The Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

Born Irish, in a family of eight, my early childhood was fulfilled and happy. My father was a colonel in the Irish Army until he retired when I was about nine. As a family, we loved to play, sing, and act, all within a military camp in Dublin.

We were a typical Irish Roman Catholic family. My father sometimes knelt down to pray at his bedside in a solemn manner. My mother would talk to Jesus while sewing, washing dishes, or even smoking a cigarette. Most evenings we would kneel in the living room to say the Rosary together. No one ever missed Mass on Sundays unless he was seriously ill. By the time I was about five or six years of age, Jesus Christ was a very real person to me, but so also were Mary and the saints. I can identify easily with others in traditional Catholic nations in Europe and with Hispanics and Filipinos who put Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and other saints all in one boiling pot of faith.

The catechism was drilled into me at the Jesuit School of Belvedere, where I had all my elementary and secondary education. Like every boy who studies under the Jesuits, I could recite before the age of ten five reasons why God existed and why the Pope was head of the only true Church. Getting souls out of Purgatory was a serious matter. The often quoted words, "It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins," were memorized even though we did not know what these words meant. We were told that the Pope as head of the Church was the most important man on earth. What he said was law, and the Jesuits were his right-hand men. Even though the Mass was in Latin, I tried to attend daily because I was intrigued by the deep sense of mystery which surrounded it. We were told it was the most important way to please God. Praying to saints was encouraged, and we had patron saints for most aspects of life. I did not make a practise of that, with one exception: St. Anthony, the patron of lost objects, since I seemed to lose so many things.

When I was fourteen years old, I sensed a call to be a missionary. This call, however, did not affect the way in which I conducted my life at that time. Age sixteen to eighteen were the most fulfilled and enjoyable years a youth could have. During this time, I did quite well both academically and athletically.

I often had to drive my mother to the hospital for treatments. While waiting for her, I found quoted in a book these verses from Mark 10:29-30, "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Not having any idea of the true salvation message, I decided that I truly did have a call to be a missionary.

Trying To Earn Salvation I left my family and friends in 1956 to join the Dominican Order. I spent eight years studying what it is to be a monk, the traditions of the Church, philosophy, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and some of the Bible from a Catholic standpoint. Whatever personal faith I had was institutionalized and ritualized in the Dominican religious system. Obedience to the law, both Church and Dominican, was put before me as the means of sanctification. I often spoke to Ambrose Duffy, our Master of Students, about the law being the means of becoming holy. In addition to becoming "holy," I wanted also to be sure of eternal salvation. I memorized part of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in which he said, "...the salvation of many depends on the prayers and sacrifices of the mystical body of Christ offered for this intention." This idea of gaining salvation through suffering and prayer is also the basic message of Fatima and Lourdes, and I sought to win my own salvation as well as the salvation of others by such suffering and prayer.

In the Dominican monastery in Tallaght, Dublin, I performed many difficult feats to win souls, such as taking cold showers in the middle of winter and beating my back with a small steel chain. The Master of Students knew what I was doing, his own austere life being part of the inspiration that I had received from the Pope's words. With rigor and determination, I studied, prayed, did penance, tried to keep the Ten Commandments and the multitude of Dominican rules and traditions.

Then in 1963 at the age of twenty-five I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest and went on to finish my course of studies of Thomas Aquinas at The Angelicum University in Rome. But there I had difficulty with both the outward pomp and the inner emptiness. Over the years I had formed, from pictures and books, pictures in my mind of the Holy See and the Holy City. Could this be the same city? At the Angelicum University I was also shocked that hundreds of others who poured into our morning classes seemed quite disinterested in theology. I noticed Time and Newsweek magazines being read during classes. Those who were interested in what was being taught seemed only to be looking for either degrees or positions within the Catholic Church in their homelands.

One day I went for a walk in the Colosseum so that my feet might tread the ground where the blood of so many Christians had been poured out. I walked to the arena in the Forum. I tried to picture in my mind those men and women who knew Christ so well that they were joyfully willing to be burned at the stake or devoured alive by beasts because of His overpowering love. The joy of this experience was marred, however, for as I went back in the bus I was insulted by jeering youths shouting words meaning "scum or garbage." I sensed their motivation for such insults was not because I stood for Christ as the early Christians did but because they saw in me the Roman Catholic system. Quickly, I put this contrast out of my mind, yet what I had been taught about the present glories of Rome now seemed very irrelevant and empty.

One night soon after that, I prayed for two hours in front of the main altar in the church of San Clemente. Remembering my earlier youthful call to be a missionary and the hundredfold promise of Mark 10:29-30, I decided not to take the theological degree that had been my ambition since beginning study of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. This was a major decision, but after long prayer I was sure I had decided correctly.

The priest who was to direct my thesis did not want to accept my decision. In order to make the degree easier, he offered me a thesis written several years earlier. He said I could useit as my own if only I would do the oral defense. This turned my stomach. It was similar to what I had seen a few weeks earlier in a city park: elegant prostitutes parading themselves in their black leather boots. What he was offering was equally sinful. I held to my decision, finishing at the University at the ordinary academic level, without the degree.

On returning from Rome, I received official word that I had been assigned to do a three year course at Cork University. I prayed earnestly about my missionary call. To my surprise, I received orders in late August 1964 to go to Trinidad, West Indies, as a missionary.

On October 1, 1964, I arrived in Trinidad, and for seven years I was a successful priest, in Roman Catholic terms, doing all my duties and getting many people to come to Mass. By 1972 I had become quite involved in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. Then, at a prayer meeting on March 16th of that year, I thanked the Lord that I was such a good priest and requested that if it were His will, He humble me that I might be even better. Later that same evening I had a freak accident, splitting the back of my head and hurting my spine in many places. Without thus coming close to death, I doubt that I would ever have gotten out of my self- satisfied state. Rote, set prayer showed its emptiness as I cried out to God in my pain.

In the suffering that I went through in the weeks after the accident, I began to find some comfort in direct personal prayer. I stopped saying the Breviary (the Roman Catholic Church's official prayer for clergy) and the Rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself. This was a very slow process. I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.

When assigned to a new parish later that year, I found that I was to work side-by-side with a Dominican priest who had been a brother to me over the years. For more than two years we were to work together, fully seeking God as best we knew in the parish of Pointe-a-Pierre. We read, studied, prayed, and put into practise what we had been taught in Church teaching. We built up communities in Gasparillo, Claxton Bay, and Marabella, just to mention the main villages. In a Catholic religious sense we were very successful. Many people attended Mass. The Catechism was taught in many schools, including government schools. I continued my personal search into the Bible, but it did not much affect the work we were doing; rather it showed me how little I really knew about the Lord and His Word. It was at this time that Philippians 3:10 became the cry of my heart, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...."

About this time the Catholic Charismatic movement was growing, and we introduced it into most of our villages. Because of this movement, some Canadian Christians came to Trinidad to share with us. I learned much from their messages, especially about praying for healing. The whole impact of what they said was very experience-oriented but was truly a blessing, insofar, as it got me deeply into the Bible as an authority source. I began to compare scripture with scripture and even to quote chapter and verse! One of the texts the Canadians used was Isaiah 53:5, "...and with his stripes we are healed." Yet in studying Isaiah 53, I discovered that the Bible deals with the problem of sin by means of substitution. Christ died in my place. It was wrong for me to try to expidite or try to cooperate in paying the price of my sin.

"If by grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.." Romans 11:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

One particular sin of mine was getting annoyed with people, sometimes even angry. Although I asked forgiveness for my sins, I still did not realize that I was a sinner by the nature which we all inherit from Adam. The scriptural truth is, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10), and "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The Catholic Church, however, had taught me that the depravity of man, which is called "original sin," had been washed away by my infant baptism. I still held this belief in my head, but in my heart I knew that my depraved nature had not yet been conquered by Christ.

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection..." (Philippians 3:10) continued to be the cry of my heart. I knew that it could be only through His power that I could live the Christian life. I posted this text on the dashboard of my car and in other places. It became the plea that motivated me, and the Lord who is Faithful began to answer.

First, I discovered that God's Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned. Now I began to understand that the Bible could, in fact, be trusted. With the aid of Strong's Concordance, I began to study the Bible to see what it says about itself. I discovered that the Bible teaches clearly that it is from God and is absolute in what it says. It is true in its history, in the promises God has made, in its prophecies, in the moral commands it gives, and in how to live the Christian life. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

This discovery was made while visiting in Vancouver, B.C., and in Seattle. When I was asked to talk to the prayer group in St. Stephen's Catholic Church, I took as my subject the absolute authority of God's Word. It was the first time that I had understood such a truth or talked about it. I returned to Vancouver, B.C. and in a large parish Church, before about 400 people, I preached the same message. Bible in hand, I proclaimed that "the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and morals is the Bible, God's own Word."

Three days later, the archbishop of Vancouver, B.C., James Carney, called me to his office. I was then officially silenced and forbidden to preach in his archdiocese. I was told that my punishment would have been more severe, were it not for the letter of recommendation I had received from my own archbishop, Anthony Pantin. Soon afterwards I returned to Trinidad.

While I was still parish priest of Point-a-Pierre, Ambrose Duffy, the man who had so strictly taught me while he was Student Master, was asked to assist me. The tide had turned. After some initial difficulties, we became close friends. I shared with him what I was discovering. He listened and commented with great interest and wanted to find out what was motivating me. I saw in him a channel to my Dominican brothers and even to those in the Archbishop's house.

When he died suddenly of a heart attack, I was stricken with grief. In my mind, I had seen Ambrose as the one who could make sense out of the Church-Bible dilemma with which I so struggled. I had hoped that he would have been able to explain to me and then to my Dominican brothers the truths with which I wrestled. I preached at his funeral and my despair was very deep.

I continued to pray Philippians 3:10, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...." But to learn more about Him, I had first to learn about myself as a sinner. I saw from the Bible (I Timothy 2:5) that the role I was playing as a priestly mediator -- exactly what the Catholic Church teaches but exactly opposite to what the Bible teaches -- was wrong. I really enjoyed being looked up to by the people and, in a certain sense, being idolized by them. I rationalized my sin by saying that after all, if this is what the biggest Church in the world teaches, who am I to question it? Still, I struggled with the conflict within. I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is. But while I was willing to renounce Mary and the saints as mediators, I could not renounce the priesthood, for in that I had invested my whole life.

Mary, the saints, and the priesthood were just a small part of the huge struggle with which I was working. Who was Lord of my life, Jesus Christ in His Word or the Roman Church? This ultimate question raged inside me especially during my last six years as parish priest of Sangre Grande (1979-1985). That the Catholic Church was supreme in all matters of faith and morals had been dyed into my brain since I was a child. It looked impossible ever to change.

Rome was not only supreme but always called "Holy Mother." How could I ever go against "Holy Mother," all the more so since I had an official part in dispensing her sacraments and keeping people faithful to her? In 1981, I actually rededicated myself to serving the Roman Catholic Church while attending a parish renewal seminar in New Orleans. Yet when I returned to Trinidad and again became involved in real life problems, I began to return to the authority of God's Word. Finally the tension became like a tug-of-war inside me. Sometimes I looked to the Roman Church as being absolute, sometimes to the authority of the Bible as being final. My stomach suffered much during those years; my emotions were being torn. I ought to have known the simple truth that one cannot serve two masters. My working position was to place the absolute authority of the Word of God under the supreme authority of the Roman Church.

This contradiction was symbolized in what I did with the four statues in the Sangre Grande Church. I removed and broke the statues of St. Francis and St. Martin because the second commandment of God's Law declares in Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...." But when some of the people objected to my removal of the statues of the Sacred Heart and of Mary, I left them standing because the higher authority, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, said in its law Canon 1188: "The practise of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force."

I did not see that what I was trying to do was to make God's Word subject to man's word. My Own Fault While I had learned earlier that God's Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God's Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible.

How could this be? First of all, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God's Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest.

Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church was all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery.

One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my 22 years as a priest), "You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power." Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars, and drums were dear to me. Probably no priest on the whole island of Trinidad had as colorful robes, banners, and vestments as I had. Clearly I did not apply what was before my eyes.

In October 1985, God's grace was greater than the lie that I was trying to live. I went to Barbados to pray over the compromise that I was forcing myself to live. I felt truly trapped. The Word of God is absolute indeed. I ought to obey it alone; yet to the very same God I had vowed obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. In Barbados I read a book in which was explained the Biblical meaning of Church as "the fellowship of believers." In the New Testament there is no hint of a hierarchy; "Clergy" lording it over the "laity" is unknown. Rather, it is as the Lord Himself declared "...one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8).

Now to see and to understand the meaning of church as "fellowship" left me free to let go of the Roman Catholic Church as supreme authority and depend on Jesus Christ as Lord. It began to dawn on me that in Biblical terms, the Bishops I knew in the Catholic Church were not Biblical believers. They were for the most part pious men taken up with devotion to Mary and the Rosary and loyal to Rome, but not one had any idea of the finished work of salvation, that Christ's work is done, that salvation is personal and complete. They all preached penance for sin, human suffering, religious deeds, "the way of man" rather than the Gospel of grace. But by God's grace I saw that it was not through the Roman Church nor by any kind of works that one is saved, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I left the Roman Catholic Church when I saw that life in Jesus Christ was not possible while remaining true to Roman Catholic doctrine. In leaving Trinidad in November 1985, I only reached neighboring Barbados. Staying with an elderly couple, I prayed to the Lord for a suit and necessary money to reach Canada, for I had only tropical clothing and a few hundred dollars to my name. Both prayers were answered without making my needs known to anyone except the Lord.

From a tropical temperature of 90 degrees, I landed in snow and ice in Canada. After one month in Vancouver, I came to the United States of America. I now trusted that He would take care of my many needs, since I was beginning life anew at 48 years of age, practically penniless, without an alien resident card, without a driver's license, without a recommendation of any kind, having only the Lord and His Word.

I spent six months with a Christian couple on a farm in Washington State. I explained to my hosts that I had left the Roman Catholic Church and that I had accepted Jesus Christ and His Word in the Bible as all-sufficient. I had done this, I said, "absolutely, finally, definitively, and resolutely." Yet far from being impressed by these four adverbs, they wanted to know if there was any bitterness or hurt inside me. In prayer and in great compassion, they ministered to me, for they themselves had made the transition and knew how easily one can become embittered. Four days after I arrived in their home, by God's grace I began to see in repentance the fruit of salvation. This meant being able not only to ask the Lord's pardon for my many years of compromising but also to accept His healing where I had been so deeply hurt. Finally, at age 48, on the authority of God's Word alone, by grace alone, I accepted Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross alone. To Him alone be the glory.

Having been refurbished both physically and spiritually by this Christian couple together with their family, I was provided a wife by the Lord, Lynn, born-again in faith, lovely in manner, intelligent in mind. Together we set out for Atlanta, Georgia, where we both got jobs.

In September 1988, we left Atlanta to go as missionaries to Asia. It was a year of deep fruitfulness in the Lord that once I would never have thought was possible. Men and women came to know the authority of the Bible and the power of Christ's death and resurrection. I was amazed at how easy it is for the Lord's grace to be effective when only the Bible is used to present Jesus Christ. This contrasted with the cobwebs of church tradition that had so clouded my 21 years in missionary garments in Trinidad, 21 years without the real message.

To explain the abundant life of which Jesus spoke and which I now enjoy, no better words could be used than those of Romans 8:1-2: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." It is not just that I have been freed from the Roman Catholic system, but that I have become a new creature in Christ. It is by the grace of God, and nothing but His grace, that I have gone from dead works into new life.

Back in 1972, when some Christians had taught me about the Lord healing our bodies, how much more helpful it would have been had they explained to me on what authority our sinful nature is made right with God. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus substituted for us on the cross. I cannot express it better than Isaiah 53:5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (This means that Christ took on himself what I ought to suffer for my sins. Before the Father, I trust in Jesus as my substitute.)

That was written 750 years before the crucifixion of our Lord. A short time after the sacrifice of the cross, the Bible states in I Peter 2:24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

Because we inherited our sin nature from Adam, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. How can we stand before a Holy God -- except in Christ -- and acknowledge that He died where we ought to have died? God gives us the faith to be born again, making it possible for us to acknowledge Christ as our substitute. It was Christ who paid the price for our sins: sinless, yet He was crucified. This is the true Gospel message. Is faith enough? Yes, born-again faith is enough. That faith, born of God, will result in good works including repentance: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

In repenting, we put aside, through God's strength, our former way of life and our former sins. It does not mean that we cannot sin again, but it does mean that our position before God has changed. We are called children of God, for so indeed we are. If we do sin, it is a relationship problem with the Father which can be resolved, not a problem of losing our position as a child of God in Christ, for this position is irrevocable. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says it so wonderfully: "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The finished work of Christ Jesus on the Cross is sufficient and complete. As you trust solely in this finished work, a new life which is born of the Spirit will be yours -- you will be born again.

My present task: the good work that the Lord has prepared for me to do is as an evangelist situated in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A. What Paul said about his fellow Jews I say about my dearly loved Catholic brothers: my heart's desire and prayer to God for Catholics is that they may be saved. I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based in God's Word but in their church tradition. If you understand the devotion and agony that some of our brothers and sisters in the Philippines and South America have put into their religion, you may understand my heart's cry: "Lord, give us a compassion to understand the pain and torment of the search our brothers and sisters have made to please You. In understanding pain inside the Catholic hearts, we will have the desire to show them the Good News of Christ's finished work on the Cross."

My testimony shows how difficult it was for me as a Catholic to give up Church tradition, but when the Lord demands it in His Word, we must do it. The "form of godliness" that the Roman Catholic Church has makes it most difficult for a Catholic to see where the real problem lies. Everyone must determine by what authority we know truth. Rome claims that it is only by her own authority that truth is known. In her own words, Cannon 212, Section 1, "The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church." (Vatican Council II based, Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John-Paul II, 1983).

Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand "the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory."

I share these truths with you now so that you can know God's way of salvation. Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, "Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons...."

With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man's careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer's right standing with God is "without works" (Romans 4:6), "without the deeds of the Law" (Romans 3:28), "not of works" (Ephesians 2:9), "It is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer's response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as "a help" is to flatly deny Biblical truth,

"...if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace..." (Romans 11:6). The simple Biblical message is that "the gift of righteousness" in Christ Jesus is a gift, resting on His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

So it is as Christ Jesus Himself said, He died in place of the believer, the One for many (Mark 10:45), His life a ransom for many. As He declared, ...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). This is also what Peter proclaimed, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God..." (I Peter 3:18).

Paul's preaching is summarized at the end of II Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.." (II Cor. 5:21).

This fact, dear reader, is presented clearly to you in the Bible. Acceptance of it is now commanded by God, "...Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15).

The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of "meriting," "earning," "being good enough," simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3)

Richard M. Bennett P.O. Box 55353 Portland, OR 97238-5353 (USA) Tel. or Fax (503) 257-5995

It has nothing to do with “jargon”. You are misspeaking what the Eucharist means on a fundamental basis. Again, please go to a reputable Catholic site like EWTN.com or others to get a proper understanding. The best way to countering things you don’t agree with is to have a full understanding of these things. By stating things that aren’t true or factual, you convince nobody but yourself and the core of others who have no interest in the objective truth.

Sending me to Catholic sites is not going to "help" me or anyone else since whatever is said there will still have to be read and understood. Rather than continuing to tell me I got it wrong, why don't you tell me what exactly is wrong with what I said?

The author cited in this thread said:

I think that really is the gist of our differences.

I don’t think it is helpful or entirely accurate to talk in terms of “submitting” to Rome. The ministry of the bishops of Rome is a ministry of service. It is certainly not about domination or glorification for their own sake.

You may want to be careful to clarify what character of authority you understand Rome as having and the kind of submission required, which others define more strongly (like Boniface VIII), but the issue remains that your claim is that "No one has given you authority to interpret scripture," and thus the basis for your claim is an issue.

And thus my question "is your position that that unless one has the sanction of those who are the instruments and stewards of Scripture and Divine revelation, having historical descent, then they have no authority?

You allow for a derived degree of authority among the EOs, but this is by Rome's sanction, thus i see no difference.

Anyone who has received genuine baptism has received spiritual gifts and therefore some measure of authority and graces to resist the evil one. Anyone who is a parent or who has been entrusted by a parent with the care of a child has a measure of authority, including authority to give religious instruction to the best of one’s ability and consistent with natural law. Indeed, any of us if mature and of sound mind has a certain authority over himself and thus is a moral agent accountable for his actions. But authority to teach the Christian faith, including the interpretation of Scripture, is entrusted to the apostles and their successors, and those ordained or otherwise sent by them. That authority is not shared by, for example, protestants or Jews. This does not mean protests and Jews can’t or shouldn’t read Scripture profitably; it does mean they are liable to make many errors in doing so and therefore are of limited reliability.

The authority of the EOs does not derive from Rome’s sanction but by virtue of their membership in true local churches descending from apostolic foundation, which have maintained continuity of sacraments and ordained hierarchy. They do not require authentication from Rome to be “real”, but their refusal to recognize the petrine ministry impedes their complete communion with those who do.

Those aren’t the precise words I would have used, but I as I understand them, they convey the substance of what I mean.

Indeed they do, as you have made clear. According to your ecclesiology, rejection of those who are the instruments and stewards of Scripture and Divine revelation, and have historical descent means one has no authority to interpret Scripture and is to be rejected.

Thus you also have nuked the church.

Seeing as the church began in dissent from those who were the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, and those who sat in the seat of Moses (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)

And who followed a itinerant Preacher, who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Under the Roman model souls would be told to reject this itinerant Preacher as a renegade, as in response to their demand, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?," He invoked the baptism of a holy man in the desert eating insects, who also did not have the sanction of the magisterium.

But like Rome, they presumed a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written., (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)

But as Rome has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And wherein is your full assurance.

RCs argue that the church came before the Bible, meaning the entire Bible, but which does not establish an assuredly infallible church as supreme over any Scripture, which preceded it, any more than it did for Israel, which came before any Scripture was written (first by Moses).

And which writings, like true men of God, were progressively established as being of God due to their Divine qualities and attestation in conformity to what was prior established as from God.

And which the positional powers that be were to recognize and confirm, but as Scripture testifies, often they did not, but which did not change who or what they were, while judging the error of those who sat in power. Thus the church began in dissent and often by such faith is preserved.

The issue is that both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are inferior to it, neither being wholly inspired of God in all such say, and as written, Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And thus it was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church was established as being of God, and further complementary and confirmatory writings were established as being of God.

I have lot of packing etc. to do as we must move (someplace!), so i cannot get to the rest of your post till later.

I realized that you were attempting to construct a case, but what you have just presented is a confused jumble.

Your premise that the Church began as a dissent movement is of course fatally flawed.

The “Roman model” urges us to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as you style the Lord. His authority is his own, which he receives and shares with the Father.

Saying that the Church is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation is not to declare her supreme over it. So let’s discard that straw man right away.

You need to read more church history. Real history, including the fathers. Not quack history.

Best wishes with your move. I too expect to be very busy the next couple of days.

From the beginning, first the Apostles practiced the Eucharist and knew first hand of the Real Presence, and from the Apostles, so did the first worshipers of Jesus Christ. Now, you are correct that explaining The Transubstantiation developed intellectually over time with the Early Fathers, but the practice and understanding that, “...this is My Body,” was always present from the beginning.

I thought I would come back and address this part of your reply. I'm glad that you acknowledge the Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist (AKA, the Lord's Supper Remembrance) did, in fact, develop over time as this proves my point that what Catholicism teaches now is not what had "always and everywhere" been believed. Many of the writings of some early church fathers cited that presume to "prove" the one and the same doctrine, omit some very important points. For example, they were not written in English, so what we may read today was what someone translated over time and many times a narrative that gets "read back into" writings are meanings that were not intended when they were first written. Also, much of the writings on the "real presence" from those first centuries actually addressed the Gnostic heresies that said Jesus did not HAVE a real body on this earth. Therefore, they should be read in that context and not what folks today THINK they meant. Finally, whatever these early believers thought they relied upon the sacred Scriptures they received from the Apostles to understand the "rule of faith" of Christianity as well as the direct teachings of the Apostles and their disciples that made up the completed New Testament of Scripture.

This article examines the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma:

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence

I realized that you were attempting to construct a case, but what you have just presented is a confused jumble. Your premise that the Church began as a dissent movement is of course fatally flawed. The “Roman model” urges us to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as you style the Lord. His authority is his own, which he receives and shares with the Father.

It is not confused at all; it is reality. The church obviously did indeed begin in dissent from the Jewish magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, since they rejected both Christ and His apostles.

And rather than the Roman model urging you to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as the Jewish magisterium saw Him, the Roman model requires us to submit to the magisterium, and since they rejected Him and His claim to authority then the church has no validity. Christ had authority as one with the Father, but under the Roman model such a claimant must have the sanction of those who inherited the magisterial chair, and as they rejected Christ, so also the church was rendered invalid according to them.

The Jews, like Rome, presumed no one could have valid spiritual authority if they rejected him, and thus,

"And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. " (Mark 11:27-30)

In response to this critical question of authority, the Lord invoked another man whom they rejected, as above all authority is established upon Scriptural substantiation, even if rejected by such as sat in Moses's seat.

Saying that the Church is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation is not to declare her supreme over it. So let’s discard that straw man right away.

It is no straw man by any means. You cannot claim to be the one one who can infallibly define what Scripture consists of (canon) and what it means, so that the only interpretation that has authority for the RC is one that Rome teaches, and not be effectively claiming authority over it.

Likewise it claims supreme authority over history and tradition, as they can authoritatively mean only what she affirms, thus a s Manning boldly declared,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228

You need to read more church history. Real history, including the fathers. Not quack history.

Actually, Rome judges the fathers more than they judge her, while the more i read the more evidence there is against them or Rome being worthy to be determinative of doctrine.

Best wishes with your move. I too expect to be very busy the next couple of days.

Thanks. 20 years in one place means much more than a few days! But its too late to do much now.

FRiend, I didn’t mean to offend. All I know of Dr. Paisley’s life comes from snippets gleaned from a handful of sermons I have listened to on sermonaudio.com. The only thing I knew of Dr. Paisley before I ever heard him preach was that he was the Presbyterian who famously shouted down John Paul II years ago. In the sermons I have heard he boldly proclaimed Bible doctrine; he boldly declared the gospel; he boldly declared the truth about the Jesus Christ found in the Bible (as opposed to a Jesus created by men). I don’t know if he actually spewed venom or if the bold truths of his messages stepped on your toes. I don’t know if what you believe of him is the truth or if it’s propaganda from those who despise his message.

I suggest you forget the messenger and pay attention to his message in the sermon I linked. If you can’t get past Dr. Paisley, listen to the other sermon I linked with an open heart. Go to bereanbeacon.org and take advantage of the many resources former Irish priest Richard Bennett offers for free. He has a thorough knowledge of Roman Catholicism and a real love for Roman Catholic people, wanting them to know the truth. Many of Richard’s video include other former Catholics.

God bless!

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57)

The distinction you are missing is that the Real Presence was given to us and taught us by Jesus Christ Himself. The Catholic Church, through the Apostles, a direct line from Christ, has maintained constant Communion with Jesus Christ’s instruction.

The Church took Christ’s words literally as he meant them. Please don’t confuse Jesus’ instruction to us and the Church’s constant belief in His instruction, with the complex and fully developed explanation of that belief. The Apostles and the early Christians and His Church have always followed this instruction and maintained that belief.

This was no metaphor, because some of the first believers were astounded, as so many are today. Did Jesus, in His Mercy say, “no come back friends, this is a mere saying of words?” NO. He let them go and reiterated...

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you” (John 6:53).

“My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

I repeat you didn’t grow up on his turf and have no idea what you’re talking about. You weren’t around when the words he sprouted from his Church pulpit instigated mayhem and chaos ending in maiming, destruction, and death. The fanatical mullahs sprout the koran to instigate mayhem, chaos, death and destruction. Where’s the difference? King Billy was Paisley’s god - not Jesus Christ! In his heyday he had the leaders in every Orange Lodge leaders in N Ireland in an uproar which they then passed to the masses and all took onto the streets w/ a extra-special treat on the 12th July which was whenn all Catholics hid in their homes.

Yes, Paisley heckled Pope John Paul II (RIP), in a government building where he was invited to speak to parliment. Paisley called him the antichrist (one sees these obscenities on some “christian” - “islamic” websites). And the mullahs called Bush the antichrist and the US “Big satan?. Barbarism is how these people make their living.

Was Paisley a good example for Christians or was Pope John Paul II a good example for Christians in the “shout down” you mentioned?

Here’s the tape where one is displaying a lack of civility while the other depicts a quiet dignity...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8187000/8187541.stm

You didn’t offend because you obviously have a lack of knowledge as to the individual which I can understand. Paisley is a very old man now (maybe he died though I hadn’t heard that...know he retired from Stormont a few years ago) and has mellowed a lot for different reasons. One of them being perhaps coming to the realization that his self-interpretation of the Holy Bible was incorrect. Anyway he has his fine house and got to spend a wonderful time at Stormont in the Democratic Unionist Party making even more money. The rowdy’s always seem to get rewarded.

On a positive note both Ian Paisley and the Mullahs are strong pro-lifers and anti-sodomy...

Thank you for the Richard Bennett referral (I used to know a Richard Bennett over there). I’m currently reading a book by Scott Hahn (a convert to Catholicism) called Rome Sweet Home which I highly reccommend.

God bless.

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.