMEN! Grace alone.

[Mad Dawg]

The next time you hear Mass from a dead Priest let me know.

I don't know about hearing Mass but I've heard some sermons where, well, it was a toss-up at best.

[HarleyD]

I have researched this, thank you. Transubstantiation was arguably in question for 900 years when the writings of two monks Radbertus and Ratranmus argued the issue. The Lateran Council in 1215 finally settled the matter by vote. Catholics will argue that it was ALWAYS believed to be true and poor Ratranmus was teaching heretical doctrine foreign to the Church. In actually he was not as there are other church fathers that sided with him. As quoted in the above article, "The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century."

Please note the section that refers to how quotes of the early church fathers are often taken out of context.

[Quix]

So the Church given us by Our Lord has heresy in it?

ROTFLOLTTM

Y'all ought to start a thread . . . with just these jokes in it . . . you could call it . . .

RC COMEDY CENTRAL!

1. The RC edifice was not given to the Roman politicians by Jesus The Christ in any form, shape or fashion. They cobbled it together 300-400 years later out of their own fleshy political maneurvers as they've been doing ever since.

2. It is more rife with heresy than . . . any other remotely Christian club.

Them's just the facts.

[wmfights]

Beautifully said.

I was too tired, I've been busy arguing with my friends about baptism. ;-)

[Quix]

Thanks for the ping.

[Quix]

Good points.

[Quix]

LOL!

The council deciding to formalize the Canon was a group of more or less equals.

AFTER THAT

the flesh driven, carnal, power mongering political skills of the Romans in the group rose to the top of the political and thereby the RELIGIOUS [vs spiritual] world.

That’s the UNRUBBERIZED AUTHENTIC HISTORY.

[Quix]

I have researched this, thank you. Transubstantiation was arguably in question for 900 years when the writings of two

= ==

Thanks, Harley, for bringing forth some UNrubberized, authentic, accurate history.