Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Yeah, but I'm not giving it out here!!!
Duelling scriptures. A flat, soulless two dimensional copy of Christianity. Justify away, folks.
Because Irenaeus called him the Father of all heresies, the Father of a counterfeit Christianity that emerged there in Rome during the reign of Claudius and Nero. And by the end of the first century 50 different religious cults had emerged from him. All of these cults were infiltrating the Church with their magical heresies, rituals, icons, and pagan practices.
The church fathers from Justin Martyr, to Irenaeus to Tertullian, to Origen, to Hippolytus to Eusebius spent more paper on Simon Magus and his sojourn in Rome than on anyone else. And we have this from Eusebius about the Simonians in his day:
11.". . . he [Simon Magus] feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism. 12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his [Simon Magus's] most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves. The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment. . . .
6."We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations." [Eccl Hist, Book II, Ch 1, Sect 11,12... Ch 13, Sect 6]
Those pagan practices from the disciples of Simon Magus eventually found a home in the Church of Rome just as his bones found their resting place in that pagan graveyard beneath the Basilica of St Peter.
Let's take them in context. Putting these words out here without their context is somewhat misleading. The Church, as we have just seen, is the only Divinely constituted teacher of Revelation.
Now, the Scripture is the great depository of the Word of God. Therefore, the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous if each individual could interpret the Bible for himself..
That God never intended the Bible to be the Christian's rule of faith, independently of the living authority of the Church, will be the subject of this chapter..
No nation ever had a greater veneration for the Bible than the Jewish people. The Holy Scripture was their pride and their glory. It was their national song in time of peace; it was their meditation and solace in time of tribulation and exile. And yet the Jews never dreamed of settling their religious controversies by a private appeal to the Word of God..
Whenever any religious dispute arose among the people it was decided by the High Priest and the Sanhedrim, which was a council consisting of seventy-two civil and ecclesiastical judges. The sentence of the High Priest and of his associate judges was to be obeyed under penalty of death. "If thou perceive," says the Book of Deuteronomy, "that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, ...thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levitical race and to the judge, ...and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. ...And thou shalt follow their sentence; neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left. ...But he that will...refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest, ...that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel."[Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.].
From this clear sentence you perceive that God does not refer the Jews for the settlement of their controversies to the letter of the law, but to the living authority of the ecclesiastical tribunal which He had expressly established for that purpose..
Hence, the Priests were required to be intimately acquainted with the Sacred Scripture, because they were the depositaries of God's law, and were its expounders to the people. "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they (the people) shall seek the law at his mouth, because he is the angel (or messenger) of the Lord of hosts."[Mal. ii. 7.].
And, in fact, very few of the children of Israel, except the Priests, were in possession of the Divine Books. The holy manuscript was rare and precious. And what provision did God make that all the people might have an opportunity of hearing the Scriptures? Did He command the sacred volume to be multiplied? No; but He ordered the Priests and the Levites to be distributed through the different tribes, that they might always be at hand to instruct the people in the knowledge of the law. The Jews were even forbidden to read certain portions of the Scripture till they had reached the age of thirty years..
Does our Savior reverse this state of things when He comes on earth? Does He tell the Jews to be their own guides in the study of the Scriptures? By no means; but He commands them to obey their constituted teachers, no matter how disedifying might be their private lives. "Then said Jesus to the multitudes and to His disciples: The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do."[Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.].
It is true our Lord said on one occasion: "Search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give testimony to Me."[John v. 39.] This passage is triumphantly quoted as an argument in favor of private interpretation. But it proves nothing of the kind. Many learned commentators, ancient and modern, express the verb in the indicative mood: "Ye search the Scriptures." At all events, our Savior speaks here only of the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet written. He addresses not the multitude, but the Pharisees, who were the teachers of the law, and reproaches them for not admitting His Divinity. "You have," He says, "the Scriptures in your hands; why then do you not recognize Me as the Messiah, since they give testimony that I am the Son of God?" He refers them to the Scriptures for a proof of His Divinity, not as to a source from which they were to derive all knowledge in regard to the truths of revelation..
Besides, He did not rest of the proof of His Divinity upon the sole testimony of Scripture. For He showed it..
First--By the testimony of John the Baptist (v. 33), who had said, "Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world." See also John I. 34..
Second--By the miracles which He wrought (v. 36)..
Third--By the testimony of the Father (v. 37), when He said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." Matt. iii. 16; Luke ix. 35..
Fourth--By the Scriptures of the Old Testament; as if He were to say, "If you are unwilling to receive these three proofs, though they are most cogent, at least you cannot reject the testimony of the Scriptures, of which you boast so much.".
Finally, in this very passage our Lord is explaining the sense of Holy Writ; therefore, its true meaning is not left to the private interpretation of every chance reader. It is, therefore, a grave perversion of the sacred text to adduce these words in vindication of private interpretation of the Scriptures..
But when our Redeemer abolished the Old Law and established His Church, did He intend that His Gospel should be disseminated by the circulation of the Bible, or by the living voice of His disciples? This is a vital question. I answer most emphatically, that it was by preaching alone that He intended to convert the nations, and by preaching alone they were converted. No nation has ever yet been converted by the agency of Bible Associations..
Jesus Himself never wrote a line of Scripture. He never once commanded His Apostles to write a word,[Note: Except when He directed St. John to write the Apocalypse, I. 11.] or even to circulate the Scriptures already existing. When He sends them on their Apostolic errand, He says: "Go teach all nations,"[Matt. xxviii. 19.] "Preach the Gospel to every creature."[Mark xvi. 15.] "He that heareth you heareth Me."[Luke x. 16.] And we find the Apostles acting in strict accordance with these instructions..
Of the twelve Apostles, the seventy-two disciples, and early followers of our Lord only eight have left us any of their sacred writings. And the Gospels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or particular churches. They were written on the occasion of some emergency, just as Bishops issue Pastoral letters to correct abuses which may spring up in the Church, or to lay down some rules of conduct for the faithful. The Apostles are never reported to have circulated a single volume of the Holy Scripture, but "they going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord cooperating with them."[Mark xvi. 20.].
Thus we see that in the Old and the New Dispensation the people were to be guided by a living authority, and not by their private interpretation of the Scriptures..
Indeed, until the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, it was a thing unheard of from the beginning of the world, that people should be governed by the dead letter of the law either in civil or ecclesiastical affairs. How are your civil affairs regulated in this State, for instance? Certainly not in accordance with your personal interpretation of the laws of Virginia, but in accordance with decisions which are rendered by the constituted judges of the State..
Now what the civil code is to the citizen, the Scripture is to the Christian. The Word of God, as well as the civil law, must have an interpreter, by whose decision we are obliged to abide..
We often hear the shibboleth: "The Bible, and the Bible only, must be your guide." Why, then, do you go to the useless expense of building fine churches and Sabbath-schools? What is the use of your preaching sermons and catechizing the young, if the Bible at home is a sufficient guide for your people? The fact is, you reverend gentlemen contradict in practice what you so vehemently advance in theory. Do not tell me that the Bible is all-sufficient; or, if you believe it is self-sufficient, cease your instructions. Stand not between the people and the Scriptures..
I will address myself now in a friendly spirit to a non-Catholic, and will proceed to show him that he cannot consistently accept the silent Book of Scripture as his sufficient guide..
A copy of the sacred volume is handed to you by your minister, who says: "Take this book; you will find it all-sufficient for your salvation." But here a serious difficulty awaits you at the very threshold of your investigations. What assurance have you that the book he hands you is the inspired Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration? It may, for ought you know, contain more than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God. We must not suppose that the Bible was always, as it is now, a compact book, bound in a neat form. It was for several centuries in scattered fragments, spread over different parts of Christendom. Meanwhile, many spurious books, under the name of Scripture, were circulated among the faithful. There was, for instance, the spurious Gospel of St. Peter; there was also the Gospel of St. James and of St. Matthias..
The Catholic Church, in the plenitude of her authority, in the third Council of Carthage, (A.D. 397,) separated the chaff from the wheat, and declared what Books were Canonical, and what were apocryphal. Even to this day the Christian sects do not agree among themselves as to what books are to be accepted as genuine. Some Christians of continental Europe do not recognize the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke because these Evangelists were not among the Apostles. Luther used to call the Epistle of St. James a letter of straw..
But even when you are assured that the Bible contains the Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, how do you know that the translation is faithful? The Books of Scripture were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and you have only the translation. Before you are certain that the translation is faithful you must study the Hebrew and Greek languages, and then compare the translation with the original. How few are capable of this gigantic undertaking!.
Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years..
But after having ascertained to your satisfaction that the translation is faithful, still the Scriptures can never serve as a complete Rule of Faith and a complete guide to heaven independently of an authorized, living interpreter..
A competent guide, such as our Lord intended for us, must have three characteristics. It must be within the reach of everyone; it must be clear and intelligible; it must be able to satisfy us on all questions relating to faith and morals..
First--A complete guide of salvation must be within the reach of every inquirer after truth; for, God "wishes all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth;"[I. Tim. ii. 4.] and therefore He must have placed within the reach of everyone the means of arriving at the truth. Now, it is clear that the Scriptures could not at any period have been accessible to everyone..
They could not have been accessible to the primitive Christians, because they were not all written for a long time after the establishment of Christianity. The Christian religion was founded in the year 33. St. Matthew's Gospel, the first part of the New Testament ever written, did not appear till eight years after. The Church was established about twenty years when St. Luke wrote his Gospel. And St. John's Gospel did not come to light till toward the end of the first century. For many years after the Gospels and Epistles were written the knowledge of them was confined to the churches to which they were addressed. It was not till the close of the fourth century that the Church framed her Canon of Scripture and declared the Bible, as we now possess it, to be the genuine Word of God. And this was the golden age of Christianity! The most perfect Christians lived and died and went to heaven before the most important parts of the Scripture were written. And what would have become of them if the Bible alone had been their guide?.
The art of printing was not invented till the fifteenth century (1440). How utterly impossible it was to supply everyone with a copy of the Scriptures from the fourth to the fifteenth century! During that long period Bibles had to be copied with the pen. There were but a few hundred of them in the Christian world, and these were in the hands of the clergy and the learned. "According to the Protestant system, the art of printing would have been much more necessary to the Apostles than the gift of tongues. It was well for Luther that he did not come into the world until a century after the immortal invention of Guttenberg. A hundred years earlier his idea of directing two hundred and fifty million men to read the Bible would have been received with shouts of laughter, and would inevitably have caused his removal from the pulpit of Wittenberg to a hospital for the insane."[Martinet, Religion in Society, Vol. II, c. 10.].
And even at the present day, with all the aid of steam printing presses, with all the Bible Associations extending through this country and England, and supported at enormous expense, it taxes all their energies to supply every missionary country with Bibles printed in the languages of the tribes and peoples for whom they are intended..
But even if the Bible were at all times accessible to everyone, how many millions exist in every age and country, not excepting our own age of boasted enlightenment, who are not accessible to the Bible because they are incapable of reading the Word of God! Hence, the doctrine of private interpretation would render many men's salvation not only difficult, but impossible..
Second--A competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned. St. Peter himself informs us that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."[II. Pet. iii. 16.] And consequently he tells us elsewhere "that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation."[Ibid. I. 20.].
We read in the Acts of the Apostles that a certain man was riding in his chariot, reading the Book of Isaiah, and being asked by St. Philip whether he understood the meaning of the prophecy he replied: "How can I understand unless some man show me?"[Acts viii. 31.] admitting, by these modest words, that he did not pretend of himself to interpret the Scriptures..
The Fathers of the Church, though many of them spent their whole lives in the study of the Scriptures, are unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book full of knotty difficulties. And yet we find in our days pedants, with a mere smattering of Biblical knowledge, who see no obscurity at all in the Word of God, and who presume to expound it from Genesis to Revelation. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.".
Does not the conduct of the Reformers conclusively show the utter folly of interpreting the Scriptures by private judgment? As soon as they rejected the oracle of the Church, and set up their own private judgment as the highest standard of authority, they could hardly agree among themselves on the meaning of a single important text. The Bible became in their hands a complete Babel. The sons of Noe attempted in their pride to ascend to heaven by building the tower of Babel, and their scheme ended in the confusion and multiplication of tongues. The children of the Reformation endeavored in their conceit to lead men to heaven by the private interpretation of the Bible, and their efforts led to the confusion and the multiplication of religions. Let me give you one example out of a thousand. These words of the Gospel, "This is My Body," were understood only in one sense before the Reformation. The new lights of the sixteenth century gave no fewer than eighty different meanings to these four simple words, and since their time the number of interpretations has increased to over a hundred..
No one will deny that in our days there exists a vast multitude of sects, which are daily multiplying. No one will deny[Except, perhaps, Rev. H. W. Beecher, who thinks that God is glorified by the variety of sects.] that this multiplying of creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way of the conversion of heathen nations. No one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of private judgment. Every new-fledged divine, with a superficial education, imagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new religion, and he is ambitious of handing down his fame to posterity by stamping his name on a new sect. And every one of these champions of modern creeds appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his ever-changing doctrines..
Thus, one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is but one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove from the Holy Book that Jesus Christ is not God. Others will appeal to the same text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the authority of Scripture that infant baptism is not necessary for salvation, while others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand, will teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are only two. Some will declare that the inspired Word does not preach the eternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly vindicates that dogma. Do not clergymen appear every day in the pulpit, and on the authority of the Book of Revelation point out to us with painful accuracy the year and the day on which this world is to come to an end? And when their prophecy fails of execution they coolly put off our destruction to another time..
Very recently several hundred Mormon women presented a petition to the government at Washington protesting against any interference with their abominable polygamy and they insist that their cherished system is sustained by the Word of God..
Such is the legitimate fruit of private revelation! Our civil government is run not by private judgment, but by the constituted authorities. No one in his senses would allow our laws to be interpreted, and war to be declared by sensational journals, or by any private individuals. Why not apply the same principle to the interpretation of the Bible and the government of the Church?.
Would it not be extremely hazardous to make a long voyage in a ship in which the officers and crew are fiercely contending among themselves about the manner of explaining the compass and of steering their course? How much more dangerous is it to trust to contending captains in the journey to heaven! Nothing short of an infallible authority should satisfy you when it is a question of steering your course to eternity. On this vital point there should be no conflict of opinion among those that guide you. There should be no conjecture. But there must be always someone at the helm whose voice gives assurance amid the fiercest storms that all is well..
Third--A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heave, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify..
The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers.[See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible..
We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation..
God forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude from what I have said that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible! Good God! What monstrous ingratitude! What base calumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the Virgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast as to accuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out of existence the Word of God. As well might you charge the patriotic statesman with attempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to protect it from being mutilated by unprincipled demagogues..
For fifteen centuries the Church was the sole guardian and depository of the Bible, and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent her, during that long period, from tearing it in shreds and scattering it to the winds? She could have thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural mother would have thrown away her offspring and who would have been the wiser?.
What has become of those millions of once famous books written in past ages? They have nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient literature, the Bible stands almost a solitary monument like the Pyramids of Egypt amid the surrounding wastes. That venerable Volume has survived the wars and revolutions and the barbaric invasions of fifteen centuries. Who rescued it from destruction? The Catholic Church. Without her fostering care the New Testament would probably be as little known as "the Book of the days of the kings of Israel."[III. Kings. xiv. 19.].
Little do we imagine, in our age of steam printing, how much labor it cost the Church to preserve and perpetuate the Sacred Scriptures. Learned monks, who are now abused in their graves by thoughtless men, were constantly employed in copying with the pen the Holy Bible. When one monk died at his post another took his place, watching like a faithful sentinel over the treasure of God's Word..
Let me give you a few plain facts to show the pains which the Church has taken to perpetuate the Scriptures..
The Canon of the Bible, as we have seen, was framed in the fourth century. In that same century Pope Damasus commanded a new and complete translation of the Scriptures to be made into the Latin language, which was then the living tongue not only of Rome and Italy, but of the civilized world..
If the Popes were afraid that the Bible should see the light, this was a singular way of manifesting their fear..
The task of preparing a new edition of the Scriptures was assigned to St. Jerome, the most learned Hebrew scholar of his time. This new translation was disseminated throughout Christendom, and on that account was called the Vulgate, or popular edition..
In the sixth and seventh centuries the modern languages of Europe began to spring up like so many shoots from the parent Latin stock. The Scriptures, also, soon found their way into these languages. The Venerable Bede, who lived in England in the eighth century, and whose name is profoundly reverenced in that country, translated the Sacred Scriptures into Saxon, which was then the language of England. He died while dictating the last verses of St. John's Gospel..
Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a funeral discourse on Queen Anne, consort of Richard II, pronounced in 1394, praises her for her diligence in reading the four Gospels. The Head of the Church of England could not condemn in others what he commended in the queen..
Sir Thomas More affirms that, before the days of Wycliffe, there was an English version of the Scriptures, "by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."[Dialog. 3, 14.].
If partial restrictions began to be placed on the circulation of the Bible in England in the fifteenth century, these restrictions were occasioned by the conduct of Wycliffe and his followers, who not only issued a new translation, on which they engrafted their novelties of doctrine, but also sought to explain the sacred text in a sense foreign to the received interpretation of tradition..
While laboring to diffuse the Word of God it is the duty, as well as the right of the Church, as the guardian of faith, to see that the faithful are not misled by unsound editions..
Printing was invented in the fifteenth century, and almost a hundred years later came the Reformation. It is often triumphantly said, and I suppose there are some who, even at the present day, are ignorant enough to believe the assertion, that the first edition of the Bible ever published after the invention of printing was the edition of Martin Luther. The fact is, that before Luther put his pen to paper, no fewer than fifty-six editions of the Scriptures had appeared on the continent of Europe, not to speak of those printed in Great Britain. Of those editions, twenty-one were published in German, one in Spanish, four in French, twenty-one in Italian, five in Flemish and four in Bohemian..
Coming down to our own times, if you open an English Catholic Bible you will find in the preface a letter of Pope Pius VI, in which he strongly recommends the pious reading of the Holy Scriptures. A Pope's letter is the most weighty authority in the Church. You will also find in Haydock's Bible the letters of the Bishops of the United States, in which they express the hope that this splendid edition would have a wide circulation among their flocks..
These facts ought, I think, to convince every candid mind that the Church, far from being opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, does all she can to encourage their perusal..
A gentleman of North Carolina lately informed me that the first time he entered a Catholic bookstore he was surprised at witnessing on the shelves an imposing array of Bibles for sale. Up to that moment he had believed the unfounded charge that Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures. He has since embraced the Catholic faith..
And perhaps I may be permitted here to record my personal experiences during a long course of study. I speak of myself, not because my case is exceptional, but, on the contrary, because my example will serve to illustrate the system pursued toward ecclesiastical students in all colleges throughout the Catholic world in reference to the Holy Scriptures..
In our course of Humanities we listened every day to the reading of the Bible. When we were advanced to the higher branches of Philosophy and Theology the study of the Sacred Scriptures formed an important part of our education. We read, besides, every day a chapter of the New Testament, not standing or sitting, but on our knees, and then reverently kissed the inspired page. We listened at our meals each day to selections from the Bible, and we always carried about with us a copy of the New Testament..
So familiar, indeed, were the students with the sacred Volume that many of them, on listening to a few verses, could tell from what portion of the Scriptures you were reading. The only dread we were taught to have of the Scriptures was that of reading them without fear and reverence..
And after his ordination every Priest is obliged in conscience to devote upwards of an hour each day to the perusal of the Word of God. I am not aware that clergymen of other denominations are bound by the same duty..
What is good for the clergy must be good, also, for the laity. Be assured that if you become a Catholic you will never be forbidden to read the Bible. It is our earnest wish that every word of the Gospel may be imprinted on your memory and on your heart..
Sorry about the length; when I read this again after many years, it did my heart and soul very good. Perhaps it might do some good for others. If the moderator wishes, then we can trim this or simply post the link.
Just about every cross in your Cross Reference guide at post #1992 has an embellished story attached to it. Do you think an apostle was crucified on each one of them? Who was crucified on that Maltese Cross? and on that Swastika Cross? Every religious sect and order in the Christian era had to have a unique cross and a story to go along with it, thus all those cross bred insignias.
I trust though, that your fears about the Catholic Church creating a Satanic symbol have been allayed.
Of all the crosses portrayed there, only the broken cross and the upside down cross are ever really claimed by occultic religious groups. The upside down cross in these groups means a reversal of the effects of the Crucifixion, the undoing of the work of the Cross, turning the Christian world upside down. It is more than likely an esoteric insignia of Simon Magus and the cults that emerged from him engaging in this apostate work, within and without the church.
BTW Did you notice on your Cross Reference guide at post #1992 that the Upside Down Cross of Simon Magus is part of that Triple Cross ensign used by the Vatican. Add two cross bars to the Upside Down Cross and you have that sacred Papal Cross. Interesting.
It's not a matter of "think". Scripture tells us.
And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation of John 12:9)
I feel the important part of that scripture is what defines the "rest of her seed". In a nutshell, if the dragon wants a piece of you, then you are likely doing what Jesus wants you to do.
To addres a question you put to Ping-Pong, the woman is the Church of God. A cursory study of "playing the harlot" in the Bible will show you that Israel got busted a number of times for "playing the harlot". The woman, therefore, will be those who comprise the church that keep the Commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus without accepting heresies or apostasies from other religions.
II Corinthians 111 I would that you were bearing with me a little in foolishness; but indeed bear with me.
There is no way I am reading all that. Summarize and ping me again. I have studied this particular point of doctrine ad nauseum. The Cardinal is right, the scriptures enforce the Sabbath and Rome changed it. Period.
I'd say this fella is too educated to make an honest mistake like this...Therefore it has to be a 'dishonest' accusation for the purpose of keeping the people in the pews ignorant about Protestant Christianity...
But the comical part is the accusation of praying to the Holy Spirit isn't biblical while at the same time he teaches that it's a good thing to build an idol of Mary and pray to her...Which of course IS in the bible and you're instructed NOT TO DO IT...
We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith
Well it appears that Jerome, who is so highly esteemed by this fella disagrees with this guy completely...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
That pretty much clears that up...
because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance,
More propoganda for your church members...
and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation..
This fella is a deceiver...
1Jo 5:13 These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God
Jerome wrote this...This WAS the position of YOUR church at one time...
I can't believe you guys would accept anything this guy has to say as truth...
But what does this prove??? How do we know this is the same Clement Paul referred to???
All we really know is that your church claims to have some letters, or copies of letters said to have been written centuries ago by 'your church fathers'...There's no proof that these letters weren't written much later by who knows who...
There are two sets of the same letters by Ignatius...One talks about the Catholic church and one doesn't...Curious, eh???
***You will also note that St. Cyprian says the “primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.”
**You will note that St. Irenaeus wrote - in AD 190 - concerning “the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” So, from earliest Christianity, the Church at Rome was seen to have primacy.
You guys would be in a heap of hurt if it was proven that Peter was never in Rome...Irenaeus here seems to put Peter and Paul as equals...And since supposedly Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentile church, why was not Paul in the apostolic succession...He should have been the 2nd pope...And John the 3rd...What's up with that???
If you read any of the translations of St. Clements' Letter To The Corinthians you will note it is unsigned and makes no claim whatsoever to "Primacy". The letter in question, even if authentic, proves nothing.
The Ignatius leters are even more problematic with most, if not all, being proven forgeries.
I don't believe it is necessary to critique your response any further. It has already proven to be unreliable.
I agree with you. Along that same line is:
Rev.17:5
"MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" is religion - all the false religions of the world.
[Revelation 1:9]I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
John was never called an evangelist in scripture....never an Apostle for that matter, but we know he was an Apostle. He was the one who wrote Revelation. He was also the first cousin of Jesus as his mother, Salome, was Mary's sister. This is why the responsibility of Mary's care was given to him. Jesus was in an estranged relationship with his brother's of the flesh....and to John, she was aunt Mary.
Yup....it's called the Bible! [Amos 9:9] For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
And...a recent news item... Israelites in India ....from another respected source.
Yes. The 10 lost tribes (house of Israel) migrated over the Caucausus Mountains, settled Europe, then England and eventually to America (also the other Christian nations). I believe that is why we are founded on God, help other nations and hold such a closeness with our brother Judah, (the House of Judah) and the Nation of Israel.
I believe the "woman wailing in childbirth" are the birthpangs of a new age. Those pangs are getting closer and closer as we near the time of the end.
[Revelation 2:9]I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
[Revelation 3:9]Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
The folks who said they were Jews....and were not, were widely known in the first century as "The Samaritans". These folks were the brothers, fathers and ancestors of Simon Magus. Josephus says in "Antiquities IX, Chapter XIV, Paragraph 3" And when they see the Jews in prosperity, they pretend that they are changed, and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them; but when they see them falling into a low condition, they say they are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, that come from other countries. But of these we shall have a more seasonable opportunity to discourse hereafter.
Josephus make this statement a few more times in his works, so it is quite obvious who the Apostle John was speaking of in Revelation when he talks about those who say they are Jews and are not!
I honor the seventh day of the week (sunset Friday/sunset Saturday) as the Holy Sabbath of the Lord. [Leviticus 23:3]
If all Christians were to believe in sola Scriptura -- wouldn't we all being going to church on the Sabbath -- Saturday?
I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.....but to answer your question, yes!
If you went to parochial school, you should have studied the Catechism. Both the old Baltimore Catechism series and the new Catechism are based on Scripture - for each point of Catechism teaching, there is a Scripture verse, or verses, backing it up. Either you weren't paying attention the first time, you have completely forgotten, or you are purposefully, willfully, and conveniently disregarding this little fact in order to justify your leaving the Church. You will need to come up with another reason, because I don't buy your assertion that you just happened to discover the Church's teachings are "mere fiction and superstition." You are presenting yourself as a Protestant who is ignorant of Catholic teaching, but you know that teaching very well and are CHOOSING to argue against it. Your arguments are bogus, sir!
I could use the same argument on you and challenge you to prove the Scriptures are valid. We believe the Scriptures are valid because we trust - in my case the Catholic Church, because it was the entity which decided, at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, the First Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 AD, which books and letters being circulated would be included in the Canon. Who tells you which books are sacred and do you trust that the authors are who you think they are?
Like I said, you don't have a dog in this hunt.
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, A.D.95: "The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity.
Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110, To the Ephesians: "Your REVEREND presbytery is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself."
To the Magnesians: "I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles...As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters."
To the Trallians: "...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognized."
To the Smyrneans: "Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop...it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God."
Tertullian, A.D. 200: "The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority. Otherwise the laity also have the right...how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)...It would be idle for us to suppose that what is forbidden to PRIESTS is allowed to the laity. The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church."
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage A.D. 250: "If Christ Jesus our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered.
And so we see how, little by little the Early Church Fathers took Christian churches from being a proliferation of little localized extended families, and made them instead into a worldwide hierarchical religious corporation. It is evident too how this first error made it inevitable that more errors would soon follow. This wrong teaching about the very nature of the leadership and government of the church gave Christian leaders, in the form of Priests and Bishops, such authority that whatever else they ended up teaching was accepted virtually automatically as being from the Lord. And this was the Apostasy of the Early Church......and it continues.
You are correct. During Clement's time there was no claim to primacy....but I would say we were getting real close by the time Cyprian came on the scene. By Nicea....it was a slam dunk!
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.