The hard saying in Jn 6,

[thessalonian]

If anybody wants to know the history of the mass then all they have to do is read Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylon's" - Babylonian from the outset.

Many a saint (including women and children) have been roasted alive for not adhering to this blasphmeous doctrine.

God bless

You could also start by reading Ex 12, the story of the mana in the desert, Matt 26, 1 Cor 10,11, and the whole book of revelations. Then you might go to Ignatius of Antioch who was a late first, early second century writer. To get AV's view you would have to wait around until around 1600. No, it's not blasphemous at all. Your rhetoric is duly noted. Keep distorting AV.

Blessings my friend.

 

[JM]

and for history's sake:

The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

 

[AVBunyan]

To get AV's view you would have to wait around until around 1600. No, it's not blasphemous at all. Your rhetoric is duly noted. Keep distorting AV.

Keep distoring? :o - are you saying Hislop distorts the truth? :o - I'd like to see you or your best weapons of the church refute Hislop's work. It won't happen - Hislop was not infallible but he nailed the origins of Rome.

Thess - Hislop's historical documentation has never been refuted and never will be. If Rome thinks Hislop distorted truth then Rome could have taken him to court. His evidence stands - The Romish system along with mass was built upon Bablyonian Mystery religion and then mixing it with Christianity. There is not interpretation here - Hislop's research is unmatched and cannot be disputed. Facts are facts regardless. All Rome can do is deny them - Rome cannot disprove his research.

By the way Thess - where does it say the "oldest" references have to be the most accurate? Ignatius was a sinner and fallible like the rest of us - including my heroes of the faith.

God bless 8-)

 

[AVBunyan]

and for history's sake:
The Canons of the Council of Orange

Nice work JM - Nothing like taking their own writings and you just scratched the surface - you just took 529 AD! :-?

You can some up the writings by one word - WORKS!

Very sad - people blindly trusting a system of things to do.

God bless 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

To get AV's view you would have to wait around until around 1600. No, it's not blasphemous at all. Your rhetoric is duly noted. Keep distorting AV.

Keep distoring? :o - are you saying Hislop distorts the truth? :o - I'd like to see you or your best weapons of the church refute Hislop's work. It won't happen - Hislop was not infallible but he nailed the origins of Rome.

Thess - Hislop's historical documentation has never been refuted and never will be. If Rome thinks Hislop distorted truth then Rome could have taken him to court. His evidence stands - The Romish system along with mass was built upon Bablyonian Mystery religion and then mixing it with Christianity. There is not interpretation here - Hislop's research is unmatched and cannot be disputed. Facts are facts regardless. All Rome can do is deny them - Rome cannot disprove his research.

By the way Thess - where does it say the "oldest" references have to be the most accurate? Ignatius was a sinner and fallible like the rest of us - including my heroes of the faith.

God bless 8-)

AV, I don't really care what kind of theory hislop came up with and if you will notice the Catholic Church says little about protestantism in its documents and teachings. I rarely hear about Protestantism at Mass. It is easily refuted and they don't speak much about it. Why? Because we are to give reason for the hope that is within. They don't spend alot of time throwing sticks and stones at the dogs barking along the way. I like how you go after my comments about Ignatius, ignoring the rest. Hmmmm. It seems that in fact you have steered away from the Bible in this conversation and gone for history. Typical of a Protestant who can't find the word symbol anywhere and cant make the word rememberence in to the word symbol. Nor can he say that Jesus speaking of eating his flesh quite emphatically in John 6 four times, and allowing people to leave over it does not have more meaning than just a symbol. You haven't a clue what I meant when I said the whole book of revelations is about the Mass either do you. :o But you ignore all of this and go off on some tangent about Babylonian Mystery religions as if it is out of the word of God. Sad Av. Very sad. Perhaps you should use these methods to prove the Old Testament false for us as well. Jews, even Jewish leaders having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting, sacrificing children, having origies and killing their friend for his wife. Must have been a false religion. Maybe a Mesopotamian Mystery religion of some sort. No AV, it's just fallen man. You can point out sins of Catholics. I don't really care. I don't care about hislop either. You know I did a public debate at a local university with a Protestant Pastor. I spent my first session in the Bible. He maybe gave 5 minutes at the most to the Bible, not refuting anything I really said, except with handwaving. Then he went for history. You guys are supposed to be sola scriptura. Sad.

 

[thessalonian]

and for history's sake:
The Canons of the Council of Orange

Nice work JM - Nothing like taking their own writings and you just scratched the surface - you just took 529 AD! :-?

You can some up the writings by one word - WORKS!

Very sad - people blindly trusting a system of things to do.

God bless 8-)

AV,

Which of those canons are you objecting to. What I see in them is that we are saved by God's grace alone. You seem to believe your act of faith saves you. But that act of faith and any good that we do is brought about by the grace of God. The canons quite clearly say it is God's grace working in us and through us, bringing us to faith and keeping us in faith that saves us. I know you write Matt 25 out of the Bible with your dispensationist thinking. You then ignore Roms 2:4-8 and obvuscate James 2 among the many other passages I could present to you. This you must of course do to prop up your views of salvation by faith alone. There is only one place that faith alone is spoken of. James 2:24 and it won't help you much. Look it up. Faith without works is dead dude. Catholic salvation is "faith working in love" not works. Catholicisim is far from just a system of things to do. You speak in ignorance. Keep on distorting bro.

 

[thessalonian]

I see Hislops work on the web. I'll try have a look at some of it. Quick glance tells me it is nonsense "Worship of relics?".

 

[AVBunyan]

1. AV, I don't really care what kind of theory hislop came up

2. I rarely hear about Protestantism at Mass. It is easily refuted and they don't speak much about it.

3. They don't spend alot of time throwing sticks and stones at the dogs barking along the way.

4. I like how you go after my comments about Ignatius, ignoring the rest. Hmmmm.

5. It seems that in fact you have steered away from the Bible in this conversation and gone for history.

6. You haven't a clue what I meant when I said the whole book of revelations is about the Mass either do you.

7. But you ignore all of this and go off on some tangent about Babylonian Mystery religions as if it is out of the word of God.

8. Jews, even Jewish leaders having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting, sacrificing children, having origies and killing their friend for his wife.

9. Must have been a false religion..

10. I don't care about hislop either.

11. You know I did a public debate at a local university with a Protestant Pastor. I spent my first session in the Bible. He maybe gave 5 minutes at the most to the Bible, not refuting anything I really said, except with handwaving. Then he went for history.

12. You guys are supposed to be sola scriptura. Sad.

1. You call it theory – it has been recognized as fact and has yet to be refuted. You call it theory because it appears you haven’t researched it. Typical – ignore and call it Protestant theory.

2. So….

3. Who is throwing sticks – I’m throwing historically proven and documented facts.

4. You brought up Ignatius so I used him.

5. You’ve rejected my Bible because your church disagrees with it so I brought up documented history, which even lost men can agree on and cannot refute. It appears you cannot or will not except historical evidence when it goes against Rome. Of course you cannot go against Rome – your salvation depends on it!

6. You are right – except that there will be cannibalism and human sacrifice during that time as a result of the antichrist and beast – the mass and cannibalism – the same thing I guess.

7. I can find Babylon religion all through the OT along with baal worship, Christmas trees, ‘fathers†(Judges), women deity worship, etc.

8. And they were apostate unbelievers.

9. And by their traditions they made the word of God none affect – they corrupted a true religion and mixed it with a false religion and came up with their own religion to suppress the masses – sound familiar?

10. I can understand why – his research destroys Romish practices.

11. You got a hold of a weak pastor –

12. We are scripture only as the final authority - but nothing wrong with using true history when it doesn’t violate scripture.

I'm a lot of fun, huh Thess :wink:

Later 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

1. You call it theory – it has been recognized as fact and has yet to be refuted. You call it theory because it appears you haven’t researched it. Typical – ignore and call it Protestant theory.

by who? Perhaps you should insert it in to your bible.s.

Didn't I say I would look in to it as I have time? Yes, I believe if you look one post up I did.

3. Who is throwing sticks – I’m throwing historically proven and documented facts.

Facts by who?

4. You brought up Ignatius so I used him.

Quite quickly I might add.

5. You’ve rejected my Bible because your church disagrees with it so I brought up documented history, which even lost men can agree on and cannot refute. It appears you cannot or will not except historical evidence when it goes against Rome. Of course you cannot go against Rome – your salvation depends on it!

No, we disagree with your interpretation of it.

6. You are right – except that there will be cannibalism and human sacrifice during that time as a result of the antichrist and beast – the mass and cannibalism – the same thing I guess.

That's interesting. How can the mass be canabalism if it isn't really what we claim it is? In making this claim you are acknowledging what we teach. It is impossible to canablize bread unless of course perhaps you are a grain of wheat. :

7. I can find Babylon religion all through the OT along with baal worship, Christmas trees, ‘fathers†(Judges), women deity worship, etc.

Weren't the Judges given such authority by God through moses. I guess that makes the Jews babylon mystery religion. Christmass trees in the Bible? I've seen this one before somewhere. It's quite silly as I recall. But I guess you can twist and distort anything to fit your purposes. If we worshipped women deities you might have a point. I don't know of any.

8. And they were apostate unbelievers.

Always has been. What does that prove about Mystery Religions.

9. And by their traditions they made the word of God none affect – they corrupted a true religion and mixed it with a false religion and came up with their own religion to suppress the masses – sound familiar?

No, that's what I call your dispensationalism when you say Matt 25 has nothing to do with today. That would be nullifying it by the tradition of dispensationalism.

10. I can understand why – his research destroys Romish practices.

Yes, prejudice does color the thinking.

11. You got a hold of a weak pastor –

Be convicted. You did the same thing he did. I've been discussing scritpure and you went off on a tangent about Hislop's work.

12. We are scripture only as the final authority - but nothing wrong with using true history when it doesn’t violate scripture.

Oh, I agree of course. Problem is that your view of both is severely distorted.

I'm a lot of fun, huh Thess :wink:

Your good for a laugh. :wink: :

 

[AVBunyan]

Thess - you and I are like oil and water - we don't mix.

The issue here is that you don't think Hislop is accurate or he just makes it up as he goes along, etc.

Now I do not expect you to do this but forget about his online work - find the hardback book and check out his references and foot notes and see if he is just "whistling dixie". I'm williing to bet you will not seek to find out - your religion would come apart at the seams.

No writer could come up with that many detailed historical and documented footnotes and references that one could easily check out if he were just "blowing hot air". :o :o :o

If his references and footnotes were false then his book would have been refuted back in the 1800's when he publsihed it. Rome's answer is to just ignore it for their scholars can't and haven't discredited it.

If Hislop is wrong and you are right then you've lost nothing - if Hislop is right and you are wrong then you are in a big mess Thess. :o

The Bible is enough to descrdit your religion but add historical documentation to it and the game is over in the first inning. 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

Av,

Whats wrong with the online version. Let's take a snippet from it.

"Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the "Heart," when it became an emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, once a year celebrate their festival of "burning lamps," that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun."

You don't know how ridiculous this is to a Catholic. Egyptians used wax candles as a part of pagan worship. Catholics use wax candles as a part of their worship. Therefore Catholicism originates from paganism. :roll: AV, every heard of "the light of the world". Candles represent Christ, the light of the world. The true light of the world. Where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not use wax candles"? It doesn't bother me a bit that pagans used them any more than it does that pagans sacrificed animals to God and the Jews sacrifice animals to the one true God. Christ was an animal sacrifice as well, represented by the Jewish sacrifices. So does that make Christianity pagan, because you can tie it to animal sacrifice by pagans in the same handwavy manner that hislop does. :o Do I doudt Hislop's information about Egyptians using Candles? No. Can I refute it? Why should I want to? Who cares if pagans used wax candles. It is his connecting it to Catholicism in a ridiculous handwaving sort of way that hits my funny bone, except for the fact that people like you believe such nonsense. Pagans used bread so does that mean that Christian Lord's Supper practices (let's forget about the Eucharist discussion for just a moment) are pagan as well. It's stupid logic AV. But it appeals to those who want to believe something.

AV, there are tons of theories about Catholicism and how it came about among protestantism. There must be or they cannot justify their existance. Your theory that this one is all but infallibly correct rufutes them all of course and we are left with this one for you. Or are you really sure that you are right? No, in truth you are not. Not if you did some real soul searching. This theory of Hislop's sounds good to you and so does the mormon theories about Joseph smith and indians being descendants of the Jews who came accross the ocean on a boat 600 years before Christ. They use the same handwavy way of "proving" it that Hislop does. Very sad.

We are definitely like oil and water. The question is which is which.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

This is a very sad work AV. Let's look at this example:

On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:

1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."

2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." (DR. MAITLAND'S Church in the Catacombs) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working,--that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to 'marry.'" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. At its commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system.



Hmmm. This of course betrays ignorance of Catholicism. There are married preists in the Catholic Church today. The Eastern and Marionite rites have many married priests. There are also married latin rite priests. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It is not a problem at all that there were married preists back then. And your author ignores much evidence of early celibacy of his time. His denial that there was celibacy denies Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 where it is said that "to some this has been given for the kingdom". So what we have here is evidence from the catacombs that there was a married priest. Oddly enough you guys deny that there was a Christian priesthood back then. But the logical leap your author makes in deciding that there was no celibacy practiced or that this proves anything about the catholic church today is but foolishness to a Catholic. Is his quote irrefutable? No doudt. I have no doudt there were married priests back then JUST AS THERE IS TODAY. He has proven NOTHING! The council of Trulo indicates that there was a long standing practice of celibacy established in the church by the 6th century. I can see why Rome has not wasted it's time refuting this silly book. I'll keep going. Still looking for a smoking gun. By the way did you know there is stong evidence from the Catacombs that these people prayed to Peter and Paul and that they believed in the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist? Fancy that.

 

[AVBunyan]

Av, Whats wrong with the online version. Let's take a snippet from it.Blessings

Nothing wrong with the online text - but I do not think it lists all the footnotes and references to show one where he got his information from.

Again, Thess - you can budge and will not budge - I understand this for your salvation rests upon the authority of an institution. Once you question their authority or validityy you have to go all the way and you will not go that far.

I do not rest all I know and believe about Rome on Hislop - the scriptures are sufficient. Throw in history along with the scriptures and Rome sinks even more - but again - you cannot and will not except this - I feel for you - I really do. : : :

Of course I'm sure you feel the same way about me.

God bless you my friend.

 

[thessalonian]

Av, Whats wrong with the online version. Let's take a snippet from it.Blessings

Nothing wrong with the online text - but I do not think it lists all the footnotes and references to show one where he got his information from.

Again, Thess - you can budge and will not budge - I understand this for your salvation rests upon the authority of an institution. Once you question their authority or validityy you have to go all the way and you will not go that far.

I do not rest all I know and believe about Rome on Hislop - the scriptures are sufficient. Throw in history along with the scriptures and Rome sinks even more - but again - you cannot and will not except this - I feel for you - I really do. : : :

Of course I'm sure you feel the same way about me.

God bless you my friend.

I know you sincerely feel for me AV. God bless you man. I wouldn't expect anything less if you are sincere and I believe you are. I am sincere as well. But one of us is clearly sincerely wrong. This is what I find puzzling. Would you question a nuclear physicist if he told you you were wrong about some part of nuclear physics? Would you boldly state that a Doctor in Chemistry was wrong concerning some chemical reaction? If you would, you would have done a great amount of study from other chemists and physicists before you would stick your neck out wouldn't you. You would consult experts in the subject. Would you go off and read astrologers who had some ideas about physics but no degrees? Or high school chemists? I doudt it. Yet when you come on this board you consult anti-catholic sources first and foremost and tell me I am wrong (not that I am comparing myself to a doctorate, or PHD but I do know the teachings of the Catholic Church) concerning the Catholic faith. Then you post people's arguements who have a similarly distorted view of the teachings of my church. Your stuff from Hislop clearly distorts the significance of a celibate preisthood with regard to some quotes he has found. He makes the logical leap that because some preist were married back in the first couple centuries that all priests were married. This he puts against the distorted thinking that all Catholic priests today are celibate. Something that is categorically false. His conclusions cannot be proven on this one item alone and glancing through his book I see numberous such other problems. Yet you hold him as the nearly infallible word on where Catholicism came from. I think it is quite clear who will not budge. I have studied history with regard to the RCC and all I see is similar distortions and handwaving and rewriting of history by Protestants like you. 50 different theories on where Catholicism came from. But if you go to the post apostolic writers of the early Church, and see how they understood scripture and then see the Catholic Church today it fits like a glove. Scripture fits like a glove with Catholicism as well except in the neurons in your mind that have a notion of what scripture is based on your own understandings and those fed to you. This is not anything unique. Catholics are fed an understanding as well. We acknowledge it. You won't because of the implications it holds for you. You will ignore the countless contradictions between protestants just like you who cry out Scripture alone! yet have their own little individual traditions that they preach as the gospel truth. They are all over this board. "trust not in your own understanding" is the key biblical verse but it goes right over their and your heads. You guys are so far apart on what you believe. But the scriptures say "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" and "those who worship me, shall worship in spirit and in truth". No AV, I appreciate your concern but save it for someone else. I'll be praying for ya. Blessings friend.

 

[AVBunyan]

I have studied history with regard to the RCC and all I see is similar distortions and handwaving and rewriting of history by Protestants like you.

The above response is the typical Catholic response - You just accuse us of distorting history and scripture andn then walk away - as if that will make us go away. The Dark Age was called the Dark Age because the common folk were kept in darkness by Rome.
Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

I'll give ya' credit Thess - at least you read some of Hislop - though it appears you hadn't had the chance to check out his volume of references and footnotes - he didn't produce those out of thin air you know. :-?

I guess you put Foxes' Book of Martyrs in the same boat as Hislop, huh? Just protestant lies and distortions, huh? :o

God bless 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

I have studied history with regard to the RCC and all I see is similar distortions and handwaving and rewriting of history by Protestants like you.

The above response is the typical Catholic response - You just accuse us of distorting history and scripture andn then walk away

Haven't walked away yet my friend. Let's not forget I accused you of distorting Catholicism as well. :-D In fact let's delve in to that a little more fully. Above you quoted some Protestant author, I think it was "The way of Life" or something. At least I think it was protestant. It was a little confusing by your post. He spoke of how Catholicism resacrifices christ over and over in the Mass. Can you be honest enough to admit that this is a protestant rendering of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church does not and never has taught this? Search through 2000 years of Catholic writings, Clement, Irenaus,Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict, Aquinas, Avillia, Bellermaine, Belloc, Neuman, De Monfort, etc. etc. 20 councils and many other synods. Papal Encyclicals, Bulls, and pastoral letters, and find me in ONE the phrase or phrases "the mass is a resacrifice of Christ", "Christ is sacrificed over and over", "Christ is sacrificed again and again" or any form thereof that you can think of. Find me one official or even semi official place where such a statement is made. Catholicism is not and never has been hidden. We are prolific writers. JP II wrote over 30,000 pages on marriage alone. Augustine is said to have written so much that if you said you read him all you are a liar. Prove that you are not distorting this one point that you have made and accepted as your own by posting it. I can show you others such as the handwaving your Hislop does about priests forgiving or not forgiving on a whim. I've never experienced that in 40 years of going to confession. NOT ONCE! If I did I would simply not go back to that priest. We are not told which priest we must confess our sins to. So once again ignorance allows protestants to say anything they want about Catholicism. Other protestants lap it up as the gospel truth. You went just short of saying that Hislop's work was infallible. It is riddled with errors based on prejudice and biggotry. Throw me a bone and just acknowledge that the phrase "Christ is resacrificed over and over in the Mass" is a protestant one. Take your time in researching it but do be honest in the end. Until you show me otherwise I see this phrase about the Catholic Mass a that same old loaf of fruitcake that gets passed around from year to year at Christimasstime. :-? A 16th century protestant distortion of Catholicism that is passed on as a tradition by them from one generation to the next.

- as if that will make us go away. The Dark Age was called the Dark Age because the common folk were kept in darkness by Rome.
Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Ya, I guess that is why the Mass is primarily out of the Bible. That is why in a 7 year period the whole Bible is read to the faithful at Mass. To keep them in darkness. That is why Catholicism has started more schools than any other organization or instituion on earth and it started in the Middle ages. The Catholic Church started the Univerisity Systems to keep mankind in igorance AV. It makes sense. You can blame the ignornace of man on the Catholic Church if you like, ignoring their efforts to educate an ignorant population that was more concerned with how to put food on the table in times that were much more difficult than today, rather than learning to read, if you like. You look back on history with the eyes of prejudice colored by todays standards of education and blame it on the Church. Books weren't even readily available AV. Was that the Catholic Churches fault also. Put history in context AV. Rather than forcing a context.

I'll give ya' credit Thess - at least you read some of Hislop - though it appears you hadn't had the chance to check out his volume of references and footnotes - he didn't produce those out of thin air you know. :-?

I acknowledge that much of his work is based on historical data. It would be nice to have his work but I'm not going to spen any money on it. Sorry. I try not to line the pockets of anti-catholics (those who sell this work) any more than I have to. I am sure he refs it all well. The problem is not this data but the tinted glasses through which he and you view it. He spins Catholicism to his liking and then interprets history accordingly. The problem is that Protestantism totally focuses on the bad that went on in Catholicism, ignoring the great good and the far more volumous writings of the great saints the Church has produced who lived holy and devout lives, following Christ to the best of their ability by the grace he gave them. Their lives give honor and glory to him. But it is ignored by Protestants because they like the dirt on Catholicism. Yes, we Cathoics are sinners and so you can in fact find sin in the Catholic Church. It is a hospital for sinners as much as it is a hotel for saints. I hate to break this to you but your denominations are as well.

I guess you put Foxes' Book of Martyrs in the same boat as Hislop, huh? Just protestant lies and distortions, huh? :o

I happen to have that one and have read much of it. Once again it is a mixture of truth and error. There were atrocities committed by Catholics, No doudt. But Foxe exaggerates the depth and breadth of them. I also have another Protestant book called "Salvation at Stake" that is a much better account of what happened on both sides. It does not pull any punches but tries to be unbiased.

By the way I have and have read much of Lorainne Boetner's "Roman Catholicism" as well. Talk about distortions. But once again for you it will be the Catholic that is wrong and not the book about Catholicism written by the Protestant. :roll:

Blessings

 

[D46]

I started to tear into this but decided it was too big of a waste of time. However...

Ya, I guess that is why the Mass is primarily out of the Bible. That is why in a 7 year period the whole Bible is read to the faithful at Mass. To keep them in darkness.

A true statement at last. Indeed it should be out of the bible as it's of the devil. What is read to them is no doubt from a corrupt Alexandrian bible and that's enough to keep them in the dark with it's lies and deceit-leaving out whole verses, words and re-worded verses. Not that many years ago Catholics I knew weren't allowed to read the bible in English much less Latin. Your bible was in Latin remember? How could anyone on average, read Latin much less understand it when anyone spoke it. You people had the bible on your list of forbidden books along with other books that were deemed forbidden. Who did they think they were? God perhaps? Oh, yes...that is correct in that the pope was God according to many. He even thought himself as being God...according to one of your popes.

That is why Catholicism has started more schools than any other organization or instituion on earth and it started in the Middle ages. The Catholic Church started the Univerisity Systems to keep mankind in igorance AV. It makes sense.

Sure they have...Jesuit schools run by trained Jesuits to decieve those simpletons that went to their Universities and theological schools. Train them up in the way they should go, I suppose. Another pope said the public schools should be banned. Wonder why? I guess not enought about Mary, purgatory, bead counting and worshipping relics was taught there.You can't corrupt someone if they're not told they're suppose to bow when the monstrance is paraded down the street, I suppose. You do believe the eurcharist is to be adored don't you? After all, that's doctrine. Why, there's people who have actually seen it bleed!! Mercy me. I still haven't heard that one explained. Now who would have the power to make blood come from a cracker? Give you one guess. No doubt the same one that can be "transformed into an angel of light."

The discussion of Universal Reconcilation was banned from this forum because of it's false doctrine and taking scripture out of context. It is not of the Christian doctrine and belief. Neither is Roman Catholicism. It is just as much a cult, and the discussion of it as being the only church whereby anyone can get into heaven is false doctrine. Catholicism is of the devil and the promoting of it as the only religion whereby anyone can be saved (one of the many doctrines not of the bible) should be banned from any forum that considers itself Christian. I don't know how anyone could put a lot of confidence in a man who runs around in a "frock" anyway.

 

[thessalonian]

Nice piece of distortion and biggotry D46. Your in true form today. Tell me, which Bible was on the list of forbidden books? There was a corrupt albegesian version to my knowledge that was burned because it justified sex outside of marriage and had other corruptions. Have you been reading Boetner's book again? Must be that list in 1246 he was talking about. Problem is that there was no list of forbidden books until the 1500's and the Bible was not on it.

Not that many years ago Catholics I knew weren't allowed to read the bible in English much less Latin. Your bible was in Latin remember?

Perhaps those people you know who were forbidden from reading the Bible should have opened up the cover of the Jerusalem Bible and read what it says. It gives an indulgence for 15 minutes of Bible reading a day. This was granted by Pope Pius XII. That should cover most people you knew. I can show you many other quotes by Popes encouraging Bible reading if you like. As for Latin. The fact of the matter is that most people could not read. Those who could read latin so it was quite natural that Bibles were in Latin but they were in other languages also. There were 14 gernman translations alone before Martin Luther did his. Many in French and Swiss, etc. You KJV people get so hung up on the English language. It was a rather minor language until England took over most of the world. The Catholic Church was not against translations, just against some translators. Furthermore the Douay Rheims Bible came out about the same time as the KJV so your way overblowing the point. Once again you've shown how history can be twisted by those who hate the Catholic Church and wish to place all the worlds ills on it's back. Thanks bud. :-D

 

[AVBunyan]

What is read to them is no doubt from a corrupt Alexandrian bible and that's enough to keep them in the dark with it's lies and deceit-leaving out whole verses, words and re-worded verses.

Sure they have...Jesuit schools run by trained Jesuits to decieve those simpletons that went to their Universities and theological schools. Train them up in the way they should go, I suppose.

No doubt the same one that can be "transformed into an angel of light."

The discussion of Universal Reconcilation was banned from this forum because of it's false doctrine and taking scripture out of context. It is not of the Christian doctrine and belief. Neither is Roman Catholicism.

Amen - D46 - rough but true -

 

[JM]

What is read to them is no doubt from a corrupt Alexandrian bible and that's enough to keep them in the dark with it's lies and deceit-leaving out whole verses, words and re-worded verses.

Sure they have...Jesuit schools run by trained Jesuits to decieve those simpletons that went to their Universities and theological schools. Train them up in the way they should go, I suppose.

No doubt the same one that can be "transformed into an angel of light."

The discussion of Universal Reconcilation was banned from this forum because of it's false doctrine and taking scripture out of context. It is not of the Christian doctrine and belief. Neither is Roman Catholicism.

Amen - D46 - rough but true -

Yup. :-D