Posted on 07/26/2013 3:22:28 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Gift – The Testimony of Former Roman Catholic Priest Charles Chiniquy
I was born and baptized a Roman Catholic in 1809, and I was ordained priest in the year 1833, in Canada. I am now in my seventy-fourth year, and it is nearly fifty years since I received the dignity of the priesthood in the Church of Rome.
For twenty-five years I was a priest of that Church, and I tell you frankly that I loved the Church of Rome, and she loved me. I would have shed every drop of my blood for my Church and would have given a thousand times my life to extend her power and dignity over the continent of America, and over the whole world. My great ambition was to convert the Protestants, and bring them into my Church, because I was told, and I preached, that outside the Church of Rome there was no salvation, and I was sorry to think that those multitudes of Protestants were to be lost.
A few years after I was born we lived in a place where there were no schools. My mother became my first teacher, and the first book in which she taught me to read was the Bible. When I was eight or nine years old I read the Divine Book with an incredible pleasure, and my heart was much taken up with the beauty of the Word of God. My mother selected the chapters she wished me to read, and the attention I gave to it was such that, many times, I refused to go and play with the little boys outside in order to enjoy the pleasure of reading the Holy Book. Some of the chapters I loved more than others, and these I learned by heart.
But after my mother died, the Bible disappeared from the house, probably through the priest who had tried to obtain possession of it before. Now this Bible is the root of everything in this story. That is the light which was put into my soul when young, and, thanks be to God, that light has never been extinguished. It has remained there: it is to that dear Bible, by the mercy of God, that I owe today the unspeakable joy which I feel at being among the redeemed, among those who have received the light, and are drinking at the pure fountain of truth.
But perhaps you are inclined to say, “Do not the Roman Catholic priests allow their people to read the Bible?” Yes, I thank God that it is so. It is a fact that today, almost all over the world, the Church of Rome grants permission to read the Bible, and you will find the Bible in the homes of some Roman Catholics.
But when we have confessed this we must tell the whole truth. When the priest puts the Bible in the hands of his people, or when a priest receives the Bible from his church, there is a condition. The condition is that though the priest or people may read the Bible, they must never, under any circumstances, interpret a single word according to their conscience, their intelligence, or in their own mind. When I was ordained a priest I swore that I would interpret the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers.
Friends, go to Roman Catholics today, and ask them if they have permission to read the Bible. They will tell you, “Yes, I can read it.” But ask, “Have you permission to interpret it?” They will tell you, “No.” The priest says positively to the people, and the Church says positively to the priest, that they cannot interpret a single word of the Bible according to their own intelligence and their own conscience, and that it is a grievous sin to take upon themselves the interpretation of a single word. The priest says in effect to the people, “If you try to interpret the Bible with your own intelligence you are lost. It is a most dangerous book. You may read it, but it is better not to read it, because you cannot understand it.”
What is the result of such teaching? The result is, that though both the priests and the people have the Bible in their hands, they do not read it. Would you read a book if you were persuaded that you cannot understand a single word by yourself? Would you be such fools as to waste your time reading a book which you were persuaded you could not understand a single line of? Then, my friends, this is the truth about the Church of Rome. They have a great number of Bibles. You will find Bibles on the tables of the priests and of Catholic laymen, but among ten thousand priests there are not two who read the Bible from the beginning to the end and pay any attention to it. They read a few pages here and there; that is all.
In the Church of Rome the Bible is a sealed book, but it was not so with me. I found it precious to my heart when I was a little boy, and when I became a priest of Rome I read it to make me a strong man, and to make me able to argue for the Church.
My great object was to confound the Protestant ministers of America. I got a copy of the “Holy Fathers,” and I studied it day and night with the Holy Scriptures, in order to prepare myself for the great battle I wanted to fight against the Protestants. I made this study in order to strengthen my faith in the Roman Catholic Church.
But, blessed be God! every time I read the Bible there was a mysterious voice(1) saying to me, “Do you not see that in the Church of Rome you do not follow the teachings of the Word of God, but only the traditions of men?” In the silent hours of the night, when I heard that voice, I wept and cried, but it was repeated with the strength of thunder. I wanted to live and die in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I prayed to God to silence the voice, but I heard it yet still louder. When I was reading His Word He was trying(2) to break my fetters, but I would not have any fetters broken. He came to me with His saving light, but I would not have it.
I have no bad feeling against Roman Catholic priests. Some of you may think I have. You are mistaken. Sometimes I weep for them because I know that the poor men – just as I did – are fighting against the Lord, and that they are miserable as I was miserable then. If I relate to you one of the struggles of which I speak, you will understand what it is to be a Roman Catholic priest, and you will pray for them.
(Rest at Link)
I bet when Charles Chiniquy died at the age of 90 he found out really quickly that he was still a Catholic and that he had denied his faith and would have to suffer the consequences. \
But I’m not Christ, perfect justice, at the moment of one’s death.
So what do I know?
“And you would be right since wearing Rosary beads is not only not proper but does nothing of any value since it’s not even a prayer.”
Except that’s exactly what King Alphonso did. He wore the Rosary, he did not say it, thus, by just wearing the Rosary in front of people, it saved him from death and damnation.
I guess you didn’t bother to read what your own religion teaches.
As for your other questions before this, instead of playing the Sophist, you should just read my original post and see for yourself.
“Is there merit is fasting? Yes. Is there merit in almsgiving? Yes. Christ expects us to be Christ-like. He expects us to be united with Him in charity and prayer.”
These conclusions are caused by your absolute confusion on what the scripture actually teaches. None of these things could possibly have any merit in the sight of God, as Paul himself argues that one is saved in uncircumcision through faith, without the working of the law (Romans 4:10-11). In fact, the circumcision came only as a result of the faith “he had yet being uncircumcized.”
In like manner we are to understand 1 Pe 3:21, which does not say “by water you are saved,” as you falsely claim, but says “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)”. The baptism itself does not “put away... the filth of the flesh,” but the “answer of a good conscience toward God” does. The Syriac version of this scripture renders it “confessing God with a good conscience.” The Vulgate renders it “the interrogation of a good conscience.” This is referring to what Augustine called the “Sacrament of Exorcism,” or what John would have simply called “repentance,” as the person who is baptized customarily renounces their former deeds and officially becomes a member of the Christian religion. Baptism, itself, is the same as saying “being converted to Christianity.”
There is no magical power in the baptismal water itself to do any of these things, but is merely a public conversion to Christianity, a sign of a desire and a new nature that has already been given by God prior to the deed, which finds expression in an outward act. For the truth of this, the Thief on the Cross never touched water after his conversion, but was taken straight to paradise with Christ. Cornelius, in chapter 10 of Acts, was not baptized at at all, but was filled and baptized spiritually by the Holy Ghost.
Even that desire, faith itself, is given by God, and is not the result of any personal righteousness of the individual who is simply good enough, of himself, to desire God.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Note carefully this second verse. He has “ordained” you (appointed) “that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” We did not choose Him, and then go remain in Him by our own power and will, gathering merits and opening up channels of grace by our obedience through saying or wearing rosaries. God chooses us, not only that we should believe, but so that we should produce fruit in Him that should abide forever. And if a fruit is to “abide,” it certainly cannot be of us. It must be the work of God, effected by His own “working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Php 2:13). As Augustine observes,
“Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate.”
And again,
“’You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.’ Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.”
(Both quotes from Augustine’s Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints, Book 1.)
Thus you err in these fantasies of yours because you do not even comprehend what the origin of all merits in us are, which is not from ourselves, but by the working of God who effectually wrought them in us, according to His plan of election established before the world began. So then, would God setup another economy of salvation, along side the economy established on the cross, for to earn grace, when this grace is given to us without our asking or desiring on the day of our conversion? And if grace is given to us when we do not merit it, in a state of “uncircumcision” in the flesh, why would you expect to keep God’s favor through the repetition of rosaries, when it is written “if by grace, then it is no more of works”? (Romans 11:6).
Furthermore, all acts of righteousness are merely a fulfillment of duty, and not of works meriting reward.
Luk_17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Thus, the concept of being saved by your performance of rosaries, seen as a “merit” in our defense, is a blasphemy against God, as the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ who died for His sheep, and conquered death for His sheep.
And see what would happen in any Protestant church if someone would say that according to his own intelligence and conscience that he interpreted the Bible as the Catholic Church does. It is quite tiresome to hear Protestants complain that Catholics are not free to interpret the Bible when they relentlessly insist that you must interpret it as they do. When a Protestant minister preaches does he say that this is only his opinion? No, he does not! He presents his interpretation as the truth. Either by denomination or as individual ministers the Protestants in truth claim the same authority over the Bible that they deny to the Catholic Church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Guidelines concerning Hatred on the Religion Forum:
Certain sources have been determined to monger hatred of persons and are forbidden. Sources that link to those sources are also forbidden. These include Jack Chick, Jesus-is-Lord.com, Jesus-is-Savior.com, BibleBelievers.com, Vdare, KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, Christian Identity, the false Jesuit Oath, the false Oath of the Knights of Columbus, fatimamovement.com, anti-Semitic sources.
How did the Apostles manage without the New Testament?
Neither the article nor the source website even mentions Chick. According to Amazon, “The Gift” by Chiniquy was published by Osterhus.
You need to look that up on your own if you are curious about it.
Post 31 claims that the Catholics churches all supply bibles during mass, is that correct?
If it is, is seems to be a change that came after what I observed in my youth.
“Except that’s exactly what King Alphonso did.”
No. He wore it in his belt, not around his neck.
“He wore the Rosary, he did not say it, thus, by just wearing the Rosary in front of people, it saved him from death and damnation.”
No. As Protestant anti-Catholics are wont to do you are misrepresenting what the story actually said. I have never been able to figure out why anti-Catholics so brazenly lie -or why they are so stupid (whatever the case may be) - when the information age makes it possible for anyone to so easily learn the truth. Here is the actual part which you are misrepresenting:
“She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example. It was found that the Rosaries weighed more than his sins.”
So, there is a set of scales. On one scale Mary put the Rosary that the King wore but never said (and in that way he was acting sinfully). And on the other scale Mary put the rosaries representing the many prayers of the King’s faithful servants who, of course, prayed for the King!
Then two things happened. First, Mary interceded with Jesus (”when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him”) and Jesus decided to allow the King to live because even though he himself sinned by not praying he had encouraged many others to pray: “As a reward for this little honor that you paid me in wearing my Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from my Son. Your life will be spared for a few more years. See that you spend these years wisely, and do penance.”
Through her Son (”when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him”) Mary was able to abundantly reward him in a way he could never truly deserve because what he did was so little but it had convinced so many to pray.
Then the “King regained consciousness he cried out: “Blessed be the Rosary of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, by which I have been delivered from eternal damnation!”
The fact is that Jesus saved the King.
1) The King was “before the judgement seat of Our Lord.”
2) He was interceded for by Mary: “Our Lord as Sovereign Judge was just about to condemn him to hell when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him.”
3) Mary showed the King the error of his ways: that he did something for show only when he should have been praying: “She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example.”
4) The King’s example - hollow it might have been in his own practice - encouraged many people to pray: “together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example.”
“I guess you didn’t bother to read what your own religion teaches.”
I did read it. That’s why I didn’t misrepresent it like you did.
“As for your other questions before this, instead of playing the Sophist, you should just read my original post and see for yourself.”
Rather than being the evader, why don’t you just answer my questions?
“These conclusions are caused by your absolute confusion on what the scripture actually teaches...as Paul himself argues...”
So, Paul was against mortification of the flesh? No, he was not: 1 Corinthians 9:27.
Sadly, you don’t know the Bible. Many Protestants are now admitting that they’ve been wrong about St. Paul for centuries: Hence the whole New Perspective on St. Paul. So, even some other Protestants disagree with you on this.
The publications it sells which are authored by others are not banned, e.g. it sells Bibles.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“You need to look that up on your own if you are curious about it.”
I’m not curious about it at all. I already know how they managed. I was merely asking so that you could fail in answering - which you’ve done that brilliantly. Thanks.
“Post 31 claims that the Catholics churches all supply bibles during mass, is that correct?”
Is that what Post 31 claims? I don’t see the word “all” in there anywhere. Perhaps NKP_Vet meant missals. What might be more interesting is why you think someone must have a Bible to worship. Again, how did the Apostles manage then?
“If it is, is seems to be a change that came after what I observed in my youth.”
Should anyone trust your observations in the first place when you seem so easily “baffled”?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Wow, these reactions are strange. So far my memory seems accurate, it seems to be making people angry for some reason though, people are telling me that the bibles were there right in front of me and that I am wrong, but it sure isn’t convincing.
Post 40 supports my memory, and from what I have seen, bibles still don’t seem to always be supplied, or even generally supplied, contrary to what is being posted at me.
Although their are plenty of Bibles in any Catholic Church, I have never relied on the Church to supply me with a Bible.
I take my own and have for many years. I use the RSV-CE and for reference the Douay-Rheims.
“So, there is a set of scales.”
This concession of yours is at the core of the whole monstrous error to begin with, as to even claim that there are scales is to say that salvation is not by grace, but by a measurement of your good vs evil works. And this, despite the testimony of the scriptures, which finds you guilty of the whole law for one simple sin, and finds even the obedience to the law perfectly only as a “duty” for an “unprofitable servant” to fulfill.
“So, Paul was against mortification of the flesh? No, he was not: 1 Corinthians 9:27.”
And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything I wrote, or the means of salvation? I doubt that you are even aware of it yourself, and so you’re just barking at me to annoy me.
“The fact is that Jesus saved the King.”
The fact is that Mary saved the King from the judgment of Jesus. The Demon masquerading as Mary says specifically, “As a reward for this little honor that you paid me in wearing my Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from my Son.” Not only is it a “reward,” and not a free gift, she says that it was she who obtained it. It was not Jesus or His blood. He merely agreed to abstain from damning the King based on the merit of at least wearing Rosary beads.
As to the claim that the other Papists were praying for the King, it says only that they prayed the Rosaries due to “his example.” His example being the wearing of the Rosaries, which encouraged other people to recite the Rosaries which are said to literally give Mary a Rose with its completion.
From the Secret of the Rosary:
“The word Rosary means “Crown of Roses,” that is to say that ever time people say the Rosary devoutly they place a crown of one hundred and fifty -—three red roses and sixteen white roses upon the heads of Jesus and Mary. Being heavenly flowers these roses will never fade or lose their exquisite beauty.
Our Lady has shown her thorough approval of the name Rosary; she had revealed to several people that each time they say a Hail Mary they are giving her a beautiful rose and that each complete Rosary makes her a crown of roses.
The well-known Jesuit, Brother Alphonsus Rodriguez, used to say his Rosary with such fervor that he often saw a red rose come out of his mouth at each Our Father and a white rose at each Hail Mary. The red and white roses were equal in beauty and fragrance, the only difference being in their color.
The chronicles of Saint Francis tell of a young friar who had the praiseworthy habit of saying the Crown of Our Lady (the Rosary) every day before dinner. One day for some reason or other he did not manage to say it. The refectory bell had already been rung when he asked the Superior to allow him to say it before coming to the table, and having obtained the permission he withdrew to his cell to pray.
After he had been gone a long time the Superior sent another Friar to fetch him, and he found him in his room bathed in a heavenly light facing Our Lady who had two angels with her. Beautiful roses kept issuing from his mouth at each Hail Mary; the angels took them one by one, placing them on Our Lady’s head, and she smilingly accepted them.
Finally two other friars who had been sent to find out what happened to the first two saw the same lovely scene, and Our Lady did not go away until the whole Rosary had been said.”
Most ordinary people, I’m afraid, can recognize silly superstition when they see it.
“No. He wore it in his belt, not around his neck.”
LOL, okay, big difference.
“Sadly, you don’t know the Bible.”
Notice how you’re incapable of making a single coherent argument from the Bible. Your barking cannot fool me into believing that you know what you’re talking about.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“e.g. “your ... confusion” “you don’t know”.
Oops, sorry. I actually did that again in my last post, before I noticed this post in my comment list. I’ll watch out for it in the future.
And of course the non Catholics should not believe Chiniquy because;
Yes, the fundamentalists and the atheists are ranged on the same side, using Chiniquy’s lies to attack the Catholic Church. Yet, something inexplicable deters the fundamentalists from realizing that the mere fact of siding with atheists ought to show them they are on the wrong side.
Now there's a legitimate argument...
Since we know that what Chiniquy said about the Catholic bible experience is true, as we see it happening today, there's no reason to doubt anything else Chiniquy has claimed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.