Reformation Day Ironies, 500th Anniversary Edition

On October 31, 1517, Brother Martin Luther allegedly nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. This probably never actually happened, (it’s a later Protestant legend), but it’s why  some Protestants celebrate October 31st as “Reformation Day.” From 2011-14, I did a series of annual posts recounting “Reformation Day” ironies (2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014), looking at some of the incoherence at how the Reformation is celebrated. For example, from the very first list:

The Reformation Wall in Geneva, Switzerland is an enormous stone monument with engraved figures of the Calvinist Reformers. Four figures: Calvin, Beza, Farel, and Knox, tower over their mortal counterparts, and form the centerpiece of the wall.

And let’s be honest here.  Calvin (and the others) are being venerated in this way for the religious contributions.  If this were, say, the Apostles, or St. Augustine, instead of Calvin, Calvinists would be having a fit.

But perhaps it’s okay to have Calvin engravings, because modern Calvinists aren’t prone to superstition, and aren’t about to start worshiping a Calvin pumpkin or statue.  That’s a fair point.  Except that it’s an argument that Calvin rejects:

“Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to a paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition; as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal essences and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a single nation.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian ReligionBook I, Chapter 11).

This year, in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, I’ve decided to do another round of “Reformation Day Ironies.” This year, the theme is “Luther against the Reformation,” looking at the various ways that Martin Luther spoke against the Reformation he helped to spark:

Irony #10: Luther Against the Reformation – The Papacy

After the 95 Theses proved more controversial than he seems to have anticipated, Martin Luther realized that there was only way to resolve the dispute: turn to the pope. After all, #61 of Luther’s 95 Theses declares that “it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.” And so, in a letter written on May 30, 1518, Martin Luther writes these words to Pope Leo X:

Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you. If I merit death, I do not refuse to die, for ” the earth is the Lord’s,” and all that is therein, to whom be praise to all eternity ! Amen. May He preserve your Holiness to life eternal.

And adjudicate the matter Pope Leo did. In 1520, Leo issued the bull Exsurge Domine, citing 41 specific errors in Luther’s theology. By Luther’s own terms, by his own words in 1518, the matter is over.

(Of course, Luther broke his word, responding to the Exsurge Domine by denouncing the pope as the Antichrist, but such petulance merely showed him to be an untrustworthy and unstable man.)

Irony #11: Luther Against the Reformation – Teaching Authority

One of the arguments that St. Francis de Sales made against the Reformers (in The Catholic Controversy) was that they had no teaching authority, since Christ never sent them directly (through a private revelation) or indirectly (through His Church):

Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had, nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our Lord had sent them, it would have been either mediately or immediately. We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending, according to the order which he has appointed in his Church ; and such was the mission of S. Denis into France by Clement and of Timothy by S. Paul.

Immediate mission is when God himself commands and gives a charge, without the interposition of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the prelates and pastors of the Church: as S. Peter and the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord’s own mouth this commandment : Go ye into the, whole worlds and preach the Gospel to every creature (Matthew 28:19); and as Moses received his mission to Pharaoh and to the people of Israel  (Exodus 3:9-10).

Why does this matter? Because Scripture teaches that you can’t just give yourself the authority to teach the Gospel. This idea is actually older than Christianity. Hebrews 5:1-6 notes that the priesthood wasn’t something that you could just give yourself, and that even Christ doesn’t make Himself a priest:

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”; as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz′edek.”

This is also true for evangelists in general. The Biblical model is that preachers are sent by the Church (Romans 10:14-15)

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!

That’s why, in Acts 15:25-27, the Council of Jerusalem sent a letter explaining that the Judaizers went out without permission, and that Judas and Silas are being sent by the Church to repair the damage done by these unauthorized preachers:

Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructionsit has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

Priests and preachers are “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6:20; Philemon 1:9), and you can’t make yourself an ambassador, any more than Dennis Rodman can make himself the U.S. ambassador to North Korea.

Interestingly, Luther recognized this, and had an answer to St. Francis’ objection. His teaching authority, as he notes in the (above-mentioned) letter to Pope Leo, came from the pope:

From this, most holy father, has such a fire been kindled, that, to judge from the hue and cry, one would think the whole world had been set ablaze. And perhaps this is because I, through your Holiness’s apostolic authority, am a doctor of theology and they do not wish to admit that I am entitled, according to the usage of all universities in Christendom, openly to discuss, not only Indulgences, but many higher doctrines, such as Divine Power, Forgiveness, and Mercy.

So Luther’s ability to publicly teach on, and dispute about, indulgences and other theological questions came from Pope Leo X. Now, before you’re tempted to conclude, “A-ha! Luther did have authority!” you should be aware that Pope Leo expressly revoked that authority in Exsurge Domine:

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

So Martin Luther’s teaching authority ceased to exist on June 15, 1520, after it was determined that he was teaching heresy.

This point is huge for anyone who cares about what the New Testament has to say about teaching authority, because Luther is acknowledging that he didn’t receive some special vision from Jesus Christ saying “re-found my Church,” but instead received his faculties to preach and teach from Pope Leo X… who then withdrew those faculties.

Irony #12: Luther Against the Reformation – Schism and Scripture

Luther himself, in one of his table talks, admitted to being a schismatic (while also blaming it on the pope… and on God’s grace):

The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be head of the church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. […]

We, through God’s grace, are not heretics, but schismatics, causing, indeed, separation and division, wherein we are not to blame, but our adversaries, who gave occasion thereto, because they remain not by God’s word alone, which we have, hear, and follow.

In other words, Luther admitted that he and his followers were schismatics, but says that it’s the pope’s fault, because the pope isn’t a Lutheran.

These days, ignorant Protestants can say that Catholics aren’t Christians, meaning that there were no Christians before Luther re-founded the Church after the Church that Christ founded (Mt. 16:17-19) apparently failed. But Luther wasn’t that foolish, nor were the people to whom he was addressing. He couldn’t credibly claim that there were no Christians before 1517, because he’s talking to people who were faithful Christians (and whose parents, grandparents, etc., were faithful Christians) prior to 1517.

So there is no question that a Christian schism occurred. Nor is there any serious question about who broke from whom: Luther broke from the pope and the visible Church, not the other way around. Luther received his teaching authority from the pope, had his teaching authority revoked by that same pope, and then denounced the pope as the Antichrist. One of the earliest Lutheran confessions, The Augsburg Confession of 1530, ends by saying that schism is of the devil, but that it’s the Catholics’ fault:

Surely, all the world, all wisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and His holy Word. But the devil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against Christ, to extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil with his members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause of the schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously sought peace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not forced to blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of all men’s hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy in this awful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not been willing to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon the saving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ without our merit; though Christ would be most foully blasphemed thereby.

And although, as is the custom of the world it cannot be but that offenses have occurred in this schism through malice and by imprudent people; for the devil causes such offenses, to disgrace the Gospel, yet all this is of no account in view of the great comfort which this teaching has brought men, that for Christ’s sake, without our merit, we have forgiveness of sins and a gracious God.

Both Augsburg and Luther are saying the same thing: yes, schism is wrong, but we have to commit schism because the alternative is heresy. This is what I call the Protestant catch-22, the belief that you have to choose between heresy or schism. But here’s the grim irony: committing an act of schism in the name of Scripture is contrary to what Scripture demands. In fact, St. Paul warns (Galatians 5:19-21):

Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So to the extent that Luther admits that he and the other Protestants are schismatics, he’s pronouncing a judgment of condemnation upon himself and them.

Irony #13: Luther Against the Reformation – The Fruits

As we saw in #10-11, early Luther lays out good reasons to reject late Luther. But it’s also worth pointing out that even late Luther would be aghast at the post-Lutheran Reformation project. Professor Peter Marshall of the University of Warwick points this out in a Time Magazine article:

“I suppose the danger with anniversaries is that they can serve to reinforce myths and entrenched narratives of the past, rather than encourage us to look afresh at historical events and processes,” Marshall says. “And there’s been a fair amount, especially in Germany, of uncritical celebration of the ‘achievements’ or ‘legacies’ of the Reformation — tolerance, liberal democracy, freedom of expression, scientific rationalism. All things Luther would have hated!”

So that’s the central irony of today’s “celebration.” Protestants around the world today are celebrating an event that probably never happened (Luther’s nailing the 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg) and the achievements of a Reformer who, by his own arguments, disproves the validity of the Reformation, and would have been aghast at how his “reforms” have turned out.

585 Comments

  1. Great quotes on Luther. Unfortunately, they’re only the tip of a giant iceberg of similar stories and quotes available. He was quite a character, to say the least.

  2. JH: This year, in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, I’ve decided to do another round of “Reformation Day Ironies.”

    BB: My dear Mr. Heschmeyer, the more shocking and more glaringly ABSENT irony here is that you oh so conveniently forgot to mention what your own Pope Frank did last year. To not even address it in passing, is inexcusable. It kind of makes everything you say in your article disappear like a vapor from a teapot. Shall we go over his itinerary last October?
    Yes, let’s.

    The first thing he did was tell his secretary to book a ticket for him to Sweden. Once there, he would sit down to tea and crumpets with the LUTHERANS of all people, and chit chat about marvelous Marty and celebrate the man’s merits. Why he chose Sweden I have no idea —considering the top archbishop has been a woman, a one, Ms. Jackelen, since 2013; and they’ve even ordained women pastors since 1960— and lesbian and gay bishops are now the norm.
    Anywho, he then took part in an ecumenical service to commemorate the Reformation jointly organized by the Lutheran World Foundation and his own inter-faith agency…(all to the utter disgust of RC apologists world-wide. Most of them anyway its fair to say, especially Karl Keating, who blew a gasket).
    Then it was off to an ecumenical “prayer service”, and we see Frank worshipping alongside the heirs to a tradition founded in fervent opposition to the teachings and power of the church of Rome. While the Vatican and Lutheran church both insist this wishy-washy “Swedish Serenade” is no celebration of Luther’s ***revolt***, I would respond, who cares? If Catholicism is true, the Pope is not doing his job, plain and simple. Marty was given the boot long ago, and Trent “infallibly” called those with similar views, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. It only stands to reason therefore that If God was speaking through Trent as they claimed (and you do recall the Lord says, “I change not”), then what the… helicopter was Frank doing in Sweden?! Answer?

    “The Christian faithful can and must work together and pray together, especially in times of religious persecution.”

    No, Frankie baby. Let’s say it again: The RCC has gone on record as killing untold numbers of her adversaries for not bowing the knee, so the game-plan of “working and praying together” rings as false as a rusty, clanging symbol. Not soon after Boniface VIII demanded that it was “altogether necessary for salvation that every human CREATURE be subject to the Roman Pontiff”, Catholic “personnel” murdered in the most despicable ways, those who did not see it Rome’s way. No where do we read of these executioners as referring to their victims as “the Christian faithful” …nor did they wish to “work together and pray together” with those whom they considered outlaws. The current Pope has taken it upon himself to reverse history by having only of words of praise for Marty L., the one who called the Pope of his day, the Anti-christ. Frank said M.L. was ***correct*** to rightly criticize a church that was… “no model to imitate. There was corruption in the church, worldliness, attachment to money and power”.

    When he got home, he set up a statue of Luther at the Vatican, which is now available for foot-kissing, apparently until kingdom come. After that, someone presented him with a jumbo-copy of Marty’s 95 gripes against the RCC, upon which he posed for the camera, smiling and clutching his new found treasure in his holy hands. The photo may be found on-line.

    But it was not enough. He then issued orders for the Vatican to issue a POSTAGE STAMP to commemorate the Protestant Reformation!

    Note #16…the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation

    http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/servizi/ufficio-filatelico-e-numismatico/programma-emissioni1.html

    I wonder what’s next. The canonization of Luther???

    Isn’t this all so….ironic?

    Which is why I did not like your ironically one-sided, self-serving, Protestant bashing article which fades into oblivion when the above info is read alongside it.

    Good day.

    1. Well Barry,

      I read all those articles alongside Joe’s, and his did not fade into oblivion. Once again you make a statement that has turned out to be false. Don’t you ever tire of being wrong?

      Since heresy was considered treason in medieval times, which to my knowledge no historian disputes that it was considered treaaon, those who who were convicted of such a crime were punished by the government, not the RCC.

      If you are going to say: “these were Catholic governments, so essentially the same thing as the RCC”, then you face the problem of countless American Indians killed by a Protestant United States government. If you have ever read any of the writings from the 17th century on, it becomes painstakingly obvious that many of these Native Americans were killed because they were considered less than human by a Protestant America, which gave Protestants an excuse to murder and steal their lands. This was without a doubt, a Protestant government sanctioning this. Or you face the problem of Protestant Elizabethan England, stealing from and murdering countless Irish and English Catholics, because they would not give up Carholicism.

      Now once again, for many centuries, heresy was considered treason, which in most countries is considered a capital crime to this day. Are you saying, that governments do not have the right to execute one convicted of a capital crime? Were the Rosenbergs actually murdered by the United States when they were executed for treason? After all, they were simply following their consciences. Their religion was communism.

      I look forward to another intrinsically stupid response from you.

      1. D: Once again you make a statement that has turned out to be false. Don’t you ever tire of being wrong?

        B: Excuse me, but it would have been nice if you had quoted the sentence in particular that offended you so.

        D: heresy was considered treason in medieval times.. those who who were convicted of such a crime were punished by the government, not the RCC.

        B: Here it comes folks! That old-standby to whitewash history, “The RCC never killed anyone” trick. But the reader will note immediately that all you’re doing is changing topics. You miss the main point of my post, which was not “murder” at all, but the fact that the RCC has put on party hats and is blowing kazoos in commemoration of the Reformation, which, in light of antiquity, has left the laity stymied. And because this was front page news, Mr. Heschmeyer was certainly well aware of it. Consequently, I found fault with his expose’ when he purposely avoided the controversy and piously concludes…

        “So that’s the central irony of today’s “celebration.” Protestants around the world today are celebrating…the achievements of a Reformer who, by his own arguments, disproves the validity of the Reformation, and would have been aghast at how his “reforms” have turned out”.

        My point, which you obviously missed, was…(to twist Mr. H’s words)….

        “So that’s the central irony of today’s “celebration”. Catholics around the world are celebrating the complete reversal of Luther’s ex-communication, downplaying its importance in an ecumenical maneuver that revises history all with an eye that we should “all work and pray together”. The Pope’s actions disproves the validity of the Reformer’s CRITICS, namely, the “infallible” Council of Trent, who lambasted Luther and company by calling them “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”, and so it is simply absurd that Catholics “work and pray together” with those whom they consider satanists. Were the Council to be raised from the dead, they would have been aghast at how Frank’s “reforms” have so brazenly contradicted their infallible decrees.”

        That said, while I would love to comment on the comedy routine called “The RCC never killed anyone” schtick….(with public apologies from JPII shedding a tear over the “sons and daughters of the church” who acted so miserably in the past), it would be out of order to detract from the articles main intentions— and my reaction to it.

          1. M. ‘Protestant’ is just a long-winded way of saying ‘wrong’.

            B: “Protestant” is just another way of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, per Jude chapter 1.

          2. “Protestant” is just another way of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, per Jude chapter 1.”

            Except for the contenders for the faith of the saints who are roasting in hell like broiler chickens (e.g., the founder of the whole +30,000-sect kaboodle, St. (not) Martin).

            Per the “Sacred Word” of BB (aka…well, you know…) who has a lock on who’s sayyyved and who…..ain’t….

    2. Barry,

      We cannot fade into oblivion because we consume the Eucharist, the body and blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe the Holy Spirit is nudging you to come to Joe’s blog every day to read and grow in the deepest personal relationship you can have with Him and His Church!! Please continue to exchange dialogue and before you know it, you’ll be up there along side our family thirsting and hungering for our Lord Jesus as well.

      What a wonderful day that would be!

  3. Barry,

    Read the paragraph, and read what you wrote. You said if you read his article alongside his, his would fade into oblivion. I simply pointed out that it has not faded into oblivion for me. So your statement becomes false.

    You are the one that also posted this lie:
    Barry said:

    The RCC has gone on record as killing untold numbers of her adversaries for not bowing the knee, so the game-plan of “working and praying together” rings as false as a rusty, clanging symbol.

    If you don’t like someone commenting on something you posted, which you then go onto say had nothing to do with your main point, then I suggest that you, Bearer of False Witness Barry, should not have posted the paragraph in question.

    The RCC has not gone on record as saying she killed anyone. She has apologized for individual members who have done wrong.

    Are you going to apologize for all the Native Americans that were murdered by Protestants? What about the Irish and English Catholics whose land was stolen and they were murdered, or in the case of many Irish, intentionally starved to death by Protestant England, should their deaths be laid at the foot of Protestantism? By your first grade logic, yes!

    1. D: read what you wrote. You said if you read his article alongside [yours], his would fade into oblivion. I simply pointed out that it has not faded into oblivion for me. So your statement becomes false.

      B: That’s YOUR oblivious opinion, for which we thank you. It HAS, however, faded into oblivion for ME, which does not, ipso facto, “make my statement false” as you illogically suggest.

      D: You are the one that also posted this lie: [saying] “The RCC has gone on record as killing untold numbers of her adversaries for not bowing the knee”.

      B: When I said, “gone on record”, I was referring to”Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia” which estimates that the RCC wiped out just under 5 million, and takes second place honors just behind Islam for causing tyrannical terror.

      D: She has apologized for individual members who have done wrong.

      B: (chuckle, snort). Catholics get the gold ribbon for whitewashing history; in this case, the ribbon is awarded to you for whitewashing history that is not even one hour old. For in your last post, you claimed it was exclusively the government who did the dirty deed, not the RCC. Now you minimize her culpability by having to agree with me when I reminded you that the Pope has apologized (more than once I might add!) for those who… “did wrong”. So my original objection was not a “lie” and you are refuted.
      Next I would mention that JPII had no right whatsoever to apologize for other people’s sins. This is simply another pious fraud along the same lines as when we hear others say to the sinner, “It’s time you forgive yourself”.
      NO! We do not “forgive ourselves”…EVER. We rest on trusting in the one who has the power to forgive, period, end of story. Likewise, it’s just as erroneous for the Pope to apologize to the world for other people’s sins. By what criteria do you judge JPII RIGHT about what amounts to sinful behavior, to the extent that an apology is needed, and the other Pope who instigated the Inquisition– WRONG to have started it?

      Previously you said:

      D: [You must not assume] that [just because] these were Catholic governments, [they were] essentially the same thing as the RCC.

      B: Suffice to say, the RCC handed the guilty parties OVER to the authorities to do the dirty work, and consequently, the RCC is just as guilty as someone in the get-a-way car waiting for his buddy bank robber to jump in. Both will go to jail.

      1. Bearer of False Witness Barry,

        You said:

        That’s YOUR oblivious opinion, for which we thank you. It HAS, however, faded into oblivion for ME, which does not, ipso facto, “make my statement false” as you illogically suggest.

        The fact that you are commenting on something that you claim has faded into oblivion for you, ipso facto shows that it has not faded into oblivion for you.

        You said:

        When I said, “gone on record”, I was referring to”Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia” which estimates that the RCC wiped out just under 5 million, and takes second place honors just behind Islam for causing tyrannical terror.

        I suggest you learn what gone on record means. The Catholic Church has never gone on record as saying what you, or that encyclopedia says. So you have borne false witness again. Tsk, tsk.

        You said:

        chuckle, snort). Catholics get the gold ribbon for whitewashing history; in this case, the ribbon is awarded to you for whitewashing history that is not even one hour old. For in your last post, you claimed it was exclusively the government who did the dirty deed, not the RCC. Now you minimize her culpability by having to agree with me when I reminded you that the Pope has apologized (more than once I might add!) for those who… “did wrong”. So my original objection was not a “lie” and you are refuted.
        Next I would mention that JPII had no right whatsoever to apologize for other people’s sins. This is simply another pious fraud along the same lines as when we hear others say to the sinner, “It’s time you forgive yourself”.
        NO! We do not “forgive ourselves”…EVER. We rest on trusting in the one who has the power to forgive, period, end of story. Likewise, it’s just as erroneous for the Pope to apologize to the world for other people’s sins. By what criteria do you judge JPII RIGHT about what amounts to sinful behavior, to the extent that an apology is needed, and the other Pope who instigated the Inquisition– WRONG to have started it?

        He apologized for what individual Catholics did. He never said the governments did not have the right to carry out the sentences.

        People apologize for the mistakes of others all the time, so all of a sudden you criticizing the pope is laughable.

        I might add that he never said the Inquisition was wrong. He said mistakes were made. That’s a far cry from what you state.

        You said:

        Suffice to say, the RCC handed the guilty parties OVER to the authorities to do the dirty work, and consequently, the RCC is just as guilty as someone in the get-a-way car waiting for his buddy bank robber to jump in. Both will go to jail.

        Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have highlighted your own word that shows your stupidity. You admit they were guilty. And the crime they were guilty of was considered a capital crime, not only back then but even in many countries in the modern world.

        I will add that so far, historians of the Spanish Inquisition have found that when the inquisitor handed the parties, which you have admitted were guilty, over to the civil authorities, they have found that the inquisitors asked that the civil authorities spare the life of the guilty party.

        1. D: The fact that you are commenting on something that you claim has faded into oblivion for you, ipso facto shows that it has not faded into oblivion for you.

          B: You need to take a course in common sense. I should think you would have known that the THRUST of the main article’s “ironic” theme loses the power of its PUNCH line, in light of the Pope’s “ironic” itinerary.
          To take another example, the PUNCH LINE of Jesus is lost, regarding “who is my mother and who are my brothers?”… if in fact, when Mary and company inquired to see him, she was traveling about with his COUSINS (as the RCC supposes).

          D: Thank you. I have highlighted your own word that shows your stupidity. You admit they were guilty.

          B: Don’t be a numbskull. The innocent parties were guilty only in the EYES of their accusers!
          You show your true colors in that you condone the executions of those who refused to bow down to a piece of bread, and it being “all to the glory of God” they proclaimed after it was all over. Jesus rebukes you, because it is clear he was furious with a certain religious entity (claiming to be Christian) that would arise in the future which would slaughter the innocents and then announce they had done God a favor after it was all over (Jn 16:2). Looking back in time, we see EXACTLY which religious entity he was referring to, since there are no other options!
          I trust you can guess which religious slaughterhouse he had in mind?

          1. ob·liv·i·on
            /əˈblivēən/

            noun

            1. the state of being unaware or unconscious of what is happening:

            Obviously, your continual commenting on an article you said had faded into oblivion, shows you have no clue as to what the word means, as your still commenting on it shows you are still aware of it.

            You said:


            I trust you can guess which religious slaughterhouse he had in mind?

            Sure can. Protestantism, of course. They robbed, raped, and killed tons of Native Americans, calling them less than human, many times in the name of Jesus.

            Oh, by the way, your Barrett’s encyclopedia quotation was also a twisting of what Barret’s printed. Barrett’s never said the RCC killed millions. Barrett’s said members of the RCC killed millions. Of course, it does not surprise me that you would manipulate what was actually printed. Furthermore, Barrett’s numbers become highly suspect when you consider that that same encyclopedia says that their are 242 RCC denominations.

  4. I would quibble with certain of the points in this article; I think it is, for instance, a little silly to make much of how deferential Luther was to a man who might subsequently order his death, or how much less deferential he was after that sentence was ultimately passed.

    But ultimately, sure, Martin Luther was a child of the 1500s. He could not readily imagine a world where church and state were not irrevocably coiled into a single amalgamated monster, or where monarchy was not the default mode of government. Likewise, it took time for him to realize that his beloved Church was really in as dire straits as it was – and when he did realize, he sometimes overreacted. While he seized on the heart of the truth, he did not completely work through its implications in his own life.

    What of it?

    1. “While he seized on the heart of the truth, he did not completely work through its implications in his own life.”

      Irked, you claim that Luther seized on the ‘heart of the truth’. Yet this truth he seized on contradicts the doctrine and culture of countless saints and Christian leaders before him; saint’s such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Benedict, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Gregory the Great, St. Anselm, St. Patrick, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Joan of Arc, etc…, and the whole history of Christian monasticism, also, going back to the Desert Fathers.

      If a person was to believe in the novel doctrine and ‘heart of truth’ taught by Luther OVER ‘the heart of truth’ and doctrine taught by these other Christian leaders in world history, should this person not also scrupulize how Luther might have imitated Christ in his personal faith life, and compare him to these other notable Christians that lived before Him? The Catholic Church canonizes their great Christians because they put into practice “heroic virtue” in their lives. Can that be said of Martin Luther, especially since he sanctioned the bigamous and illicit marriage between the syphilis plagued Landgrave of Hesse Philipp and his 17 year old mistress Margaret von der Saale?

      Can anyone believe that Luther had the Margaret’s health and interest in mind in all of this, or the health and welfare of Philipps wife and 9 Children? Is Philipps reasons for a second marriage, sanctioned by Luther, VALID and VIRTUOUS or rather, were they gravely sinful and only agreed to for the sake of this rich Protestant’s political and material support? Here’s what happened:

      “At the age of 19, Philipp had married Christine of Saxony, the daughter of Duke George of Ernestine Saxony. Though the union produced nine children, the Landgrave expressed his unhappiness in the marriage. In the succeeding years, he would appeal to theological advisors—most notably Luther and Melanchthon—for permission to marry another on the grounds that his sexual appetite was not being fulfilled by his present wife. In 1539, presumably under the seal of the confessional, both Luther and Melanchthon capitulated to his requests, and a year later Philipp married 17-year old Margaret von der Saale.”

      https://reformation500.csl.edu/bio/philipp-i-landgrave-of-hesse/

      Does this appear in any way to be a saintly example in imitation of Christ, or of Christian wisdom, holiness and charity? And do we find any similar notorious examples in these OTHER Catholic Saints, mentioned above?

      In this case, the saying of Jesus applies: “By their fruits shall you know them”.

      1. Al,

        As I’ve said before, I reject fundamentally the premise that Luther’s position was novel in church history. Sola scriptura is found explicitly both early, in men like Cyril of Jerusalem, and late, in men like Wycliffe. (Its presence in the intervening years is perhaps made more difficult to detect given the RCC’s propensity for killing anyone espousing it.)

        So I reject the question on its basis. But I tell you what: I’ll judge what Luther’s moral status says about his denomination if we can apply the exact same standard to the popes. Deal?

        1. I will agree that Christians both make great mistakes and also sin gravely. For instance, Judas was one of the apostles and did gravely wicked deeds. And, I will admit that some popes also did wicked deeds. But Luther was the ‘Father’ of the Reformation, which is why we are celebrating ‘his’ 500th anniversary, here. And this ‘Father of the Reformation’ was clearly spiritually corrupt, in that he tolerated the adultery, bigamy and fornication committed by his followers.

          If he was ‘just another Protestant’ I wouldn’t be surprised. But, that He initiated the whole ‘reformation’, is significant. In the same way, I wouldn’t be surprised if some sinful Franciscan friar committed fornication or adultery. But, if St. Francis of Assisi, the FOUNDER of the Franciscan OFM committed adultery, or supported bigamy as Luther did, THAT would be note worthy.

          The same applies to Luther. He deserves much more scrutiny than those followers who came after him.

          1. Al,

            I don’t think “Luther is a more important figure to Protestants than popes are to Catholics” is a plausible argument. I have no percentage in defending the man – he would have been the first to describe himself as a loathsome sinner, saved only by the grace of God – but this is pretty nearly the platonic ideal of a “men in glass houses” scenario.

            I don’t think there’s any profit for either of us to say, “Well, but you had sinners leading your denomination.” Yes, we did, as did you. And?

          2. Hi Irked,

            In my opinion, it is indeed important to examine sin in any religious leader, because such leaders are ‘shepherds’ of Christ who are feeding, teaching and spreading their theological and moral values abundantly to Christ’s sheep. So, whether pope, prophet or revolutionary, all leaders’ moral lives should be well studied so that the disciples under them might understand whether they might not be what Jesus called “The blind following the blind”. And, when a leader is deficient in what can be considered otherwise ‘normal’ moral behavior, this would be an indication that his precepts, doctrines and teachings should be at least considered very carefully.

            For example, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, is a perfect example of this. If Mormons were acutely aware of the fraudulent translations made by Smith of various Egyptian papyrus manuscripts comprising their holy “Book of Abraham”, they might figure out that Smith’s other book, the “Book of Mormon” might be a similarly fraudulent work. So, again, whether following a pope, prophet, president, guru, messiah, etc…, moral behavior exhibited by such leaders should be a prime focus to judge the truth of that person’s doctrine by.

            I encourage all people to study the life of Martin Luther very carefully, as it gives clues to how his psychological state of mind could have formed the strange and novel theological ideas that he did. That Luther went to confession multiple times per week (and sometimes every day), while a young monk, is an indication that there was something very odd going on with both his religious vocation, as well as his state of soul and mind. He was by no means what one might call a ‘normal’ Catholic, in any sense of the word.

            For any who want to read a superb book on Luther, Hartmann Grisar SJ (1912) provides one of the best biographies to date. It includes extensive and balanced psychological assessments in addition to volumes of citations and quotes. It’s called “Luther, His Life and Work”. A six volume, 1800+ page, online edition is available in PDF form. Vol. 6 can be found here:

            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54811/54811-h/54811-h.htm

          3. Al,

            That’s fine. So, again, offer stands: I’m happy to reach conclusions about the implications of Luther’s morality for Protestantism if we apply exactly the same standards to the popes.

            He was by no means what one might call a ‘normal’ Catholic, in any sense of the word.

            “Luther acutely realized the filthiness of his own soul” is definitely a component in how he came to understand sola fide, sure.

          4. D.A. It was either Plato or Socrates who said that a true dialogue is only possible with one who has at least a minimal amount of respect for one’s position,

            B: This is completely untrue and is nothing but pious poppycock. When Paul heard of the Galatian error, he would not “respect” it for even a moment, but rather, would not stand for it, “no, not for an hour”. When false doctrine is being paraded as truth, we are under no obligation to “respect” the other’s position….AT ALL. Where was the “respect” with Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal? There was none. An invitation was given for debate, as Mr. Hecshmeyer allows here, and so let the better argument reign supreme (1 Cor 11:19).
            This whole “respect” business is just as nonsensical as when the prosecuting attorney comes out to the media after losing the case and says, “While I don’t agree with the jury’s decision, I must respect their verdict”.
            NO! He is under no obligation to “respect” their verdict when he so very obviously feels they were nothing but a bunch of nitwits! The word is defined as “admiring another due to their abilities or achievements”.
            AND WE DO NOT ADMIRE CATHOLICISM.
            The Galatian error of adding even one thing to the gospel, is tantamount to the RCC adding not one, but a long STRING of requirements for attaining heaven, which we say nullifies the gospel. Those of us intimate with the facts, will not “respect” or stand for it, “no, not for an hour”. Those whom are perceived as carrying another gospel are not even to be let in your house, let alone are they to receive the “respect” you think they deserve.

        2. Could you give any evidence that Cyril of Jerusalem believed in sola scriptura. ie. Something that he said which contains that term or its equivalent.
          Here Dave Armstrong deals with the likely quotation:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/05/cyril-jerusalem-d-386-vs-sola-scriptura-rule-faith.html
          Could you give us some names rather than just ‘men like Cyril of Jerusalem’?
          Could you give us some evidence that these ‘men like Cyril of Jerusalem’ believed in sola scriptura?
          Could you give us any evidence that the Church as a whole, at that time, believed in sola scriptura.
          Could you give us some names of people in between Cyril of Jerusalem and Wycliffe who believed in sola scriptura who were killed by the Catholic Church BECAUSE they believed in sola scriptura. As Cyril lived in the fourth century perhaps you could give us some examples in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth centuries. If your claim about sola scriptura is correct you should easily be able to come up with lots of names from those centuries.

          1. Mike,

            Dave Armstrong does, indeed, anticipate the likely Cyril quote: the one where Cyril says, quite literally, “Don’t believe any doctrines unless they’re proved from the Scriptures.” Or, more precisely:

            For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

            That’s… pretty darn close to what Luther would eventually say.

            Armstrong’s argument seems to assert that one can’t believe Cyril was right about this, and wrong about other doctrines. I disagree. (I also think his claim that Cyril taught, say, infallibility is a little bit sketchy.)

            More, the post isn’t honest to Armstrong’s own definition of “material sufficency.” In his post “Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture,” he approvingly quotes the following as a definition: “It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed… A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can’t be proved from the text alone,” emphasis mine. That’s pretty clearly not what Cyril says.

            I’ll respectfully decline the remaining questions; “But who else ya got?” is a question with no terminal point. Al’s premise was that Luther innovated the idea, and even one example would demonstrate that Luther did not.

          2. Irk: [The Cyril quote] is pretty darn close to what Luther would eventually say.

            B: You are absolutely correct. There could be no clearer statement of the principle of S.S. than what we read in Cyril. He says that all he teaches must be verified by S and nothing is to be accepted without it. He does not say one word about an oral tradition independent of Scripture, much to the dismay of the RC community. Catholics are desperate to minimize the impact of Cyril, so they seek to get around it by way of Dave Armstrong quoting Patrick Madrid as saying, “Hey, Cyril believed in the Mass, etc…and so Sola Scripture fails”

            WHO CARES if Mr. C believed in the Mass! S.S. most certainly does NOT fail by Mr. C’s example because he was attempting to derive his doctrine from Scripture, PERIOD. Madrid forgets that God has not promised to reveal ALL truth to ALL people at ALL the time whenever they pick up their Bibles…and sometimes, not at ALL. It is his prerogative to close the eyes of those whom he sees fit to do so (Matt 11:25-26, John 9:39) and to open the eyes in contrast to the former in like manner (Luke 24:45).

          3. M: Could you give us some evidence that ‘men like Cyril of Jerusalem’ believed in sola scriptura?

            B: Easily. I could give you a whole list of names and their quotes which they extol Holy Writ above all else. But I would like to know that if I did that, will you admit you were wrong? Experience has shown that when Catholics find out they’ve been duped, they NEVER admit they were wrong, and usually get on their high horse and disappear into the sunset. So I ask you: do you have any intention whatsoever to change your mode of thinking when you find out your master, Dave Armstrong, is so full of baloney he could open up a delicatessen? If your answer is no, then why should anyone waste their time answering you?

            At the end of the day, you can find the principle of S.S. very clearly laid out in all 176 verses of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible. Since you obviously have never read it, I suggest you do so now.

          4. Hey Bare,

            I know that Psalm! It talks about the word and the word’s commandments, precepts, statutes, ordinances, promises, judgement. It also talks about our need to observe, keep, understand, learn, love, meditate, and live those rules, laws, commandments/ Those are found in the Word of this Psalm.

            Yes!

          5. Bare,
            Forgot to say that the first few lines, beginning “Blessed are they,” call to mind the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was blameless and followed always His ways.

          6. M: I know that Psalm [119 with all its 176 verses]. It talks about the word and the word’s commandments, precepts, statutes, ordinances, promises, judgement. It also talks about our need to observe, keep, understand, learn, love, meditate, and live those rules, laws, commandments/ Those are found in the Word of this Psalm.

            B: Correct. Now tell me why I am out of order to think that this, the longest chapter in the Bible which is a hat nod to his word, may not be used as an apologetic for Sola Scriptura? (In light of, by the way, there being no such hat nod to Tradition in the same manner).

          7. Correct. Now tell me why I am out of order to think that this, the longest chapter in the Bible which is a hat nod to his word, may not be used as an apologetic for Sola Scriptura? (In light of, by the way, there being no such hat nod to Tradition in the same manner).

            It’s not a good apologetic to sola scriptura because there are passages that we cite as teaching that we are to obey the Tradition of the Apostles, as well as the Authority of the Church. Namely, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Matthew 16:18-19, etc. sola scriptura isn’t so much a positive teaching as a negative one.

            Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Reasoning about authority: Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are Infallible, and the Church has the charism to infallibly interpret both. There exist passages in Scripture that support the Authority of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

            Sola Scriptura: Scripture is Infallible, Tradition is not infallible, and no one has the charism to infallibly interpret Scripture at any time whatsoever. There exist passages in Scripture that support the Authority of Scripture, but for all of Scripture, no passages exist that support the Authority of Tradition and the Church.

            Since Catholic/EO and Sola Scripturist positions both hold that Scripture is infallible, and Psalm 119 doesn’t make any negative statements about Tradition or the Church, the apologetic fails.

          8. Barry said:

            At the end of the day, you can find the principle of S.S. very clearly laid out in all 176 verses of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible. Since you obviously have never read it, I suggest you do so now.

            Really? Not one of those verses say the written was more important than the oral. They are singing the praises of God’s word, and keeping his commandments, both written and oral.

            A little OT lesson for you, Moses came down from Sinai with the Oral Torah. Forty years later, he wrote the basics down. The vast majority he did not write down. Yet the unwritten Oral Torah has always been considered just as important, if not more than the written. It is rare to find anyone espousing sola scriptura in the Jewish community.

            So with that in mind, we must come to the conclusion that your seeing sola scriptura by your solo scriptura interpretation of Psalm 119, is a pipe dream.

          9. So Bare,
            You can do whatever you want. You can use the psalm and sing the alphabet song. You can count the number of words. You can clean your toenails while you read it. Etc.

            Wikipedia says: “It is the prayer of one who delights in and lives by the Torah, the sacred law.”

            This Psalm is a section of the WORD which speaks of the joy of following (enacting) the precepts, statutes, ordinances, laws, rules, commandments of God, to act so as to express our love of Him and one another. NOTHING in this psalm talks about Sola Scriptura. If you want to believe that, you certainly may, but even Wikipedia doesn’t see it.

        3. Irked,

          1.) Are you saying Cyril of Jerusalem explicitly finds the doctrine of sola scriptura in the bible?

          2.) Can you show me one document from the RCC saying person x should be put to death for espousing sola scriptura?

          1. Duane,

            I said that Cyril taught it. I’m disinclined to broaden that claim.

            Can you show me one document from the RCC saying person x should be put to death for espousing sola scriptura?

            Hm. In hindsight, that was sloppy wording on my part; fair enough. But that the RCC sent men to their deaths for denying the ultimate primacy of the Catholic interpretation is unquestionably true – and sola Scriptura fits clearly within that category of teaching. If it would have been more accurate for me to say “propensity for killing anyone denying propositions that sola Scriptura necessarily denies,” then permit me to revise.

          2. Irked,

            If he taught it, necessarily he must have seen the doctrine in Scripture, correct? I mean, if he doesn’t see it there, how can he teach it? How can anyone in good conscience teach that doctrines must be found in Scripture, if he didn’t personally see it there? Wouldn’t that make it a man made tradition?

            Actually, the RCC never sent anyone to their deaths, so your statement becomes unquestionably false. The inquisitors did judge on the innocence or guilt of an accused person, and if guilty said person was handed over to the civil authorities for carrying out of justice. This happens in the United States today.

            By your logic you are saying that a jury in Texas that finds a person guilty of murder, if the judge then sentences the guilty party to execution instead of life in prison, said jury is responsible for his execution. I know of prosecuting attorneys that asked for life instead of the death penalty, and the judge sentenced the convicted murderer to be executed. Is the prosecuting attorney responsible for the execution, since he prosecuted the case?

            As I stated in a reply to Barry, I know of no serious historians who deny that heresy at that time was considered treason, which was a capital crime, then, and now. The inquisitors ruled on the innocence, or guilt of the party. And as I stated in that earlier response, Spanish records show that when the party was found guilty, the inquisitors asked that the civil authorities spare the life of the guilty.

            Now, I have a question for you. Would it be okay for the government of the United States to incarcerate me if I was continually breaking her laws by distributing heroin and teaching that there is nothing wrong with using heroin? If yes, why?

          3. Duane,

            You would have to take up why Cyril taught what he taught with Cyril; that’s beyond the bounds of the claim I’m making here.

            Actually, the RCC never sent anyone to their deaths

            I doubt it was a great comfort to the half-million slaughtered in the Albigensian Crusade that, when the Pope called the armies of Europe to destroy them, he did not specifically ask for any particular one of them to be killed.

            These are unserious defenses. “We didn’t actually kill them; we just handed them over to the state government, which operates on our authority, which had arrested and detained them at our request, and which made heresy a capital crime with our tacit approval. Who could have predicted what would have happened next?”

          4. To your question:

            Would it be okay for the government of the United States to incarcerate me if I was continually breaking her laws by distributing heroin and teaching that there is nothing wrong with using heroin? If yes, why?

            It would be immoral for the government of the US to make teaching that the law should change a crime, so no, it would not be okay. “Distributing heroin” is arguably a separate category of offense.

          5. Irk: [Duane said] “Actually, the RCC never sent anyone to their deaths”

            These are unserious defenses. “We didn’t actually kill them; we just handed them over to the state government, which operates on our authority.

            BB: Correct again. Duane is out of his mind. He says at 9:46,
            “Spanish records show that when the party was found guilty, the inquisitors asked that the civil authorities spare the life of the guilty.”

            But where do we read that the popes thundered anathemas against the secular authorities who imposed so many and such GRUESOME deaths upon their victims?
            Answer?
            NEVER!

            Since according to D, “The RCC never killed anyone”, only one quote will do from the Pope to refute him.

            “BURN, MASSACRE, make deserts everywhere…”

            https://books.google.com/books?id=rLU8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=pope+martin+know+that+the+interests+of+the+holy+see,+and+those+burn+massacre+make+deserts&source=bl&ots=O8YJADGXZW&sig=jIpa9y8JqK6hw9Y2rNOXaAKRRyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt5t2l_J7XAhXDKCYKHZRwA_0Q6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=pope%20martin%20know%20that%20the%20interests%20of%20the%20holy%20see%2C%20and%20those%20burn%20massacre%20make%20deserts&f=false

          6. Irked,

            I replied to your latest comment. Unfortunately I posted it at the end of all the comments by mistake. Please respond there.

            Thanks,

            Duane

          7. BoFWB,

            You said:

            But where do we read that the popes thundered anathemas against the secular authorities who imposed so many and such GRUESOME deaths upon their victims?
            Answer?
            NEVER!

            Your replies show how little you know of history, or the RCC. Why would a form of execution that was commonplace for that time in history, which no canon has ever addressed, suddenly be expected to have an anathema linked to it?

            Since many people consider lethal injection as a form of execution gruesome, should the RCC call a council on lethal injection, and link an anathema onto it?

            You said:

            BURN, MASSACRE, make deserts everywhere…”

            So you are saying this letter of Martin V is an infallible declaration, and meets the criteria? Are you saying that Martin V, as head of the RCC officially taught that the RCC was to exterminate the Hussittes and all the faithful must adhere to this teaching? Because that’s nowhere in the letter, and as such, that letter is his private opinion.

            My argument stands. You will find individual Catholics who killed heretics, but not the Catholic Church.

            Please, until you can find an official RC teaching document from a council or a pope saying that the Church has the right to execute, your argument will not hold water.

            Keep your posts coming. They always make me laugh.

          8. D: BoFWB,

            You said:

            B: I’m not responding to your stupid post when you start off apparently name-calling with a combination of letters that no one knows what the helicopter you mean.
            You’re sick.

          9. Oh Bearer of False Witness Barry (BoFWB),

            Please stop it. My ribs hurt so much from laughing. You missed your calling. You could have been a first class comedian.

            It is truly ironic that you cannot handle this nickname, while you have heaped invectives on others, including telling me to “shut my lying filthy mouth.” Truly the adage of he can dish it out but cannot take it fits you.

            Now you told me to shut my lying filthy mouth simply for pointing out the fact that you hand changed a word in the CCC to fit your argument. Then you said it was a simple mistake. Later you said it wasn’t a mistake.

            Now here is the crux of the matter. Even if it were originally a simple mistake, in subsequent posts in dealing with that paragraph of the CCC, though you did not write the word “must,” which you had originally, though all agree that word is not found in the paragraph you were referring to in the CCC, you continued to write that Catholics “had to,” which is still twisting what that paragraph of the CCC states. In essence, it is as if you are still writing the word “must,” to try and salvage your argument.

            In conclusion, you being a bearer of false witness, is apropos.

            This post was hard to write, I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.

          10. D: Oh Bearer of False Witness Barry (BoFWB)

            B: Let the reader note that only now he realizes he should have spelled it out after being called out on it.

            D: It is truly ironic that you cannot handle this nickname, while you have heaped invectives on others, including telling me to “shut my lying filthy mouth.”

            B: Let the reader note it is not a matter of not being able to handle a nickname, it was the stupidity of being called the name by a bunch of letters with no definition to follow. Let the reader note how the Catholic wishes to switch topics, to get the discussion off his guilt, and turn it into an occasion to when I called him a “nickname”. Let the reader note that I very clearly spelled out my fury, while D chose to speak in cryptic hieroglyphics.

            D: Now you told me to shut my lying filthy mouth simply for pointing out the fact that you hand changed a word in the CCC to fit your argument.

            B: Kindly shut your filthy mouth about me “purposely” changing a word, which is categorically false. I must be doing pretty well if that’s all you got on me. But since your favorite topic seems to be “changing a word”, I think we out to go back to how the Council of Trent ADDED a word into the mouth of Christ, thus making them false prophets.

            So let’s go over the whole shebang, shall we? While their blood was boiling In the midst of their Reformation angst against Luther, the allegedly “infallible” Council of Trent told us,

            “For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented [to them]”.
            (“Decree on the Eucharist”, ch. 3).
            This council shows the typical human tendency to embellish whatever it is they want to prove. In this case, the student of the Bible will notice at once that Jesus most certainly did not… “affirm with truth”… the elements were actually his body and blood. He simply said, “This is my body” , (which we argue as being symbolic). An affirmation of truth conveys something to the effect of, “Truly, truly I say unto you”, or something similar in the way of, “Listen up, this is important!”. But he did not do this at the Last Supper, and therefore, Trent was EMBELLISHING the “truth” of their doctrine; not that Jesus was affirming that truth.

            Again, the RCC continues with more “true lies” when they decide to quote the Council of Trent in their catechism:

            “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread” (CCC 1376).

            NO WAY.

            Let us unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not “SAY” that he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone that the bread was “TROOOOLY” his body.
            These are serious errors which disproves the infallibility of the RCC in the blink of an eye.
            Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of “affirmation”, when there was no such affirmation. The second offense was proclaiming Jesus “said” something, when he did not. Their third offense was teaching that a sacrifice was being “offered” to God, when the Text says no such thing. Their fourth offense was showing their confusion between where he did say, “Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” in John 6:53, but erroneously transporting the word “truly” over to the Last Supper account, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all.

            Now on page one of their decree on the Eucharist, Trent claims they are being taught by the Holy Spirit, but Trent got it wrong! The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here.

            At this point, let’s anticipate your objection so we don’t have to put up with it later:

            OBJECTION: Only the actual canons that have an anathema attached to them, are infallible (i.e., “If anyone says…” and ends with, “let him be anathema”). The two places where you quote from are from the decree “introduction” and “chapter” 4, not the actual “canon” themselves. “Introductions” and “chapters” are not infallible.

            ANSWER: Neither Trent, nor any of the three popes who presided over the long-run of that council, nor any of the modern Popes, let alone the current catechism, make any distinction whatsoever between the supposedly infallible and non-infallible portions of a council’s decree. Instead, Trent made itself perfectly clear that everything contained in their decree is to be “preserved until the end of time”.
            A “decree” is an official order issued by a higher authority that is unbreakable. Trent’s document is entitled, “Decree Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, and the introduction and chapters which follow are naturally a part **OF** that decree!

            1) Code of Canon Law says, “All Christ’s faithful are obligated to observe the constitutions and decrees…(#754)
            2) “A council’s decrees approved by the Pope are infallible” (on-line, New Advent article, “General Councils”).
            3) “The infallible sacred magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of…ecumenical councils traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees” (on-line, Wiki article, “Infallibility of the Church”)
            4) Pope John XXIII confirms, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent” .
            5) A second Pope, quoting Trent from chapter 4 (and not a “canon” with an anathema attached) says: “This sets forth once more the perennially [permanently!] valid teaching of the Council of Trent [which the] Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called… transubstantiation” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15).
            6) The catechism confirms these… “decrees” (CCC 9).

            Thus if Catholics want to play the game of infallibility, they must abide by the rules and quit making exceptions and excuses. Trent was unambiguous, intending all their words to be preserved till kingdom come. They, “forbid all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach ***anything*** about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree” (Intro, “Decree on the Eucharist”).

            Trent claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their introduction, and not in a… “canon with an attached anathema.” If I am properly anticipating your objection, we would have to conclude that whenever a council claims infallible guidance by the Holy Spirit outside of a “canon”, it may not be necessarily true after all. While that would be fine with me, I doubt the Pope would agree. He actually prefaces the error-filled paragraph 1376, by telling us, “The Council of Trent summarizes THE CATHOLIC FAITH [by saying]…”

            Even if we take infallibility out of the discussion, Trent still remains technically inaccurate by quoting Jesus out of context and must suffer the consequences thereof per Deut 18:22. Need it be said that David required only one stone to kill Goliath? In like manner, all it takes is just one stone of error to classify Catholicism as counterfeit Christianity. For, even if we consider just one error by itself; namely, putting the word “truly’ into the mouth of Christ while claiming to be guided by the Spirit, they have conveyed something about God which is incorrect (Job 42:7), and therefore the entire system must be rejected (Deut 18:22). Moreover, Jeremiah 23:30-40, promises that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by claiming, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be cast out of his presence.

            D: In conclusion, you being a bearer of false witness, is apropos.

            B: Actually, as I just proved, the shoe is on the other foot.

            D: This post was hard to write, I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.

            B: I doubt you’ll be laughing when you are issued a passport to hell

          11. Oh BoFWB,

            If I’m headed to hell, thanks for the laughter you have given me on the way.

            Barry, since all we have are copies of the Scriptures, and the reality of copyist’s errors are a given, does that mean that Scripture is not infallible, since without a doubt words have most likely been changed from the original? Or if the gist is the same in different copies, then are both copies infallible?

          12. D: So you are saying this letter of Martin V is an infallible declaration, and meets the criteria?

            B: It might surprise you to learn that no one on planet Earth can tell us what “meets the criteria” for an infallible statement. Ask any RC apologist and they will give you a different answer. Been there, done that.
            So you’re living in a dream world if you think YOU could tell me. The moment you try, it would be met with someone else disputing it. So it’s safe to say the combox to this here combox I am now writing in, will remain empty.
            That is, if you know what’s good for you.

          13. Hey Flounder…sorry,had to get up off my fainting couch. Oh my…what’s good for meeeeeee….

            Catechism (you know the dog-eared and highlighted copy on the oil drum you use for a desk) just refer to 882-892. It’ll tell you **all you need to know** about the dogma of infallibility, in the Catholic sense. If you can read all those big words. Maybe you and Parster Jimmuh can cipher it together.

            If it’s not good enough, I can recommend a good therapist. Careful though,she’s Catholic and may vamp you right back into a real Church.

          14. Barry,

            The criteria for Papal Infallibility is clearly spelled out by Vatican I. You would have to be a dunce not to understand the criteria. My two daughters fully understood the criteria by fifth grade. Is the subject of Pope Martin V’s letter dealing with faith and morals to be held by the universal Church? Nope.

            If you know what’s good for you, you will pray the rosary every day.

          15. D: The criteria for Papal Infallibility is clearly spelled out by Vatican I. You would have to be a dunce not to understand the criteria. My two daughters fully understood the criteria by fifth grade.

            B: Spare me the typical over exaggeration tactic to make your point, as Trent did by adding to the words of Christ, thus nullifying your entire religious system.
            Your daughters nor more understood the criteria for papal infallibility in the 5th grade than I am the governor of Mississippi. Neither can any Catholic on earth be sure WHAT it is.

            That priest, William Most, says there are only 2 criteria…
            “If the Pope intends to make anything definitive, no special form of words is needed. We conclude that all that is required is
            1) the intent to make an item definitive, and
            2) writing in such a way as to make that intent clear.

            Then, RC apologist, Scott Butler, comes along in his, “Jesus, Peter and the Keys”, which he would have us believe is a, “A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy”, says there are 3 criteria: The Pope must
            1) Confirm his brethren in the faith (whatever that means precisely?)
            2) Proclaim his message as a definitive act
            3) And it must be relating to faith and morals (p. 203).

            But opposed to these, is The Catholic Encyclopedia, indicating that there are actually 4.
            In addition to Butler’s 3, they further state that it must contain a “binding condemnation of error” (Vol 2, p. 796).

            Which infallible set of criteria do your daughter’s follow? Obviously, the catechism is no help because if it was clearly stated there, no disagreement would exist.

            Good day.

        4. “(Its presence in the intervening years is perhaps made more difficult to detect given the RCC’s propensity for killing anyone espousing it.)”

          Irked – did you really say that? Oh, my belief set was there all along, but those evil Cat’liks knew it and Opus Dei’ed the recalcitrants. A little too Dan Brown for your level of scholarship….do you have any proof of this?

          In other news, a scroll was just found in a Utah cave that documents beyond a shadow of a doubt that the angel Moroni appeared to a Dominican friar in the year 1230. The golden tablets he delivered were confiscated by the local episcopate and melted down into sacramental feather duster handles.

        5. Irked,
          Some behavior, although heinous, warrants one being called a “sinner.” There is a broad difference between a sinner, a man of weakness, of the flesh, and that of a schismatic or heretic. Go ahead and name call if you want and if you must show such smallness as this silly boyish challenge to a boxing match. What of it? The fruits have matured.

      2. Good morning, Al,

        Wonder if Joe pointed out other of Luther’s twisted fruits. Here’s Luther on the peasants deserving death of body and soul:

        “First they have sworn to their true and gracious rulers to be submissive and obedient,.. But since they have deliberately and sacrilegiously abandoned their obedience, and in addition have dared to oppose their lords, they have thereby forfeited body an soul, as perfidious, perjured, lying, disobedient wretches and scoundrels are wont to do…. The peasants will incur this sentence, sooner or later; for God wills that fidelity and allegiance shall be sacredly kept.”

        “Second,… It is right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person,… Every man is at once judge and executioner of a public rebel;… Rebellion… kindles and devastates a country; it fills the land with murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and destroys everything, like the greatest calamity. Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you….

        “Third, they cloak their frightful and revolting sins with the gospel, call themselves Christian brethren,…. and serve and honor the devil under the semblance of the gospel, so that they have ten times deserved death of body and soul,…. And I believe also that the devil foresees the judgment day, that..who else could so soon capture so many thousands of peasants, lead them astray, blind and deceive them, stir them to revolt, and make them the willing executioners of his malice. . . .by means of the devil, all order and authority and…the world [are thrown] into wild chaos,…”

        [Source: James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European History, 2 vols (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1906), 2: 106-108.]
        found at http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/peasants1525.html: Luther Against the Peasants (1525)

  5. If Christianity failed with Rome why Believe any of it since Christ is a known liar/false God just like Allah. Have some intellectual guts here people and reject Christianity of Rome failed instead of making up fairy tales like Mohammad, Luther, Zwingli, Smith, etc.

    If Rome failed then anyone a Christian is a complete fool.

    1. B.I.A.W. If Christianity failed with Rome why Believe any of it

      B.I.A. Right…..Your premise is faulty because it assumes at the get-go that Christianity started with the Roman church, which not one Bible scholar, including RC scholars, would agree with. I suggest laying down with a cold wash over your forehead, with best wishes for a speedy recovery from your spiritual schizophrenia.

        1. Barry, have you talked to your mother lately? You should ask her to intercede for you! Remember in the scriptures when Jesus was on the cross and he said to the disciple, “Behold your mother?” And the disciple took her into his own?! She’s in heaven right now and she loves you.

  6. I thought about writing a response full of righteous Lutheran indignation and Protestant vigor, but then I saw the replies posted. You have enough anger on here without my nasty comments. It is painful to see all this hate among believers.

    Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to write this post and to have the courage to put your ideas out there for all to see. I do not agree with your post, but I am thankful that you have a heart for Christ. (I wish others would have welcomed Luther’s theses when he posted them, even if they thought he was a heretical scum bag damned to burn in hell for ever)

    1. It is painful to see all this hate among believers.

      Agreed. For what it’s worth, I always like your comments on this blog, even though I don’t agree with Lutheranism.

  7. Rev: It is painful to see all this hate among believers.

    BB: I would remind you that Jesus did not walk around with a feather duster sprinkling angel dust on his enemies. He swooped down like an eagle and insulted the Pharisees 16 times in Matt 23.
    Second, if you think all Protestants and Catholics are all “BELIEVERS” without any distinctions and on their way to heaven anyway, then why even bother to post your feelings in the first place?
    Third, there izzzz such a thing as “hating false doctrine”, and Jesus specifically says so in the book of Rev, REV! He congratulates those who have investigated the ones “who claim they are apostles, but are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev 2:2). THAT is the vantage point where I’m coming from, and Catholics are free to come from that POV when it comes to their adversaries also. Judgment Day will reveal who got it right. In any case, there is bound to be heat in such discussions and so its unavoidable. If it was unavoidable for Jesus, it’s unavoidable for us. Should it be painful for you to read, then why not take a pain pill and get over it?

  8. Irked,

    1.) Are you saying he taught a doctrine that Scripture is the ultimate authority, and you don’t know if he actually believed that Scripture actually teaches this? But if Scripture does not actually teach sola scriptura, and it is essential to the doctrine that it does, or else it is self-refuting, then it must be man-made.

    2.) You do realize the Albigensians had armies also? That is why it is known as a military campaign. I note that the Albigensians had some victories.

    3.) Actually, these are serious defenses, and I find your arguments against them laughable. You are saying these were all puppet governments of the RCC, when a serious study of history shows this not to be the case. You are going to have to do better than your unsubstantiated claims, and provide some verifiable facts, because I can provide Protestant historians, and a noted Jewish historian who refute what you claim. You have a problem with classifying heresy as treason. I don’t. Obstinately teaching a falsehood, one that causes serious civil unrest, to me, must be viewed as treason.

    4.) Notice, I tied the two together. So, obviously you believe the United States has the right to incarcerate when people break her laws. Do you believe that the United States has the right to execute someone guilty of a capital offense?

    1. Duane,

      1) I’m saying I have about four conversations going on, and I decline to expand the topic of this one into arguing over why Cyril taught what he taught. That he taught it suffices for my point.

      2) That the Albigensians defended themselves does not change my post in the slightest.

      3 and 4 seem to be arguing that it was moral for the Catholic Church to send people who disagreed with them off to their deaths. But I haven’t argued that it was immoral, as yet; I’ve just noted it did, as a matter of historical record, happen. A lot.

      It feels like in each of these cases you’re asking me to argue over a claim I haven’t made. I’d prefer to stick to my actual claims.

      1. Irked,

        You claimed that the RCC put heretics to their death. This is patently false. Members of the RCC ruled on innocence, or guilt. Historians have yet to find a single case where after the inquisitors found a person guilty, they handed the guilty party over to the civil magistrates and said: “The Church says you must kill this person.” Until you do, your claim holds no water.

        Unfortunately, atrocities happen in times of war. I can link you to a website where a Reformed pastor led a state militia in slaughtering an unarmed Indian village. Does this mean Protestantism is responsible?

        Or the atrocities that were committed by members of the KKK that were known elders in their church. Is Protestantism to blame there also?

        1. Duane,

          Unfortunately, atrocities happen in times of war.

          Then perhaps the pope should not have started a war over a theological disagreement. But he did, and the hundreds of thousands who died in the war he decreed are still dead whether any inquisitor called them by name before they were burnt at the stake or not.

          This is whitewashing on a horrific scale.

          Is Protestantism to blame there also?

          All our hands are bloody; none of our denominations are clean. That’s precisely my point.

          This is not a “Catholicism can’t be true, because it’s done all these awful things” polemical. It’s the simple claim that none of us are clean.

          1. Irked,

            Just because atrocities happen, it does not follow that therefore the war should not have been called. That is a fallacy on your part.

          2. Whitewash:

            deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant facts about (a person or organization):

            I have not attempted to conceal anything. I merely pointed out the fact that your statements are factually wrong. You stated that the RCC had heretics burned at the stake. Ruling on a person’s guilt or innocence, and subsequently finding said person guilty, and turning them over to the valid civil authorities, does not make one culpable if said authority exercises their right to execute the guilty party.

            If a jury convicts someone of treason, does the United States have the right to execute said person, if the death penalty is an option?

            You take issue with heresy being considered treason, and a capital crime. Why? Why is someone teaching a false doctrine that will affect where someone will spend eternity okay with you, but someone who thinks heroin is okay and distributing the drug not?

          3. Duane,

            Ruling on a person’s guilt or innocence, and subsequently finding said person guilty, and turning them over to the valid civil authorities, does not make one culpable if said authority exercises their right to execute the guilty party.

            Papal legate Amalric personally commanded the sack of Beziers, where, according to the best historical sources we have, he is said to have instructed his men, “Kill ’em all and let God sort them out.” They evidently complied; is the pope’s personal representative to the crusade still an innocent bystander in that outcome?

            “Whitewashing” is arguing that the Catholic Church never had anyone killed for theological differences, while passing off the half-million killed by a papal-ordered war – the extermination of an entire people – as an unfortunate happenstance for which they bear no responsibility.

            I think this has passed the point of profitability, and the topics you’re interested in don’t seem to be a match for what I’m arguing. You’re welcome to the last word.

        2. D: You claimed that the RCC put heretics to their death. This is patently false.

          B: I could not be more disgusted with ANY statement this entire year, and I guarantee if a memo was sent of your statement to all the martyrs in heaven butchered by the RCC, they would only roll their eyes, not to mention JESUS CHRIST, by your pathetic attempt to plant a heavenly halo on the RCC. He was the one who predicted a “Christian” entity would arise which would “kill you, thinking they do God service”, so we, looking back in history, are commanded to use our brains and figure it out. It isn’t that difficult. Only Catholicism fits the bill, announcing over and over again, after one horrific murder after another, they had done God a favor! (I have the 1,000 page book, “Martyrs Mirror”). See Revelation, with a woman [think “Mother church” and “Mariology”] DRUNK with the blood of the saints, drinking out of a golden chalice, (the color of choice in the hand of every priest on Earth when doing his schtick). And all the while this woman (who is classified as a “city”) sits on “7 hills”…. (of Rome!) ….(oh my…could that be Vatican City?)… all of which point to the RCC there can be no doubt, ESPECIALLY with that infamous word “MYSTERY” plastered on her forehead! No other religion on the planet uses that word as much as the RCC, particularly as an escape hatch to duck into when they cannot find the words to describe their “mysterious” beliefs.
          Don’t waste your breath that it’s all “circumstantial”. Not interested.

          1. Dear Barry,

            B: I could not be more disgusted with ANY statement this entire year, and I guarantee if a memo was sent of your statement to all the martyrs in heaven butchered by the RCC, they would only roll their eyes, not to mention JESUS CHRIST, by your pathetic attempt to plant a heavenly halo on the RCC.

            There are no martyrs in heaven butchered by the RCC. Your memo will come back stamped “Return to Sender, No Such Recipient.”

            B: He was the one who predicted a “Christian” entity would arise which would “kill you, thinking they do God service”, so we, looking back in history, are commanded to use our brains and figure it out. It isn’t that difficult.

            Where does He say it is a Christian entity?

            See the problem with sola scriptura? How can it possibly work when you feel it is okay to change, add, or subtract words all to fit your interpretations?

            B: Don’t waste your breath that it’s all “circumstantial”. Not interested.

            I don’t think it is even close to circumstantial. I think it is something I would find in the National Enquirer, next to it’s picture of the three-headed monkey boy named Barry.

            Barry, I noticed you do not answer most questions that are asked of you. I can only assume that is because you know your positions are so weak, that to answer them would embarrass you.

            You do realize that brethren can be satanic, godless, and wrong correct? They can be all these, and still be your brother.

            Somebody better call Heaven. There’s a demon named Barry that escaped from Hell.

          2. D: Where does [Christ] say it is a Christian entity?

            B: When he says that they will kill you (Christians)….he notes that those putting them to death will think they are doing God a favor. Common sense concludes that the executioners must be claiming to be Christian as well because they praise God after lighting the match. We know that Jesus eliminates the possibility that they could be thanking, for example, a pagan entity. Those of us who lived after the fact can look back and ask the question, “Has there ever been a religious entity who put to death so many on a grand scale, where it is recorded that they said, “This is all to the glory of God” after the deed was done?

            Answer? Yes. And there are no other options. Deal with it.

            D: See the problem with sola scriptura? How can it possibly work when you feel it is okay to change, add, or subtract words all to fit your interpretations?

            B: I have never done any such thing. You are a liar in the first degree. It’s quite sickening to read you, really.

            D: I noticed you do not answer most questions that are asked of you.

            B: Oh stop it. My responses speak for themselves to refute your lying, filthy mouth.

          3. Barry,

            So when members of ISIS kill Christians and say that they do it for Allah, that doesn’t fit the criteria. Or when Calvinists drowned Anabaptists in Geneva, and said they were doing it for God, that didn’t fit the criteria?

          4. D: Calvinists drowned Anabaptists in Geneva,

            B: Oh you must be kidding! Let me see now, you’ve proclaimed that the RCC never hurt a soul on this thread till yer blue in the face.
            Uhhh…two can play that game. Watch me.

            Calvin never drowned anyone.

        3. Irked,

          You said:

          Papal legate Amalric personally commanded the sack of Beziers, where, according to the best historical sources we have, he is said to have instructed his men, “Kill ’em all and let God sort them out.” They evidently complied; is the pope’s personal representative to the crusade still an innocent bystander in that outcome?

          What is the source of your best historical sources? Because the latest I’ve seen from both Protestant and Catholic historians is that they do not believe Amalric ever said such a thing.

          Your best sources for over 450 years taught that Tetzel said this line: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs.” Only now we have the best Lutheran historians saying it is highly doubtful he ever made such a statement.

          Much of the United States was taught that the American Indian was the aggressor for most of the wars and conflicts from colonial America through the expansion into the West at the end of the 19th. century, by many of the best historical sources. Only in the last fifty years has that narrative changed, and the truth started to come out.

          You said:

          “Whitewashing” is arguing that the Catholic Church never had anyone killed for theological differences, while passing off the half-million killed by a papal-ordered war – the extermination of an entire people – as an unfortunate happenstance for which they bear no responsibility.

          There’s a line of distinction that you do not seem to grasp, or you have a double standard, one that you apply to Catholicism, and one that you apply to everyone else. I agree, Catholics have done horrible things. But to say it is the RCC to blame, it would have to be her teachings that are to blame. I contend that it was individuals, even in groups, or even bad popes, that did not live up to her teachings. If a council was called, and it taught that all Catholics must believe that all heretics must be killed, or that all the Albigensians must be killed, then your argument would hold water. We do not see this. So you can lay blame on individuals, or even groups, but not the Catholic Church.

          And in the case of the Inquisitions, her teachings never commanded that anyone had to be put to death. They left it up to the civil authorities to apply a punishment, or not. And that is the way juries work today.

          There are very good records that were kept from the Spanish Inquisition. We know that after a person was found guilty, the Inquisition asked the civil authorities to spare the life of the guilty party. And records show, that sometimes the civil authorities, acquiesced.

          You have a problem with heresy being classified as a capital crime. Again I ask you, why? Why is it okay in your eyes for someone to teach falsely, and risk the souls of all that that person influences, when where one spends eternity is on the line?

          In Nazi Germany, many of the Christian guards at concentration camps went to church on Sunday, with full knowledge of what was going on in those camps. I have Jewish acquaintances who do not blame the guards. They blame Christianity, for following a false messiah.

          Is Christianity to blame for the holocaust? Or is it Christians not living up to the teachings of Christ?

      2. Irked,

        Your silence on Cyril speaks volumes. You face a dilemma:

        1.) If you state that Cyril sees the doctrine in Scripture, then as has been noted, how is it that he also holds to the doctines of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, the Real Presence…all doctrines that you reject? He must see them clearly, for sola scriptura to be true for him, yet you do not.

        But if you are right in rejecting those doctrines, then Cyril by necessity must be wrong, proving that he is not practicing what you say he taught.

        Or you face the possibility that Cyril was wrong to see those doctrines. But if he was wrong on so many doctrines there, why should I trust his exegesis of Scripture on sola scriptura?

        2.) You cannot say he does not see it in Scripture, because it then becomes a man-made tradition.

        So tell me, since your exigesis of Scripture, and Cyril’s exigesis of Scripture, are clearly at odds on doctrines you both feel are essential, how would the doctrine of sola scriptura solve that dispute?

        1. Duane,

          Your silence on Cyril speaks volumes.

          You are, of course, free to ascribe whatever motives you wish to me. The fact remains that I’m not interested in broadening the conversation in that direction. My initial argument is pretty straightforward: Luther was both a sinner and a man of his times, and what of it?

          I do not see that this argument requires me to backtrack Cyril’s position from limited evidence, and I politely decline to do so.

          But if he was wrong on so many doctrines there, why should I trust his exegesis of Scripture on sola scriptura?

          I did not say you should believe sola Scriptura because Cyril did. Rather, I said that Luther did not innovate the doctrine. I would appreciate it if you stopped asking me to defend claims I have not made.

          1. Irked,

            You made the claim that Cyril believed in, and taught the doctrine of sola scriptura. Based on his other writings, which you have access to, and knowing the doctrines he believed in, which all modern adherents of sola scriptura reject, is it fair to say that what he had in view of sola scriptura, must be radically different than the view the Reformers had in mind?

    2. Hi Duane,

      Irked said that he was bowing out (such a gentlemanly gesture). FOI, he stated, ‘Papal legate Amalric personally commanded the sack of Beziers, where, according to the best historical sources we have, he is said to have instructed his men, “Kill ’em all and let God sort them out.”’

      According to our best historical sources (Mann, Popes in the Middle Ages, XIII, p. 244; Setton, Crusades, II, pp. 288-289; Sumption, Albigensian Crusade, pp. 88-89 and 92-94), there is no reliable evidence that said words were in fact uttered by said papal legate.

  9. Barry –

    Christianity didn’t start with RC at the get go??? You have to be illiterate and ignorant of history in general to make such claims. Oh wait…you are and need to lie about history to make your religious worldview work. You should be intellectually ashamed for such nonsense. The whole point of the “Reformation” was to restore the RCC but that obvious fact is lost upon you.

  10. Wrongheaded: Christianity didn’t start with RC at the get go??? You have to be illiterate and ignorant of history in general to make such claims.

    Rightheaded: A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and it’s sad that you are wasting yours.

    First off, no encyclopedia will confirm your dumbo statement.

    Second, the church (body of believers by definition) small as it was at the time, was not anywhere near Rome when you think Jesus gave the crown to Peter in Matt 16. Rome was 1500 miles away.

    Third, technically, the first church was located in Jerusalem, as all sane and rational people believe, and they were “FIRST” called Christians in Antioch…(Acts 11:26)…..not “Catholics”!

    Boy do you need to take a wake-up pill.

    1. “Boy do you need to take a wake-up pill.”

      President Trump is cracking down on the easy availability of prescription opoids.

      However will you get through the day?

    2. Barry, I like your persistence. Is the Holy Spirit bring you closer to Christ and in full union with the Church that he Planted? YES PLEASE!!

      Oh my Lord, Jesus Christ through your most sacred heart, i pray that you can bring Barry in full union with you and your Church.

      Be careful though Barry, the most you post and protest on this blog, the more you will be exposed to the Full Truth and eventually become Catholic!!! i’m sohappy for you barry!

  11. Everyone watch out! Flounder’s (aka Barry) is back, mincing on the prowl with his flashing feather duster of death and matching French chambermaid’s outfit, dropping a bit of his wisdom here and there while he tidies up the bunker in hopes of a visit by Opus Dei. .

    Just got off a long discourse with irked on a previous thread. After several need-a-shower-after encounters this past year with Flounder, how refreshing that was…..

    Having a conversation with Flounder is like to picking up a piece of dog poop by the clean end, hoping to polish it into something fit for your coffee table. Good luck with that.

  12. Mike Ryan said to : “Could you give any evidence that Cyril of Jerusalem believed in sola scriptura. ie. ” and a long thread was started by Irked, Barry, and Duane…with Barry saying: “You are absolutely correct. There could be no clearer statement of the principle of S.S. ( sola scriptura) than what we read in Cyril. ”

    I guess it’s just Halloween time but I kind of got the idea of how the Reformed Calvinists treat theology. They conduct it like Dr. Frankenstein (in the novel/movie) conducted his theories and experiments on bringing the dead back to life….by joining many body part pieces together and hoping that with a little energy the parts will come together and be reanimated as an integrated body.

    That is, They have no problem taking one part of a theological treatise, such as the catechetical lectures of St. Cyril, and only extract a single sentence or paragraph ( like Dr. Frankenstein might only harvest a liver or a hand for his creation but keep buried all of the rest of that body that he thought was corrupted) and then use ONLY this small part in their new theological creation…or what we might consider… a sort of ‘Frankenecclesiology’. They think, even as Dr. Frankenstein did, that if they can divorce historical and contextual reality from various ancient writings, including sacred scripture, and just choose the particular phrases that they particularly like…. then they can then piece all of these chosen phrases together to make a coherent theological argument to promote their Reformation theological (TULIP) theories.

    But clearly this is ludicrous. To use one little paragraph of Cyril of Jerusalem to claim he believed in the Protestant definition of sola scriptura, all the while discarding all of the other (body parts) treatise chapters that he wrote int eh same treatises, which substantially teach the authority of ‘sacred tradition’…is to do exactly what Dr. Frankenstein was trying to do. And they do the same with St. Paul, selectively harvesting a very few passages (…and that are controversial in nature), and ignore all of the others that don’t fit into their newly created ‘theological body’ that they are somehow trying to bring to life. And this is why Catholics are astounded by this. Because it is absurd to NOT read the WHOLE of Cyril’s catechetical lectures and then try to understand the entirety of his (very orthodox) theology. The whole context of theological treatises are where the ‘real theological nourishment and life’ comes from…not just taking a small part of that life and sewing it onto another quote or passage derived from a treatise of St. Basil, Chrysostom or Augustine. Why give theological credit to, and respect the opinions of, these same theologians in ONE PART of their theological teachings, but leave the REST of their teachings, such as on liturgy, monastic rules and practices, ecclesiastical authority, church discipline and unity, etc…in the grave? If Protestants don’t accept the 99% of the subject matter that these Catholic saints taught, why do they BOAST of them as witnesses supporting the Protestant cause with a mere paragraph, or a mere 1%, that they ‘claim’ that they taught…and even though this 1%, or paragraph in their treatise is clearly contradicted by the 99% of the other ‘corpus’ (body) of their theological teachings?

    So, thanks to Dr. Frankenstein in this Halloween season for shedding some light on how some Protestants go about ‘sewing together’ their case, and gathering their a out-of-context ‘body’ (parts)of evidence for their newly invented TULIP ‘body of Protestant doctrine’, that they are trying to animate. In this, they seek to imitate, or replace, the one true ‘body of theological doctrine’ taught by the 2 millennia old Catholic Church; which was built upon the foundation of the apostle Peter and his successors and which has the entirety of Western Civilization as a witness to it’s true LIFE, INTEGRITY and AUTHENTICITY. But, I guess, even as Dr. Frankenstein TRIED to create a living body by sewing together a bunch of body parts, so too, the Protestants can do the same. They can try. But, for those who look closely, the details reveal that they are actually creating a theological/ecclesiological ‘monster’, even though they might not realize it.

    1. Al, you broke the code in this post better than i have seen in all previous posts.

      Don’t forget to add, them Cat’liks killed everyone who saw the Truth pre-1517. How is it they didn’t get to the most dangerous of the bunch (Luther, Calvin, Hus, etc.) if up to then they were so successful at assassinating the opposition before they could spread all-that-heresy….?

      I remember reading in Rod Bennett’s “The Apostasy that Wasn’t” how, when he discussed his increasingly Catholic viewpoint with his protestant mentors, they would tell him that the early Church had it’s dissenters, then directed him to ‘weird Gnostic offshoots’ like the Montanists, the Docetists, and…the Albigensians whose belief sets were, if anything, even more far removed from current Reformed theologies than was Catholicism. That was one of the final straws that broke Bennett’s Reformed paradigm and sent him swimming the Tiber, in the right direction, towards Rome.

      1. AK,
        I wondered the same: If Cat’liks killed their heretics, how did Luter get loose? (I love making that typo of his name.)

        Al,
        Just in time for Halloween we have wolves in sheep’s clothing, sheep in wolves’ costumes, all size and shape of chameleon (AKA squirmers), and at least one self-proclaimed Cylcopedical prophet.

        What an unedifying treat, what a way to commemorate.

        1. Margo!

          I think there “All” sorts of “Souls” here that need a lot of prayer. When I see nominal Protestants so turn on the one who gave them the “off-ramp” to where they are today…well, all I can think is wherever Luther is, he is just face-palming every time another little storefront charch opens up somewhere. I have found I can engage, with long, well researched rejoinders, and get a “well, i just don’t understand what you said here…but check out this proof-text that incontrovertibly makes my point.” So the main value I get is from my own research. If you have time, see my 1 November 2017, 10:20 post on the “What About Abortion..” topic preceding this one, in a discourse wit Irked. I found some very interesting facts about the original Greek mainly in Romans 9 (a few others also) – that undercuts the Calvinist position in support of the “I” in TULIP (“irresistible Grace’ = no free will in salvation); also, the ‘faith alone, not works’ theology. The more I hear about the concept of a special “Elect” picked by God and everyone else roasts eternally, with no choice or ability to influence ones own salvation in clear contravention to Scripture and Tradition, the more it sounds like Gnosticism….I’d be interested to hear what you think.

          1. Hi AK,

            I too learn a lot, and that is why I visit this blog. Plus I enjoy writing and reading others, particularly when I spy the glint of some literary fun. 🙂 The vehement convictions displayed here amazes me. I wish I could show the full beauty of the RC faith. I pray. I hope.

            Gnosticism. Is your thinking like this? First comes the fully-reasoned assent of faith which includes profession and baptism. This then is rewarded with some knowledge of election. Said knowledge is a personally received and/or interpreted revelation directly from the divine to the elect.

            There was a post 3-4-5-6 months back where Irked, Awlms, I and a few others went forever (it seemed) on predestination. I don’t think that was the gist of Joe’s post, but somehow we argued it interminably. I’ll return to your facts about Romans 9 in the earlier post, but no time now.

            God bless.

      2. I’d like to be clear that I’m not defending the theology of the Albigensians. I’m just saying they are part of a pattern of, y’know, people who disagreed with the Catholic Church getting killed for it. I don’t think that’s particularly controversial, historically…?

        This is starting to feel a little personal, though. I’m not sure whether I’m to count myself among the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” or the “squirming chameleons,” but either way I think I may back out of the current thread.

        1. Irked,
          Nothing personal was intended. As AK says, there are “All” sorts of “Souls” here that need a lot of prayer. That is ALL of us.

          I take issue with your statement that historically, people who disagree with the CC get killed for it. Joe’s last post spoke to abortion. Who kills whom here? The innocents are killed; predominantly it is RCs who speak and act to stop it. SIXTY MILLION IN THE U.S. ALONE IN LESS THAN FIFTY YEARS. Your claim is rebuffed.

          Historically, the murder of a papal legate by the Albigensians is what started the Crusade. The legate was sent to debate, to learn, to discourse, to teach. He was an innocent. The CC stood up to defend its right to do that. Blaming the CC puts one on the wrong side of history.

          1. Margo,

            As I say, I’m trying to back out of this thread, so let me be brief. One, I stand beside you entirely on the subject of abortion – but fighting for life in one area is no guarantee of virtue in another.

            Two, the murder of the legate was an evil act, and I condemn it. I don’t think that erases a half million dead; there’s blood enough here to go around.

      1. 🙂

        …. I’ll never stop wondering how Protestants can ignore such great souls throughout Christian History whom the Church deems and canonizes ‘saints’ and ‘doctors of the Church’ ? There are so many of them and their writings and biographies ooze with the love of God, shown both by their words and their virtuous accomplishments.

        Yet, not only will they ignore these famous Catholic Saints throughout Church History, saints such as St. Patrick, St. Anselm, St.Gregory the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Benedict, etc… but they’ll also ignore their own founder, Martin Luther, and make many excuses for his obviously erratic and bizarre behavior. Consider this story, for instance, from “Luther, His Life and Work” :

        “In March, 1537, he told his friends: “When I was saying Mass [his first Mass] and had reached the Canon, such terror seized on me (ita horrui) that I should have fled had not the Prior held me back; for when I came to the words, ‘Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray and entreat,’ etc., I felt that I was speaking to God without any mediator. I longed to flee from the earth. For who can endure the Majesty of God without Christ the Mediator? In short, as a monk I experienced those terrors (horrores); I was made to experience them before I began to assail them.”[307] Incidentally it may be noted that “Christ the Mediator,” whom Luther declares he could not find in the Catholic ritual, is, as a matter of fact, invoked in the very words which follow those quoted by Luther: “Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray and entreat through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord to accept and bless these gifts,” etc. Evidently when Luther recorded his impressions he had forgotten these words and only remembered the groundless fear and inward commotion with which he had said his first Mass.”

        And this also:

        “Unspeakable fear issuing in bodily prostration was also at work in him on the occasion of the already related incident in the choir of the Erfurt convent, when he fell to the ground crying out that he was not the man possessed. Not only does Dungersheim relate it, on the strength of what he had heard from inmates of the monastery,[309] but Cochlæus also speaks of the incident, in his “Acta,” and, again, in coarse and unseemly language in the book he wrote in 1533, entitled “Von der Apostasey,” doubtless also drawing his information from the Augustinian monks: “It is notorious how Luther came to be a monk; how he collapsed in choir, bellowing like a bull when the Gospel of the man possessed was being read; how he behaved himself in the monastery,” etc.[310] We may recall, how, according to Cochlæus, his brother monks suspected Luther, owing to this attack and on account of a “certain singularity of manner,” of being either under diabolical influence or an epileptic.[311] The convulsions which accompanied the fit may have given rise to the suspicion of epilepsy, but, in reality, they cannot be regarded as sufficient proof. Epilepsy is well-nigh incurable, yet, in Luther’s case, we hear of no similar fits in later life. In later years he manifested no fear of epileptic fits, though he lived in dread of an apoplectic seizure, such as, in due course, was responsible for his death. A medical diagnosis would not fail to consider this seeming instance of epileptic convulsions in conjunction with Luther’s state of fear. For the purpose of the present work it will be sufficient to bring together for the benefit of the expert the necessary data for forming an opinion on the whole question, so far as this is possible.”

        Citation:

        http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54811/54811-h/54811-h.htm#ch36_1

    2. very nicely put, sir.

      I think what most of our separated brethren fall victim to is that they force their own personal interpretation into the text always to their detriment. So as it is true with Sacred Scripture, is also true with writings of early church fathers. If you read any other of St. Cyril’s writings, you’ll find that he’s 100% in line with our Mother Church in his teaching on Church Authority and down to the very details of the Order of the Mass.

      So if you skip to the text in question and were bathed, breathed, and marinated in the tradition of sola scriptura, then of course that’s how you would read, see and interpret it. But what Cyril meant was that he was talking about the material sufficiency of scripture, which we can all accept. What Irked and most of our other brothers from their self proclaimed “churches” do without knowing it is to read the writings and assume the formal sufficiency of scripture.

      Definitions:
      1. Material Sufficiency of Scripture: all true doctrines are present in Scripture, even if only implicit or embryonic

      2. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: the Bible also contains what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “perspicuity.” That is to say, “Scripture interprets Scripture”; it is its own key to its own meaning. The Bible is sufficiently clear that anyone may pick it up and know what it says and means

      Obviously St. Cyril is not talking about Sola Scriptura because of his other writings that point the authority to the Catholic Church with all its Saints, Relics, Mass, Eucharist, Salvific Baptism, Lent, Church being liturgical and sacramental.

      How can we expect our brothers to see if they’re eyes are closed to the fullness of the faith? Peace be with you guys/gals.

      1. T.T. I think what most of our separated brethren fall victim to….[and] What… most of our other brothers from their self proclaimed “churches” do without knowing it is…

        B: Kindly stop calling us your “brothers”. Trent called those who disagreed, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil” (all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they claim) and so, if that’s God’s opinion, we are lost and you are a lunatic for piously calling us your brothers!
        Modern day RCism is a total reversal from antiquity, and technically, disobedience to God who says, “I change not”. So if your God’s assessment of us is ironclad, it cannot be changed. So until you can explain to me by what criteria do you judge those in antiquity to be WRONG under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and modern RCism to be RIGHT in designating us as “brothers” (NOT under the guidance of the H.S.) then you have no right to call us as brothers.

        T.T. [Protestants] assume the formal sufficiency of scripture.

        B: Uhhhh…so did a lot of other people! They made no distinction between “material” and “formal”. This is an RC trick to sneak in her unbiblical “necessary for salvation” doctrines which are not contained therein.

        CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “SUFFICIENT, SUFFICIENT for this are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, which if anyone will diligently study, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light.” (“The Divine Rule of Faith”, translated by William Goode, vol 3, p. 281-2, “De SS. Trinitate Dialogus I.)

        “Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly ***SUFFICIENT*** even so, that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent…” (ibid, p. 282-3, “Contra Julian, Lib. VII).

        JUSTIN MARTYR: “Moreover, I would wish that all…do not keep themselves away from the words of the Savior. For they possess a terrible power in themselves and are ***SUFFICIENT*** to inspire those who turn from the path of rectitude with awe…” (ANF, vol 1, Dialogue of Justin, ch. 8).

        ATHANATIUS: “…it will be well to content ourselves with the divine Scripture, and that we all obey the precept which it has given us both in regard to other heresies…. ..This may ***SUFFICE*** to instruct us all.” (NPNF2, Vol 4, “History of the Arians”, Part VIII.80, Duty of Separating from Heretics).

        “For the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from the Scriptures than from other sources” (NPNF2, vol 4, “De Decretis”, ch. 7).

        CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is ***SUFFICIENT*** above all things”
        (NPNF2, Vol 4, “Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, Part 1, History of the Councils”, 6.)

        “We say nothing apart from the Scriptures”.
        (ANF, Vol 2, The Stromata, Book VI, Chap XV).

        “We must take the Scriptures as witnesses [to prove the truth of what we say]. For our doctrines and interpretations without such witness, are not to be believed” (“In Jeremiam, Homilia 1.7, Translation by William Goode, in his “The Divine Rule of Faith & Practice”, vol 3, p.55).

        “See how close they are upon danger, who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought to direct our judgment in such an examination”
        (Goode: “Commentaria in Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Liber X.35; vol 3, p. 56)

        TERTULLIAN: “From ***what other source*** could they derive their arguments concerning the things of the faith except from the records of the faith?” (ANF, Vol 3, Prescription against Heretics”, chap 14). “If it is no where written, then let the woe which impends [be upon] all who add to or take away from the written word.” (ANF, Vol 3, Against Hermogenes, ch. 22).

        Augustine: “Now who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads it piously, deferring to it as of ***SUPREME*** authority… ”
        (Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, ch XI).

        “For I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor to the canonical books of Scripture; of these ***ALONE*** do I most firmly believe the authors were completely free from error” (NPNF1, Vol 1, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, ch 1.3

        “Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scipture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority… ” (ibid. ch 2.5)

        “For the reasonings of men, whatsoever, even though they be Catholics and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. (NPNF1, vol I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 164, ch 5.14).

        “But we wished to show that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever…” (NPNF1, vol II, The City of God, Book XIV, ch 7).

        “This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other” (NPNF1, vol I, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIII.5).

        “But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture… stands so absolutlely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops…but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth.” (NPNF1, vol IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, ch 3).

        “Owning unhestitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures” (NPNF1, vol V, On Nature & Grace, ch 71).

        “Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone” (ANF, vol 3, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh”, ch. 3).

        “What Scripture does not denote, it denies” (ANF, Vol IV, “On Monogomy”, ch. 4).

        1. This is a good attempt at ping pong. In all your quotes, I don’t see it saying sola scriptura or scripture alone anywhere!

          But i’m so ecstatic that you’re reading writings from fellow Roman Catholic fathers! It’s like you’re almost ready to go from “separated brethren” to BRETHREN!!! What a joy that would be!

          Maybe let’s take one quote at a time and read it in its entire context! Then we’ll really get the idea of it and understand it more by building each other up! which one would you like to tackle?

          1. T.T.: In all your quotes, I don’t see it saying sola scriptura or scripture alone anywhere!

            B: You sir, have been given over to BLINDNESS; “purposely” I might add, from the withholding influence of the Holy Spirit to enlighten you, per Luke 24:45 & 2 Thess 2:11-12.
            It’s sad, really.

          2. Brother Barry,

            It is sad that we are separated brothers for now… but I do have hope that we will one day be united brothers as is our Lord’s prayer for us to be so in the 17th Chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John.

            But for now, though separated, we are still called to love one another!
            And (separated) Brother Barry, I love you! Perhaps we are BOTH blind to the love that we could have together. United! Oh what a wonderful time that will be, when I can feel your presence behind me as we walk up to receive the Eucharist together!

          3. Your charity is admirable, Tron. May God grant your prayers in His infinite mercy.

            Keep up the good faith, brother.

        2. At 2:35 am, BB wrote: CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “SUFFICIENT, SUFFICIENT for this are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, which if anyone will diligently study, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light.” (“The Divine Rule of Faith”, translated by William Goode, vol 3, p. 281-2, “De SS. Trinitate Dialogus I.)

          Is this a direct quote of Cyril or a quote of William Goode? The words: “…the Scripture of the holy Fathers,…” seem to indicate that Goode talks about Cyril. Which is it, BB?

          Here is a direct quote from Cyril on Scripture filling one’s mind with divine light:

          “Those who wish to explore the holy Scripture and who drive away negligence in doing so, and thirst rather for the attainment thereof, and apply themselves vigorously and apart from all sloth—-the being in every good shall be theirs, for they fill their mind with the Divine Light: and then applying it to the doctrines of the Church, they admit everything that is right….”

          There is nothing there about SUFFICIENCY, SUFFICIENCY. Nothing of Sola or Solo Scriptura. Instead, Cyril says study of Scripture, applied to Church (read Catholic) doctrine, leads one to admit that everything is ‘right.’

          Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. Oxford (1881) Book 1. pp.1-37.
          A library of fathers of the holy Catholic church: anterior to the division of the East and West, vol. 47
          [Translated by P.E. PUSEY] at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_01_book1.htm

    3. Protestants tend to approach the fathers like they do the Bible. They take one verse that supports their position and relegate all others as insignificant.

      1. Wisdom, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, would seem to oppose such exclusive and ‘tunnel visioned’ focus in scriptural and patristic research. As is with any of the sciences, as much information as possible should be sought out on any particular topic, person or treatise. Context in every aspect should be analyzed, so a deep and comprehensive study of a ‘Father’ like St. Cyril should be done even if you are interested in only one particular paragraph of his writings. And, depending on intellect, both with scripture and patristics, it might take a lifetime of pondering, praying and studying to acquire true depth of understanding of any particular biblical or patristic precept.

        This is why I come to this site: to deepen my understanding of everything pertaining to the Christian Faith, which of course includes the history and motives of our other fellow Christians and denominations. How can you help them if you do not know what they believe?

      2. CK: Protestants tend to approach the fathers like they do the Bible. They take one verse that supports their position and relegate all others as insignificant.

        B: Technically, there is no such thing as an “early father of the church”. You cannot be a father to something which came before you, now wake up.
        A similar error is found wherein your church has wrongly appropriated to itself the term “catholic”.
        Why?
        Because it’s self-contradictory to call a body “roman” (which is particular), and then at the same time call it “catholic” (which means universal).
        Ergo, strictly speaking, “Roman Catholic” is a contradiction in terms. Hard as it may be for you to believe, It is Protestants who believe the church is catholic (or universal). Rome cannot discover it beyond her own communion, with headquarters in Italy under a papal monarch (CCC #834). Therefore, Evangelical Protestants are the truest “catholics” because they believe in the universal church as distinguished from a particular branch, congregation or denomination per Eph 1:22-3.

        1. It’s okay Barry, you don’t have to hold onto all that emotional anger inside. As the singer, Brother Isaiah who expresses in his song so nicely, “when I lose my grip that’s when I find my freedom.”

          Let go of your grip, Barry, and Jesus will set you free. If this is difficult for you, God has planted a Church with appointed Priests that can draw their line back to Peter who was appointed by Our Lord and Savior to confess your sins to.

          It’s truly amazing! Amen, brother. Lift up your heart to the Lord.

        2. Bare – I see your point. “Southwest” Airlines should fly only in that direction! Got it!

          If you don’t, here’s another for ya: “Apple” should sell only an apple. Haha.

        3. When there are no arguments left, BB throws some third-grade platitudes that reveal a shallow and poor understanding of language (ie, English language) itself, be it because of ignorance (common in US Protestants with no education), be it because the polemical vein has blinded you to common sense (also common in US Protestants with no education):

          “Technically, there is no such thing as an “early father of the church”. You cannot be a father to something which came before you, now wake up.”

          Well, technically, God the father is not a father of any of us, either, just our “creator” (according to creationists).

          Your apparent contradiction between Roman and Universal dissolves when you realize that there are Catholic churches that are not Latin, but are “Roman” just because the Pope happens to have his residence in Rome.

          If Protestants “believe in the universal church as distinguished from a particular branch, congregation or denomination”, then how should one explain countless of sects throwing up accusations at one another (and at Catholics, Copts, Armenians, Orthodox, Jacobites etc.) that they are not really “part of the Church” and in some cases not even Christian at all?

          You (Protestants) seem to believe in a “universal church” composed only by those who agree with you in one thing (ie, the mutual or one-way assumption that the other guys are part of the church or Christians). Sociologically (and linguistically), that is a very narrow grasp of the meaning of “universal”. No matter how hard one doesn’t believe in Catholicism (or for that matter, Orthodoxy), institutionally, there is much more consistency between two Catholic priests, one in Japan, the other in Nigeria, than two Protestant pastors on the same street (if you didn’t realize, that’s just a metaphor). Your “universality” between Protestant sects imply a very narrow set of common objective atributes, and an even narrower set of subjective (self-appointed) attributes.

          So if you want to be really universal, “distinguished from a particular branch, congregation or denomination”, you should start considering the Catholic denomination, and the Orthodox, and the Copts, as well as the Unitarians, the Universalists, the Adventists etc. as part of the universal Church, too (I don’t even know if you consider “us”/”them” as Christians).

          1. K.O. No matter how hard one doesn’t believe in Catholicism… institutionally, there is much more consistency between two Catholic priests, one in Japan, the other in Nigeria, than two Protestant pastors on the same street (if you didn’t realize, that’s just a metaphor).

            B: You are wrong. Actually, there is more consistency amongst Protestant denominations than between one priest in Japan and Nigeria. I know this may come as a shock to your system, so might I suggest a teaspoon of Pepto-Bismal before you read this in anticipation of stomach upset?

            Briefly, the principle of “The Bible plus an infallible interpreter” creates far more disunity than those who adhere to Sola Scriptura. For example, the Evangelical Free Church and the Reformed Baptist church (the S.S. camp) are far more doctrinally unified than are the RCC and the Mormon church (the Bible and an infallible interpreter camp). The first two believe in S.S. and as a result come to very similar beliefs and embrace each other as brothers. The latter two who believe in the Bible and an infallible interpreter, disagree on almost every point of doctrine and reject each other as heretics! Obviously then, the principle of the B with an I.I. creates nothing but doctrinal chaos and anarchy.
            Moreover, there are absolutely no two belief systems within the B plus an I.I. camp that embrace each other as brothers. NOT ONE. Whereas, in the case of the S.S. camp, everyone, with very few exceptions, embraces everyone else as brothers. That, I submit, is true biblical unity.

            (gleaned, in part, from apologist Eric Svendsen)

          2. “….teaspoon of Pepto-Bismal…”

            may I suggest a dose of spell-check since your spelin’ is so…a-Bysmal….or should I say…a-Bismol….

            As for the ‘more unity between Protestants than Catholic priests’ rant to which you just treated the class….I will not suggest a cold washcloth and a lie-down, rather an emergency ice-bath and Prestone IV because your thermometer-bursting fever is causing you to have the most outlandish of hallucinations – and the explanation, long-winded and incomprehensible as usual was completely inadequate (heard that one before, didja). KO said **Protestant**….you picked two minor offshoot sects who might agree on Tuesday…what about Methodists, of which there about sixteen flavors…Presbyterians….Anglicans and Episcopalians…all the flavors of Lutheran….Baptists of multiple subspecies……all claiming that there ‘private ‘terpretation’ thingy that can cause a congregant in any of these charches (spelling intentional) to go spinning off into his (or her) own Reforma-tard universe of a little storefront charch….

            KO had you pegged, right to a cork-board like the theological and temperamental insect you are.

          3. For example, the Evangelical Free Church and the Reformed Baptist church (the S.S. camp) are far more doctrinally unified than are the RCC and the Mormon church (the Bible and an infallible interpreter camp).

            Comparing the Pope to the head authority of the Mormon “Church” is like comparing Emperor Charles V to Hitler, simply because they both led a German Empire. The way the two authorities work in both cases is entirely different, and as such, there is no comparison.

          4. For example, the Evangelical Free Church and the Reformed Baptist church (the S.S. camp) are far more doctrinally unified than are the RCC…

            Here’s a better example: Confessional Lutheran vs Pentecostal vs Dutch Reformed vs Amish vs Independent Free-will Baptist Church vs Prosperity-Gospel Megachurch.

            All of the above believe in sola scriptura, but preach radically different gospels.

            As for the critique, it’s genuine and valid. We have a massive unity problem on our hands in this Century, but it’s a problem that’s common to all of Christianity in this age — namely, Liberal vs Moderate vs Conservative (theologically speaking, not politically necessarily). It’s not as obvious in congregationalist Protestantism, because the usual solution is to have separate congregations, but it becomes more apparent in more institutional protestantism (such as Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, or especially Anglicanism). And in these groups, the liberalism problem is far, far, worse.

          5. As, AK said, you pick up two minor subsects of American Protestantism and claim (or assume!) that they represent all the spectrum of Protestant churches. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of sociological, historical fact, so it’s not a “shock to my system” (or an atheist historian’s system) that you didn’t provide an inch of dogmatic disagreement even between the metaphorical personas of the two Catholic priests in Nigeria an Japan.

            You claim that “the principle of “The Bible plus an infallible interpreter” creates far more disunity than those who adhere to Sola Scriptura”, whereas I see far more internal unity among Mormons, Jehova’s Witnesses, and Adventists than internal unity among members and external unity between Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Neopentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Universalists, Neopentecostals etc. You can check Melton’s Encyclopedia of Protestantism, under the entry “heresy”, and see for yourself that lack of agreement even among the most basic issues is sometimes even considered a virtue. Value judgments aside, it is a sociological fact that Protestant churches, communities and individuals agree on very little. Once I made up a list of beliefs Protestants don’t agree on. It’s an almost futile exercise. It’s all there for everyone to see. Then I asked the other person to pick and choose which beliefs he thought were shared by all Protestants, he couldn’t find one. All he could retort was that “well, but those who disagree aren’t really Protestants”. Even if you make a list between your two chosen sects, you’ll see that they either do not agree or that they agree to disagree (that is, the “doesn’t matter” argument below).

            If X and Y say they “believe in the same things”, but define those things differently, then they aren’t really the same things we’re talking about. If they both claim they believe in the Bible, but then claim the Bible means one thing for himself, and another for the other, then they’re clearly talking about two different things (“Bible for X” is different from “Bible for Y”). Saying one (or everyone) believes in “Bible alone” is irrelevant.

            When you allege that ““The Bible plus an infallible interpreter” creates far more disunity than those who adhere to Sola Scriptura””, there is a litmus test to that: Sola Scriptura implies, at the utter limit, some infallible interpreter (though ad hoc infallibility maybe implied). If it were not so, it would just be wishful thinking and uncertainty to the core, like a subjective, internal, non-verbalized feeling (see some more here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/). This infallible interpreter in any Protestant sect may be an individual, a leader, a pastor, a bishop — it doesn’t matter. Otherwise, it all dissolves to an ill-defined “faith alone + Bible alone” common denominator that explains nothing: an individualist thinking of the sort: “You have to think for yourself, it doesn’t matter which church you go to, it doesn’t even matter if you believe the same things, all that matters is that if you believe in Jesus you’re saved” — all that is fine as far as social rights go. [Unless of course if you disagree on what really matters (1), and if you disagree on what “believe” means (2), and on “who Jesus was” (3)… you see where it gets.]

            But if you make a thought experiment and answer this guy (as I once did) that someone makes her personal choice, derived from a thorough reading of the Bible, “through faith alone and the Bible alone”, that the Catholic Church is the true church, and that the Holy Spirit has made that clear to her through prayers and Bible reading, then what would a Protestant answer? That this woman is a fellow companion in Christianity (a)? Or that she is beyond the pale, apostatized, and is now a pagan whore (because the Pope is “surely” the Whore of Babylon) beyond redemption (b)?

            Sociologically, there is no “Bible alone”, everyone learns to interpret the Bible some way. The argument “I believe the Bible and you don’t” has always been a bogus one of irreducible cultural differences between sundry commonwealths of faith.

        4. The term “Roman Catholic” is one we did not choose for ourselves, but is one the early-Reformation Protestants (particularly the Anglicans) slapped us with. Due to the United States’ Protestant history, that is the term most Americans are familiar with, and when we use it, we use it primarily to ensure that people know who and what we’re talking about. We would prefer not to use it at all.

          1. E.M. We would prefer not to use [the term “Roman Catholic”] at all.

            B: Kindly produce one article from someone in history, alive or dead, who will second your motion.
            Thank you.

          2. Kindly produce one article from someone in history, alive or dead, who will second your motion.
            Thank you.

            From Catholic Encyclopedia (speaking of England in the 2nd paragraph cited):

            …When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the “Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church”. This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his “Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet” uses the term “Roman Catholic” repeatedly. For example he speaks of “you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration” (p. 140) and of the “parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into” (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called “A Deliberat Answere”, printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms “Romish Catholike” or “Popish Catholike”, also writes of those “who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises” (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic”……….

            ……………With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be “the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England”. Even the form “the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England” was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name “Roman Catholics” were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, “Life of Cardinal Vaughan”, II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that “the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept.” The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, “with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic.” The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and “insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter.”

            Full Article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

            The term “Roman Catholicism” is like the term “Yankee”. We choose to embrace it because it emphasizes our loyalty to Rome, but it wasn’t our term originally, it was originally an Anglican one.

          3. B: Kindly produce one article from someone in history, alive or dead, who will second your motion.

            A.F. The term “Roman Catholicism” is like the term “Yankee”. We choose to embrace it because it emphasizes our loyalty to Rome, but it wasn’t our term originally, it was originally an Anglican one.

            Full Article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

            B: My original request was in response to the statement that RC’s don’t like the term RC… “AT ALL”.
            So the article and your conclusion were nice, but at the end of the day, it did not prove the “AT ALL” claim from poster. At the end of the day, it ends up being perfectly acceptable because it emphasizes your Roman pedigree (CCC 834).
            Nevertheless, 834 is historically false and a brazen lie; namely, that all churches EVERYWHERE have held and [do] hold Rome to be their ONLY basis and foundation.
            Nicea, for example, did not see Rome as being the star attraction, but saw fit to split the glory with a few others. The catechism editors are therefore a bunch of lying wolves.

          4. Nevertheless, [CCC] 834 is historically false and a brazen lie; namely, that all churches EVERYWHERE have held and [do] hold Rome to be their ONLY basis and foundation.

            …The catechism editors are therefore a bunch of lying wolves.

            Can’t even give me a compliment for a fair answer without attacking the Roman Catholic Church somehow, eh?

            Regardless, to answer you here, the CCC quotes 3 church fathers in this part: St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Maximus the Confessor. During the 7th century, St. Maximus the Confessor’s claim was indeed, true.

            As for your allegation from Nicea, it still listed Rome as 1st, so…non-issue.

    4. AWL: Protestants go about ‘sewing together’ their case, and gathering their out-of-context ‘body’ (parts)of evidence…

      B: Spare us the nonsense that we are taking Cyril out of context. He said what he said and it’s clear as the light of day. You just secretly wish he had never said it, but HE DID, so too bad for you. Your long-winded reply was utterly worthless since you fail to show where he taught a theopnuestos (God-breathed) “tradition” on the same-level as the “theopnuestos” Scriptures. It is completely irrelevant that he embraced things we would disagree with. None of those things detract from Scripture being able to function as the sole rule of faith. If my Christian brother adds two eggs (wrong belief) to the cake mix, when the directions (The Bible) only called for one, THAT’S EITHER HIS PROBLEM, or God’s desire not to enlighten that person for his own good reasons (Matt 11:25-6; Luke 24:45).

      AWL: the one true ‘body of theological doctrine’ taught by the 2 millennia old Catholic Church; which was built upon the foundation of the apostle Peter and his successors

      B: Scripture says no such thing. We read of the foundation of the 12 apostles, period…..and not the foundation of the apostles and their successors. So brainwashed are you by the lure of apostolic succession, that you unconsciously misquote Scripture and don’t even know it.
      It’s sad, really.

      1. Then again, it’s tough, you know? I don’t like to call protestants, protestants, even though they’re constantly protesting… I suspect only Satan could have divided the Church so much and continues to do so. But they’re sinners like you and I, and thus we are brothers… though not in full communion. As Pope Leo prayed in his Encyclical, Orientalium Dignitas; On the Churches of the East, 30 November 1894), “O sorrowful Mother! intercede for our separated brethren, that with us in the one true fold they may be united to the supreme Shepherd, the Vicar of thy Son.”

        My heart goes out to you Barry. Keep praying and trying to align your will with God’s will. Remember that Our Lord and Savior prayed for us to be one. Amen.

        1. TT: “O sorrowful Mother! intercede for our separated brethren”

          B: Your Kleenex addicted goddess who is always blowing her nose, may indeed hear you, but I can assure you that the Mary of the Bible does not.

          TT: we are brothers

          B: I told you at 2:35 not to say that until you can explain what I said you HAD to explain before it could be true. Obviously, you could not do that, so you continue to mouth off the same old pious nonsense anyway, even as you rattle off the same old tired arguments after being thoroughly refuted.

          As a side note, if you’re so convinced we’re brothers, then why the helicopter do you care to change us? If Protestants are all going to heaven hand in hand with Catholics, we have nothing to lose, by your own admission. So why not leave us alone?

          1. “Your Kleenex addicted goddess..”

            OOhhh…what you said…from the yokel who in multiple blog topics said Protestants don’t disrespect the Mother of God….

            “…then why the helicopter do you care to change us? If Protestants are all going to heaven hand in hand with Catholics, we have nothing to lose, by your own admission. So why not leave us alone?”

            Flounder, you dimwit, do you even think for a nanosecond before you hit “send?” YOU, you tent-fouling, knuckle-dragging revival-tard, are HERE on a Catholic blog, spreading YOUR vile theological manure. Stop flavoring your mac n’cheese with paint chips from the bunker walls….

          2. Bare –

            Is it true? Can it possibly be true? Did you really say this? Truly, truly did you say so? B: I told you at 2:35 not to say that until you can explain what I said you HAD to explain before it could be true.

          3. Brother Barry,

            Through Our Lord Jesus’ words on the cross, she is your mother too!! And what a wonderful mother she is. Blessed Mary, ever virgin! Conceived without Sin, pray for brother barry, Mother Mary! Mary is the theotokos!!

            St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who you say proves sola scriptura, also claims that Mary is the THEOTOKOS and is our mother! So truly since you believe that St. Cyril of Jerusalem believes things that you believe, you must also believe the powerful intercession and role of our Lord’s mother who he has given to us!

            Of course you do! This makes me very happy! So it’s not about refuting one another, but loving one another.

            Barry you are much loved, but me and your fellow brothers and sisters here! Check out an RCIA class!! I know your flesh is weak, but remember that the spirit is willing!

          4. TT: Brother Barry…

            B: You really must be mentally challenged to keep calling me brother in light of my correcting you twice now. You can’t deal with the facts of history, so you pretend they don’t exist. Sadly, I can only call you pathetic.

            TT: Through Our Lord Jesus’ words on the cross, she is your mother too!!

            B: Stop twisting the words of Christ on the cross! He was NOT addressing the Christian world, but making preparations for her care after his exit, PERIOD. Honestly, the lengths Catholic go to support their theology on the flimsiest of implications is truly….pathetic.
            But I said that already didn’t I? Maybe 2 times will be the charm to wake you up out of spiritual coma.

          5. Bare,
            At 5:52 pm today, you claim that “… the words of Christ on the cross [are] NOT addressing the Christian world,….”

            So what words of Christ do or do not address the Christian world? Jesus himself does not distinguish which words we are to discard as not applicable. The words in question are in Scripture, directed to John; you say they do not apply to us. Jesus spoke many words to his apostles; do you also say those many other words also do not apply to us? Which is it?

          6. M: At 5:52 pm today, you claim that “… the words of Christ on the cross [are] NOT addressing the Christian world,….”
            So what words of Christ do or do not address the Christian world? Jesus himself does not distinguish which words we are to discard as not applicable. The words in question are in Scripture, directed to John; you say they do not apply to us. Jesus spoke many words to his apostles; do you also say those many other words also do not apply to us? Which is it?

            B: There are numerous reasons why the Catholic take on Mary at the foot of the cross, which opines that she is now made “mother of the church”, ring false. And it takes common sense and reason and NOT the wild-eyed speculations of men dressed in religious costumes in Rome, to find the answer.

            1) If Jesus did intend to proclaim the spiritual maternity of Mary from the cross, it’s strange that the Text would not just come right out and say so. However, the Holy Spirit did not do this because it was simply not on the agenda. We may rightly conclude this based on other factors resulting from……yep, you guessed it….common sense and reason.

            2) It was not until 12th century Marian piety emerged, that this verse came to be used to buttress the RC position, proving it was unheard of, let alone a “tradition” of first century Christianity.

            3) A plain reading of the passage simply disallows us to view M in any superior way because the “giving” of M over to John is completely reciprocal. IOW, M is given to J, but J is also given to M. If you wish to argue that M is here given to the church as a mother with special prerogatives, I could just as easily argue that J is here given to the church as a SON with special prerogatives. But obviously, the RCC does not give J the time of DAY when it comes to any special prerogatives resulting from this passage.

            4) A simple reading of the Text shows Jesus’ desire for John to shelter his mother. But Catholicism stubbornly goes for the exact OPPOSITE of the plain reading and demands the sheltering care of Mary over the CHURCH! This is ridiculous!

            5) The fatal flaw of the RC view is that it is grossly inconsistent. IOW, Mary is treated as a literal individual, but John as a symbolic, corporate personality who represents the church.
            NO!
            An ordinary symbolic pattern would treat BOTH as individuals or BOTH as symbols, period, end of story.

            At the end of the day, there is zero evidence that M had any influence in the early church which would give rise to the notion of her “spiritual motherhood”. As usual, the RCC reads FAR TOO MUCH into the Text which simply wants us to know that the immediate material welfare of M would be taken care of.

          7. Brother Barry,

            I can understand how you are unable to see the love of Christ and his Plan for us, but we can work towards a better future and we can love one another as Scripture says.

            PART THREE
            LIFE IN CHRIST

            SECTION TWO
            THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

            CHAPTER ONE
            “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND”

            2083 Jesus summed up man’s duties toward God in this saying: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”1 This immediately echoes the solemn call: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.”2

            God has loved us first. The love of the One God is recalled in the first of the “ten words.” The commandments then make explicit the response of love that man is called to give to his God.

      2. Barry, it’s sad that you don’t care for, or trust, Church history. Or, if you do, it’s only a history of probably 50 to 100 years. But, you do trust in the millennia old history of Old Testament scripture. Why so? Why trust in thousands of years of oral tradition at a time when only cuneiform and hieroglyphs were starting to be invented and not believe in the history of the first 500 years of Christianity? Just open up Eusebius’ Church History and read it. You will find out how the Church started. And, just look at the basilicas built in the 4th Century, after Catholicism was legalized, and consider their architecture and ALTARS where the early Masses were said. All of this teaches about Church history and the truth of early Christian worship. Or, do you think that these were heretical basilica’s that were built, with their heretical altars used for a heretical Eucharistic liturgies? So, I think you really don’t trust, or believe in Church History to teach anything substantial, after the first 50 or so years of Christianity?

        But, then again, why do you trust the canon of scripture, which canon was selected by this very same Church and it’s many bishop’s, after centuries of debate on the subject? It’s all written in Eusebius’ History, how the canon of scripture was debated over and selected that you read today. But it was the Church itself that made the final decision on which books to accept and which to reject, and you accept their decision on this. But why, If these same bishops(as priests) are using the altars in their basilica’s to conduct Eucharistic Liturgies? Why believe that they can select an authentic canon of scripture if they are truly heretical?

        Eusebius’ history also relates how the Church of Rome became the see of St. Peter, and details all of the successors of Peter up to his own time, wherein he neglects to give the history of the other bishopric’s around the world (not to say they weren’t important). And we also see the importance of this See, in the history of the Church to our present day. But you think it is heretical. So, exactly when did it become heretical? In what decade? I’m sure you have thought this out, no? You must have a time frame. Just tell us, I’m, sure there are a lot of people here interested.

        Best to you.

        1. Al – every time you bring up Eusebius, it reminds me of the copy sitting on the shelf on my desk, and how I need to truncate the reading list to get-to-it…

          1. It should be a staple, AK. Start with Chapter 8 on the eyewitness accounts of the martyrs. These are Catholic witnesses extraordinaire, and disprove ‘sola fide’ by their examples. the reason is, that there were plenty of Christians who denied Christ during these persecutions, and it is noted in these accounts how many still went to their deaths, but dejected and tormented by denying their Lord. The prisoners would see the difference between the two types of Christians, and be horrified of being among the dejected ones, so the evil witness of faithlessness spurred many on to die for Christ with a noble heart. All of chapter 8 is filled with such accounts, and shows the nobility of Catholic love and spirit for both Christ and His Holy Church.

            Too bad Protestants, like Barry, don’t recognize such noble history, and consider these martyrs as mere members of a monstrous horde of heretical infidels since they didn’t profess non-existent TULIP doctrines and creeds. Ohh well. 🙂

            Best to you.

          2. A lot do recognize the nobility. Mostly mainline types who haven’t been co-opted by the US-based Second Great “Awakening” (more like possession) fundamentalist, nativist bile; some of them work with us in Colorado Springs Marian House, which feeds 600 people a day (that good works thing). A lot of this hatred dates to the mass arrival of Catholics to the US from Ireland, Germany and Eastern Europe in the 1850’s-early 1900’s. Well-documented in scholarly works like McPhersons excellent ‘ “Battle Cry of Freedom.” Just as understanding Church history makes one love Her all the more, knowing US religious history helps one understand much of the chaotic and fragmented nature of US evangelical origins and the obtuse, pathetic, and futile nature of fundamentalist hatred of Catholicism. Flounder is an object lesson – a soft, noisome white underbelly of what is often a noble, elegant and humbly fervent (if theologically flawed) overlay of US Christianity. There’s a local Anglican family responsible for my wife being *alive.* You won’t catch me painting all Protestants with the devils-tail-hair brush Barry so inelegantly wields at everyone not him and his.

            As Bugs Bunny might say….”what a maroon….”

          3. E.M. how do you know that the Catholic Church is the monstrosity that you refer to?

            B: By the exact same method YOU used when you decided to join the RCC: you privately interpreted the evidence and decided you wanted to bow your knee to the Pope. Fine. I privately interpreted the evidence and concluded, with millions of others I might add, that the allusions to the RCC in Revelation is the kind of circumstantial evidence that sends criminals to jail, and therefore, IT is the religious monstrosity spoken of.

            E.M. and if you do believe this, what do you make of Christ’s promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?

            B: Your statement simply presupposes that Jesus was referring to the RCC in particular, which is exactly what we deny, so your question is unwarranted. I note you capitalize the word “Church”…to signify Rome. But the word “church” is mentioned over 100 times in the N.T. and not once does it refer to a religious superstructure situated in Rome….not even in the book of Roooooomans, where it should be found if the claim were true.

            E.M. It certainly seems very odd to me that this should mean that the faith of the Apostles would be corrupted almost immediately after the Apostolic age

            B: That’s because you aren’t reading your Bible. For if you were, you would recall that Paul prophesied (just as Moses did) that the minute these two men made their exit, they anticipated an immediate falling away. Now wasn’t that easy?

            E.M. But then where DO you get your canon? How do you know the “Gospel” of Thomas is not canonical, and that the Gospel of John is, if not from the Church? [How can I believe that the truth was so soon corrupted] only to be miraculously rediscovered by a German who lived fifteen centuries after the fact.

            B. As Jesus said to his detractors, “I’ll be happy to answer that question, if you will first answer mine”….

            You apparently do not like the idea of certain truths coming along at a later date. But are you not being hypocritical to ask me your question? Were not the Marian dogmas not infallibly declared until 1500 years after the fact? Is it not true that no Pope ever considered himself infallible for over 1500 years– until one day in 1870, Pope whats-his-name decided it was time to simply DECLARE himself infallible? And do you not know that it was not until 1500 years after Christ left this Earth, that the Council of Trent made her “official” decision on the canon?
            Q. By what measuring standard do you judge Luther’s words to be suspect because they came along 1500 years later….but at the same time, do NOT consider suspect any of the RCC’s decisions that were not officially defined until over 1500 years later?

            Now let me tell you how this conversation will end up. My always handy crystal ball tells me you will not answer. And because you will not answer my question (said Jesus), neither will I answer yours.

            __________________________________________

            The evidence:

            “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” tells us the Canon wasn’t established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical: We read:

            “The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (Under, The Canon).

          4. Hey Bare,

            Where in Scripture does Jesus say (as you say He said, in your post of) ?????

            Barry Baritone says:
            November 3, 2017 at 6:35 pm

            B. As Jesus said to his detractors, “I’ll be happy to answer that question, if you will first answer mine”….

          5. “B: By the exact same method YOU used when you decided to join the RCC: you privately interpreted the evidence and decided you wanted to bow your knee to the Pope. Fine. I privately interpreted the evidence and concluded, with millions of others I might add, that the allusions to the RCC in Revelation is the kind of circumstantial evidence that sends criminals to jail, and therefore, IT is the religious monstrosity spoken of.”

            Nice, two *private* interpretations! No way to judge, though. We’d better ask an atheist, a Hindu, or a general non-Christian arbiter, right? Or just letit be.

          6. M: Where in Scripture does Jesus say (as you say He said, in your post) “Jesus said to his detractors, “I’ll be happy to answer that question, if you will first answer mine”….

            B. Matt 21:24

          7. Hohohohoho! That is a funny try,
            Bare. Funny, funny, funny. Perhaps you read Scripture as you think? What I read is not what you wrote. Do you want to try again?

            Let me ask you something: Did you pass Reading 101? If so, what was your score? And no, I’m not going to answer your question first!

            So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night!

            PS.: About that dunce hat? I only have to think of you and I see it! Thank you for your kind offer.

          8. AK: Al – every time you bring up Eusebius, it reminds me of the copy sitting on the shelf on my desk, and how I need to truncate the reading list to get-to-it…

            B: And while you’re at it, why don’t YOU post..not me post, since you always think I quote badly….his comments on the Eucharist?
            Both Philip Schaff and JND Kelly note Eusebius called the Supper a “commemoration of Christ by the SYMBOLS of his body and blood”.
            Mr. Kelly also notes that E viewed the bread and wine as anti-types or the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, NOT the literal thing.

            Shocking, isn’t it?

            concerning Eusebius’s works Demonst. Evang. 1, c. 10 and Theol. Eccl. iii. C. 12, he “calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which are spirit and life, the true food of the soul, to believers” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], p. 495). Moreover, J. N . D. Kelly observes that Eusebius viewed the bread and wine as anti-types or the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, not the literal thing. He notes, “So Eusebius of Caesarea, while declaring [De solemn. Pasch. 7.] that ‘we are continually fed with the Savior’s body, we continually participate in the lamb’s blood’, states [Dem. Ev. I, 10, 39; 8. I. 380] that Christians daily commemorate Jesus’ sacrifice ‘with the symbols (διά συμβόλων) of His body and saving blood’, and that He instructed His disciples to make ‘the image (τὐν εἰόνα) of His own body’, to employ bread as its symbol” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition, [HarperOne, 1978], p. 441).

          9. Mr. BB,
            Here again you quote secondary sources. So and so says this about so and so. So? I don’t believe a word of it.

          10. Mornin’ Margo…

            Confirmation bias runs strong in this one….as in the Calvinists in particular. I suspect it’s because their theology is so repellent – I read one Protestant’s screed that the Calvinist God is a ‘sadistic monster’ who creates people just so they can suffer eternally, with no control or say in their fate – they have to go through extra theological/philosophical gymnastics and be especially long-winded/aggressive/evasive in their responses. In the end they are interminable and incomprehensible, to their discredit. Look at the prime opportunity BB has had to engage Dave Armstrong’s direct quotes from Cyril and all he can do is dance around….the way he has done the same with Alex, and LLC, and Al, and both of us.

            Pathetic, really.

          11. AK: [Prots] have to go through extra theological/philosophical gymnastics and be especially long-winded/aggressive/evasive in their responses.

            B: You, sir, are simply so full of baloney you could serve sandwiches right out of your pocket to City Hall.
            The fact is you have just described the protocol of the RCC, so chock-full of philosophical gymnastics (especially about their metaphysical “jesus” in the Eucharist) one is shocked that so many can fall for it.

          12. You, sir, are simply so full of baloney you could serve sandwiches right out of your pocket to City Hall.”

            I’d rather open a deli. Pastrami, bologna, prosciutto, mortadella….feta…..

          13. M: Here again you quote secondary sources. So and so says this about so and so. So? I don’t believe a word of it.

            B: What a pip you are! You know darn well that if I quoted the primary source, you would neither believe it, nor would you get up off your lazy hide from the couch to check it out. I specifically stated I was going to PROVIDE the secondary — (you ignorant woman!) — allowing Eusebius’ fan club to see what he said about Eucharistic symbolism, which is exactly what I believe. It brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it? Euby may not have been everything you thought. Well boo hoo, sob. Grab a tissue and get over it.

            Sooooo, your complaint that I provided a secondary source is dismissed, not only due to your hypocrisy, but because of your glaring unconcern for what is true and what is not. The only thing you do care about is scouring the internet to see if you can find a place where I’m copying from so you can publicly humiliate me. Happily, you made a fool of yourself and failed at that attempt the first time around, but now…. you seem to want to extend your self-mutilation. Seemingly, you desire to crush your reputation all the more, by your obvious disinterest to see what Eusebius thinks about the Euc (afraid of what you will find no doubt).

            Sadly, all that matters to you is using Matt 16 like a rubber band to support everything and anything, so it can be stretched and stretched to the point of snapping.
            Count on it. It WILL snap back at you on Judgment Day. And kindly do not look in my direction on that day and say I didn’t warn you.

        2. AWL: Why trust in thousands of years of oral tradition at a time when only cuneiform and hieroglyphs were starting to be invented

          B: Need I remind you that Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit?!…. and not by thousands of years of oral tradition! Moreover, because of the fact that Catholics cannot even NAME all the “God-breathed” traditions she holds to be true, your position for a tradition on the same level as Scripture, falls flat.
          And because the RCC cannot name for us exactly how many times the Pope has spoken infallibly, your position for an infallible Pope, falls flat.
          The RCC cannot even agree on the criteria for recognizing an infallible statement because every apologist gives you different answers!
          WAKE UP.

          AWL: And, just look at the basilicas built in the 4th Century, after Catholicism was legalized, and consider their architecture and ALTARS where the early Masses were said. All of this teaches about Church history and the truth of early Christian worship.

          B: Briefly, it is because God has told us that a religious monstrosity would arise very early on, which we perceive to be Catholicism, we are not surprised at all to see the seeds of error take root early. They MUST take root early for the prophecy to be fully realized, so that those looking back in time may identify the culprit.

          AWL: But it was the Church itself that made the final decision on which books to accept and which to reject, and you accept their decision on this.

          B: We most certainly DO NOT. We completely REJECT the Catholic canon and this you know darn well. Yet, incredibly, Catholics keep parroting, “you accept the council’s decision, you accept the council’s decision”.
          NO WE DON’T MAN, now stop your blabbering.

          As Paul said, “We are not ignorant of Satan’s devices”, so I would kindly suggest you find a new feat of magic to add to your bag of tricks, because this one is obviously not working.

          1. But then where DO you get your canon? How do you know the “Gospel” of Thomas is not canonical, and that the Gospel of John is, if not from the Church?

            In addition, how do you know that the Catholic Church is the monstrosity that you refer to, and if you do believe this, what do you make of Christ’s promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church? It certainly seems very odd to me that this should mean that the faith of the Apostles would be corrupted almost immediately after the Apostolic age, only to be miraculously rediscovered by a German who lived fifteen centuries after the fact.

          2. Barry said: “God has told us that a religious monstrosity would arise very early on, which we perceive to be Catholicism”.

            That’s a pretty flimsy excuse, Barry, for your ignoring Early Christian history…ie. “All of this history is written by monstrous devils and apostates”. If you think the “Catholic Church” described by Ignatius of Antioch before 107AD was a monstrosity…were only talking about 15, or so, years after the Book of Revelation (which you are referring to as a reliable prophesy) was written. So, within 15 years of the last scripture written, the world wide Church that’s detailed in Eusebius’ Church history fell so far away from Christ as to become ‘a monster’.

            This is ludicrous. But you can believe it if it makes you happy. 🙂

            Why didn’t the ‘non-monsters’ do some writing back then, that we can study now? Why is it only Catholic monsters that did all the work to write down all this history? And I wonder why Catholic monsters were so successful in converting so many barbarian nations in the first 500 years of Christ? Where were the “Non-Monsters” at that time, and WHO DID THEY CONVERT? (sound the….crickets..). Where is the non-monster art work exhibited in ancient history? Where are the non-monster manuscripts containing their TULIP doctrines? Were all of the ‘true non-monstrous Christians’ illiterate, or so lazy, so as to not write anything down?? If not….then please guide us to these ‘non-monstrous’ early Christian literary works. We all want to read them!!

            But …everyone knows that all this ‘monstrous stuff’ regarding the Catholic Church is all fantasy. The Church that Jesus started (called Catholic) was VERY EFFECTIVE. It converted pagan Rome! It converted countless barbarian nations! It established monasticism that kept education and science alive in the Western World for a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire! And what about the majestic Cathedrals those monsters built! What incredible art and statuary which exudes out of every nook and cranny in the cities and towns of Europe!

            And, it’s kind of funny that so many tourists travel to Europe each year in our present day, and spend countless thousands of dollars doing so…. to marvel at the great and beautiful works, architecture, cathedrals, etc… that those ‘monsters’ created throughout the entirety of Europe! 🙂

            All of Western Civilization was built by the Catholic Church. Yes, built by the same “monster” that you are referring to. You just need to open your secular European history books up. And, if that is what a monster could create…an entire civilization that still dominates the world today…just think what a non-monster might do??! Ethereal.

            You are a funny guy, Barry! You provide a lot of recreation to those who are reading here.

            I pray that God provides you with the gift of wisdom so as to be able to understand the true History of Christianity.

            Amen.

          3. B: God has told us that a religious monstrosity would arise very early on, which we perceive to be Catholicism”.

            AWL: That’s a pretty flimsy excuse, Barry, for your ignoring Early Christian history…ie. “All of this history is written by monstrous devils and apostates”.

            B: Your entire post was a waste of time because you foolishly assume that I thing EVERY SINGLE DARLING PERSON who existed after the apostles exit and for 1500 years thereafter, were all monsters.
            Now because that’s not so, your blabbering screed shall be ignored.

          4. BB: Now because that’s not so, your blabbering screed shall be ignored.

            If your critique is that Al is wrong. Tell him what you actually think. Do you:

            1. Believe that there were public examples of Christians who believed in Calvinism in every age
            2. Believe that there were private examples of Christians who believed in Calvinism in every age
            3. Believe that there were public examples of Christians who believed in Calvinism in 100-1500, but there were gaps
            4. Beleive that there were private examples of Christians who believed in Calvinism in 100-1500, but there were gaps
            5. Some permutation of the above views
            6. Something different entirely than all the above

            And to be 100% clear, by “Calvinist” I mean substantially Calvinist theology, not necessarily fully developed TULIP and all, but with the particulars that you regard as necessary: Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Memorialism, and any other doctrines you regard as absolutely essential (I’m basing this list on what parts of Catholicism you’ve attacked in the past).

          5. A.F.: If your critique is that Al is wrong. Tell him what you actually think. Do you:
            1. Believe that there were public examples of Christians who believed in Calvinism in every age…. And to be 100% clear, by “Calvinist” I mean substantially Calvinist theology, not necessarily fully developed TULIP and all,

            B: Gladly. But I know I answered this before (perhaps to you) with the typical reply that, “Clement didn’t mean that”. Oh no you don’t. Catholics generally believe NOBODY ever means what they say, inside OR outside the Bible. The only thing they believe anyone said and MEANT IT, was Jesus saying “Eat me”. Oh yes, he meant THAT all right.

            Anywho, Clement of Rome is the perfect example of the “substantial” Calvinism you seek. There’s simply no denying it, so kindly skip the yada yada of what he “REALLY” meant to say. The words are clear, irrefutable and utterly debunk Catholic dicta straight from the second century.

            “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or
            *** works which we have wrought in holiness of heart***
            but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.)

            “Works done in holiness of heart” is the HEARTBEAT of Catholicism (CCC 16, 1821, 2016), and Clement gives all these works a thumbs down, just as Scripture does when it comes to good works…ANY WORKS… being salvific (Eph 2:8-9; Romans 3:20-28, 4:5-6, 11:16; Titus 3:5).
            Again, the Catholic scam is that works done in “holiness of heart”…with God’s grace of course, have the power to save. All Catholics agree that the good works they do MUST be coupled with God’s grace to be salvific. Fine. But that amounts to “works done in holiness of heart”, and Clement DENIES it, proving that the Holy Spirit was enlightening minds even back then, just as Calvin’s mind was; namely, that God’s grace working in the soul to DOOOO good works, DO NOT SAVE ANYONE. Rather, it is the totality of Christ’s life and death (Rms 5:10) encompassed under the phrase of that “one righteous act”…which saves us. Repeat: It is what he has done ***FOR*** us that saves, and NOT what the blessed Holy Spirit does ***IN*** us. The righteous obedience resulting from the indwelling Spirit will always be imperfect, and comes and goes likes the waves of the sea, and therefore to pin our hopes on an inward righteousness, is a false hope (Phil 3:9-12). Our hope must lie in “the obedience of the ONE” (Rms 5:19).

            I should think Clement was saved.

          6. Anywho, Clement of Rome is the perfect example of the “substantial” Calvinism you seek. There’s simply no denying it, so kindly skip the yada yada of what he “REALLY” meant to say. The words are clear, irrefutable and utterly debunk Catholic dicta straight from the second century.

            Except, that I do deny it. In direct defiance of your demands. I’ve already explained why I disagree.

            You also didn’t answer my question. I was looking for a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with explanation, or 6 with explanation.

          7. Yes, Barry, I agree with AF. Just give us a few names of Christians from the 150 AD to 1200 AD that you agree with their theology more than 75%. That might include some heretics, but that’s OK. Even the heretics back then were far more Catholic than Reformed Calvinists today. So, if you can find even a SINGLE person from this time frame of Church history, and can show that you agree with him in more than 75% of his theology and theological practice and lifestyle…please inform us. (You can at least find ONE witness can’t you??)

            But, I doubt you could comply with this challenge. And, this ‘absence’ of even a ‘single’ witness or practitioner of Calvinistic ideology in the Early Church is a proof that the idea of there actually being a form of ancient Protestantism is nothing but a wishful fantasy.

          8. “Works done in holiness of heart” is the HEARTBEAT of Catholicism (CCC 16, 1821, 2016), and Clement gives all these works a thumbs down, just as Scripture does when it comes to good works…ANY WORKS… being salvific (Eph 2:8-9; Romans 3:20-28, 4:5-6, 11:16; Titus 3:5).

            Wrong on both accounts. Both St. Clement and the Scriptures regard works done in the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation. I absolutely reject the idea that ANY WORKS are excluded from being salvific. Works done in Christ are absolutely necessary for salvation and are salvific (i.e. they cause an increase in justification).

            James 2:24
            “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

            Revelation 22:11
            “He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. “

          9. Let’s run down the categories again, shall we?

            1. Works done by human nature
            2. Works done under the mosaic law
            3. Works done by a Justified man in Christ

            1 and 2 are consistently denied as being able to save, and 3 is consistently denied as being able to bring you to salvation (you can’t do works as a Justified man in Christ until you are in Christ in the first place). However, there exist many statements in the Scriptures and in the Church Fathers which state that 3 are both a) necessary for salvation and b) cause an increase in Justification

          10. Barry,

            Are you in agreement with this chapter from Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians?:

            “CHAPTER 40. LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.

            These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to Hisgood pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted andblessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”

          11. B: “Works done in holiness of heart” is the HEARTBEAT of Catholicism (CCC 16, 1821, 2016), and Clement gives all these works a thumbs down, just as Scripture does when it comes to good works…ANY WORKS… being salvific (Eph 2:8-9; Romans 3:20-28, 4:5-6, 11:16; Titus 3:5).

            A.F. Wrong on both accounts. Both St. Clement and the Scriptures regard works done in the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation.

            B: BULL.
            By making such statements in direct contradiction to the above verses (which you ignore) you expose the fact that you are truly unsaved, religious—but lost. Just as lost as the 5 foolish virgins were, just as lost as those who unpacked their good deeds before the Lord on Judgment day in Matt 7, and just as lost as the man who went up to pray and thought he was justified because he was such a jolly good chap. There is absolutely no difference WHATSOEVER between you and any one of these other people. NONE AT ALL.
            You tell me at 8:26 that, Scripture states good works are necessary for salvation.
            Yes, and I am the King of Egypt.

            A.F. I absolutely reject the idea that ANY WORKS are excluded from being salvific. Works done in Christ are absolutely necessary for salvation and are salvific.

            B: You remind me of a used cars salesman who has a lemon on his hands that he wishes to sell.
            Good works for salvation is the calling card of every religion on this planet, save biblical Christianity, of which Catholicism is not. Essentially, you think that the quarter you dropped into the homeless man’s hat carries the same weight as the blood of Christ and thus… you are lost.
            But I said that already, didn’t I?

            A.F. [Good works] cause an increase in justification). Revelation 22:11
            “he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. “

            B: I dare say that no one in the history of Christianity ever used Rev 22 to conclude that our justification may “increase”. I do agree that those whom God chooses to justify, will not fail to sanctify him as well. However, justification is a legal term and it cannot, by definition, “increase”. Our SANCTIFICATION may increase. Catholicism gets around their justification dilemma by combining the two, which is unbiblical. They say, “Justification is not the mere remission of sins, but ALSO the sanctification and renovation of the inward man…”
            NO!
            Justification does not amount to making a person subjectively righteous, any more than to condemn someone means to make a person subjectively wicked! (Deut 25:1, Prov 17:15; Job 40:8; Isa 5:23; 1 Kings 8:32; Rms 8:33-34). And Justification does not “make” the sinner any more righteous than when the Scripture says Christ was “made” sin for us, make Him any more the sinner! (2 Cor 5:21). In the spiritual sense, it is the verdict of the Supreme Tribunal declaring a person to be righteous based on the sinner claiming the righteousness of Christ as his own. The Judge then acknowledges the debt has been paid, the law satisfied by us being “in Christ”. In actuality, it is the righteousness of Christ IMPUTED to the believer and is something completely outside of ourselves and does not have anything to say to the renewal of the inner man (which is sanctification). Justification is not based on the holiness of the one who believes, but on the holiness of the One IN WHOM the sinner believes. It pertains to what God does FOR us, not what He does in us (sanctification).

            A.F. James 2:24….“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

            B: He’s merely declaring that genuine faith will be ***accompanied*** by good works. This is why he says (which you omit to say)… “SHOW ME”. Again, “SHOW ME”. James is challenging anyone who claims to have faith to demonstrate it because only God can see the heart. Our view of the heart can only be tabulated by the sight of outward fruit and NOT by faith alone.
            The word is used in the sense of Matt 11:19: “Wisdom is justified by her children”. That means, if someone is wise, it will be shown by their works! We are justified by works, as Abraham was, in the sight of men, by what we DO, and not by faith alone because men can only judge us by our deeds! How simple this is! What a relief to compare Scripture with Scripture as we are instructed to do to find the answer (1 Cor 2:13).

            Because Catholicism has an empty gas tank, she comes up short, using her last remaining ounces of fuel to drive past the guard rails of Scripture and over the cliff into a sea of heresy.

          12. Barry: Essentially, you think that the quarter you dropped into the homeless man’s hat carries the same weight as the blood of Christ and thus… you are lost.
            But I said that already, didn’t I?

            Me: Yes, you already said that, and I explained plainly that this is a severe mutilation of what Catholics actually believe. Get a clue.

            Barry: [Justification and Sanctification are separate and Justification is ONLY imputed not infused]

            Me: What an unscriptural load of trash. Again, subtlety plainly escapes you. The separation between Justification and Sanctification is pure fiction, and if you would…..you know….listen to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church, it would be exceedingly plain to you that the Scriptures teach that Justification is imputed and infused.

            Barry: We are justified by works, as Abraham was, in the sight of men…

            Me: We are justified by works, as Abraham was, in the sight of GOD, as the passage James quotes clearly indicates. Your interpretation of James 2 is pure sophistry.

            Justification is by works, and not Faith Alone.

          13. A.F. Justification is by works, and not Faith Alone.

            B: Anyone who thinks such a thing will have an eternity in hell to contemplate what a fool they were.
            Wow, am I glad there was a Reformation!

            A.F. Get a clue.

            B: No, you get a clue. We are specifically told that “God justifies the UNGODLY”, and the only way THAT can be done is if it is by FAITH ALONE because…(hello!), an ungodly person coming to Christ does not even HAVE any good works to offer at the get-go! This proves in the blink of an eye that justification is a legal declaration of someone’s STATUS at the bar of justice, hinging entirely on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. You already believe in the R.O.C., so you are half way to heaven. IF YOU WOULD STOP THERE, you could be saved, and then all your good works will be rewarded with whatever God has in mind, “for no eye has seen, no ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man those things which he has prepared for them that love him”.
            Your fatal error, “oh thou fool” [said Jesus somewhere] is that you are putting your TRUST in those good works to bring you into heaven. But the Savior will not tolerate playing tug-of-war with your heartstrings if you decide to trust him 50%, and your works 50%. It is all or nothing, which is why we read that he has chosen to save us NOT by any works of righteousness, per Titus 3:5. And do NOT for a moment tell me that the Titus passage means “He has chosen to save us NOT by works of righteousness of the Mosaic law”.
            NO. When we read we are not saved by works of righteousness, he means ANY works, in OR outside of God’s grace, period, end of story. Satan’s trick is to get you to attach a salvific efficacy to good works which they do NOT have. Satan’s trick is to get you to redefine grace as some sort of spiritual kick-in-the-pants wherein you are mobilized to go out and do good works which then merit heaven, so you can then claim you are “saved by God’s grace”, as per that wretched statement in CCC 1821. Scripture does NOT define grace as the RCC does. Count on it.
            For crying out loud, need it be said that the quarter I spoke of earlier which you gave to the homeless, doesn’t have the power to address your sin debt? You may as well say that salvation may be purchased with dollars and cents. I must be blunt, but are you that dense?

          14. Hey Flounder – I suppose you have a Cliff Notes response for the meaning of Matt 25: 31-46….why don’t you educate the class on how that was just metaphor, or what Jesus **really meant to say** when he said ‘because you **did (or did not)** this for the least of my brethren…”

            It’s the Final Exam, Flounder….better get it right…..

            You yokel-tard fundies are so loopy and confused as to be wildly entertaining if the business of souls weren’t so important.

          15. AK: I suppose you have a Cliff Notes response for the meaning of Matt 25: 31-46

            B: Oh the typical Matt 25 reply, will it ever end? Will the delusions of grandeur you think will get you into heaven by your good deeds, ever stop trying to be supported by this chapter?
            Matt 25 DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOOD WORKS ARE SALVIFIC, and methinks the “cliff notes” of the first 500 searches on google as it relates to Matt 25 will more than adequately be the fire extinguishers that put out your flames and fantasies that good works have the power to save.

          16. Barry: Your fatal error, “oh thou fool” [said Jesus somewhere] is that you are putting your TRUST in those good works to bring you into heaven.

            Me: Again, this is not what we believe. Your Calvinist “gospel” has blinded you to the truth, and you can only see things this way of “the only way to trust in Christ Alone is by Faith Alone”. On Judgement day (Matt 25: 31-46) at least you will perhaps finally understand.

          17. Oh my…I missed THIS nugget……posted by Barry on 5 Nov at 11:20PM:

            “AK: I suppose you have a Cliff Notes response for the meaning of Matt 25: 31-46”

            “B: Oh the typical Matt 25 reply, will it ever end? Will the delusions of grandeur you think will get you into heaven by your good deeds, ever stop trying to be supported by this chapter?
            Matt 25 DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOOD WORKS ARE SALVIFIC, and methinks the “cliff notes” of the first 500 searches on google as it relates to Matt 25 will more than adequately be the fire extinguishers that put out your flames and fantasies that good works have the power to save.”

            OK…for reference, here is the full text of subject Scriptural quote:

            31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

            34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

            37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

            40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

            41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

            44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

            45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

            46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

            OK….Barry, an adherent of Sola Scriptura, the Final Authority…says that the text above, doesn’t *really mean* what it clearly says. He says, ignore Scripture and DEFAULT TO GOOGLE!!!!!!!!

            Did you all read that?

            Barry has abrogated Scripture, with it’s clear inarguable command to good works for salvation – the words of Jesus, by the way not any of His follow-on disciples – for GOOGLE.

            There’s no wiggle room in Matt 25: 31-46. It’s the Final Exam…and the Calvinist rejection of these clear words calls into question their whole theology. If they’re this wrong about something so clear and obvious – the Final Exam administered by Jesus Himself – where else are they wrong. Or, a better question would be, where are they right?

          18. And Barry, out of respect for your opinion (despite my snarky tone…) I DID go to Google as you suggested…and several things i noted:

            – There’s a lot of “the sheep and goats are already named, so that must mean they are pre-picked (i.e., predestined)
            – Therefore, the ‘good works’ are only an outward sign of an inward conversion
            – The nature of this inward conversion – and the value of the subject works – varies by denomination. Lutherans definitely have a different take than Calvinists.

            One says – because the “Kingdom is prepared” that the sheep are believers already. Another says, the Olivet Discourse clearly shows this is an address to a post-Tribulation audience, meaning, the sheep survived, so they are saved anyway. In other words, just about every entry starts with , “oh, faith alone and not works get you saved” then proceed to describe a different and oh-so-certain validating logic, never really explaining how ” ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry…” just how this particular line says **anything but** you failed the final exam of compassion to your fellow man, and because of that, you are doomed…..

            If you read this passage in isloation, one could think, “I don’t need to believe anything….all I need to do is good stuff and I’m saved.” They would be as wrong as the ‘sola fide’ believers.

            Faith AND works….is the clear message of the totality of Scripture. You can’t take any one part and hold it to be overarching dogma without losing the intention of the Whole.

            I accept that other’s mileage varies….

          19. AK: Oh my…I missed THIS nugget……posted by Barry on 5 Nov at 11:20PM: He said

            “B: Oh the typical Matt 25 reply, will it ever end? Will the delusions of grandeur you think will get you into heaven by your good deeds, ever stop trying to be supported by this chapter?
            Matt 25 DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOOD WORKS ARE SALVIFIC, and methinks the “cliff notes” of the first 500 searches on google as it relates to Matt 25 will more than adequately be the fire extinguishers that put out your flames and fantasies that good works have the power to save.”

            AK: OK…for reference, here is the full text of subject Scriptural quote:

            B: No, AK, we already know what the Text says and it does not teach that good works are salvific you country bumpkin.
            Plus, I challenged you to do 500 searches on google. You declined. Obviously you declined because you’re terrified that 500 people would disagree with you right away.

            AK: .Barry, an adherent of Sola Scriptura, the Final Authority…says that the text above, doesn’t *really mean* what it clearly says.

            B: Huh? This coming from someone who, when he reads that “ALL have sinned” ….stakes his eternal soul on the hope that THE TEXT DOES NOT REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS. Yikes! When will the hypocrisy ever end?

            AK: He says, ignore Scripture and DEFAULT TO GOOGLE!!!!!!!!
            Did you all read that?

            B: Yes we did, and for anyone with an ounce of common sense, they would know I said that because since you never believe anything ***I*** say, perhaps 500 other witnesses will be the plunger you need to unclog your dirty kitchen sink of apologetics.

            AK: Barry has abrogated Scripture, with it’s clear inarguable command to good works for salvation

            B: A ha! Unwittingly, you have condoned the Protestant (and biblical) position that we were…(watch it now!) created “UNTO good works”.

            “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

            AK: There’s no wiggle room with Matt 25

            B: Oh yes there is, and it’s as large as the nearest pig wigglying around in the mud at your neighborhood farm.
            But first let me retract my previous number that only 500 people would disagree with you on M-25. My NON-salvific view of good works opening the gate to heaven in m-25 is supported by more like, 5 MILLION. Sadly, it’s obvious you are just another “do-gooder” who is trusting in his works AND trusting in Christ for heaven, proving you are 100% lost. So get a clue: Christ will not share your 50% trust with anything; be it 50% works, or with anyONE (be it the Pope, for as that similar country bumpkin Boniface told us, “it is altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”).
            At the end of the day, Divine Providence has decreed, for reasons unknown to us (Matt 11:25-26) that you will not know how to read a simple sentence which says, “NOT BY WORKS”, and then allow you to go off on a toot thinking that we ARE saved by works, so your utter confusion will be complete. And this ordained delusion (2 Thess 2) is because you insist on wearing Rome-colored glasses when you read M-25 to THE EXCLUSION OF COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE (1 Cor 2:13).

            Now for readers who don’t already know the devil’s tick coming in response, it will be along the lines of, “but every time it says that we are not saved by works, we must read that as “works of the law”.
            That way, they can argue that the good works we do under the new covenant…ARE salvific.
            Such piggly-wiggly oinking is nothing but satanic deception.

          20. “….country bumpkin…?”

            I have been called a lot of things…..this is a first. Did spend my youthful summers on a dairy farm…does that make me qualified?

            Barry – see my immediate follow-on post, went up before your rebuttal.

            We’re just going to have to agree to disagree…..

          21. Barry, you just quoted Eph 2: 8-9:

            “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)

            Got that…not by works….but then….Eph 2:10

            “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)

            The confusion can be explained by referring to the Greek. The Greek for works in the first line (ou ek ergon) translates to ‘ not works for ones own purpose;’ in other words, self-aggrandizing works, which God does not favor. The second, translates to ‘good works’ (agathos ergon) which are done not for self but for the glory of God.

            This reasoning is backed up by Matt 6:1-4.

            The Catholic position…I understand you differ.

          22. “Now for readers who don’t already know the devil’s tick coming in response, it will be along the lines of, “but every time it says that we are not saved by works, we must read that as “works of the law”.
            That way, they can argue that the good works we do under the new covenant…ARE salvific.”

            Very good, Barry – you are absolutely right! Backed up by the Greek in Romans 9. Ergon nomou (works of the Law) vs. agathios ergon (intrinsically good works).

            “Such piggly-wiggly oinking is nothing but satanic deception.”

            Absent an explanation that withstands the Greek, don’t see how your conclusion is anything but a form of confirmation bias. But I understand, you think differently.

          23. AK: Faith AND works….is the clear message of the totality of Scripture.

            B: Only by trusting in the TOTALITY of merits wrought out by Jesus, is there any hope of heaven.

            AK: You can’t take any one part and hold it to be overarching dogma without losing the intention of the Whole.

            B: Well, your comment immediately brings to mind the quote from Sungenis in his “Not By Faith Alone” where he proclaims that works are the “determining factor” in salvation. That by itself, shows that slaves to Rome have escalated their works to heights unknown in Holy Writ, thus moving Christ to the back burner. And this book is applauded by practically every known living RC luminary who did not take Sungenis to task for making this “over-arching” claim.

            Now, you will not find one Reformer who disputes the “works-dimension” of the Christian life. The sole difference between you and me is that you attach a salvific efficacy to good works and I do not. Neither does Scripture by its “over-arching” theme that we are not saved by works of righteousness! The only reason no one raises a peep to Sungenis is that they’ve been drugged to think that “not being saved by works”, means not being saved by the works of the Mosaic law. Sorry charlie, but no Bible scholar on earth will support the ludicrous notion that that’s what it means in EVERY PLACE WE READ OF GOOD WORKS! Moreover, Catholicism is woefully inconsistent, for, out of one side of their mouth, they’ll say we are not saved by the works of the Mosaic law, but then out of the other, they TEACH THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW! (CCC 16, 2068).
            WAKE UP to the lunacy!

            I probably have more good works under my belt than Mother Teresa! But I do not trust in ANY ONE OF THEM FOR A NANOSECOND. You do, and sadly, if you keep that attitude, hell awaits.

            Look at this way: There is zero possibility that I will ever hear these works: “Barry…because you did not attach a salvific efficacy to your good works, but had the GALL to trust in my merits alone, I now send you to hell”.

            On the other hand, there is a very GREAT possibility due to the evidence being so overwhelming, that Catholics WILL INDEED be sent to hell precisely because they have taken their filthy checks written out to the United Way and put them on the same level as the blood of Christ (never realizing that MONEY, or anything else, has the power to deal with our sin debt).

          24. “Well, your comment immediately brings to mind the quote from Sungenis in his “Not By Faith Alone” where he proclaims that works are the “determining factor” in salvation.”

            OK, if you say so. I really don’t care what one man writes, and not familiar with the particular passage, i have no idea if you have taken it out of context which you have been known to do. Case in point, next:

            “they TEACH THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW! (CCC 16, 2068)”

            Wrongly quoted. The Catechism says that the Ten Commandments – not the entire Mosaic Law – must be obeyed. Several reasons. One is, the Decalogue is “natural law” that predates Exodus. Else why would Cain’s murder of Abel been wrong? Or Rebekah’s false witness cost her the company of her son Jacob for the rest of her life? Or Abraham’s adultery with Hagar cost him the company of God for many years? Another is, Jesus apparently agrees that what needs to be kept of the Old Covenant is the Decalogue – Mk 10:19, Luke 18:20, for starters. Is Jesus a loon, or are you engaging again in selective quotes and confirmation bias?

            “I probably have more good works under my belt than Mother Teresa! ”

            That’s good, but I humbly suggest you re-familiarize with Matt 6:1-4.

            “On the other hand, there is a very GREAT possibility due to the evidence being so overwhelming, that Catholics WILL INDEED be sent to hell precisely because they have taken their filthy checks written out to the United Way and put them on the same level as the blood of Christ (never realizing that MONEY, or anything else, has the power to deal with our sin debt).”

            You seem to think, and have repeatedly implied, that Catholics run around with a works-salvation checklist. That would be the “ou ek ergon’ that gets one precisely nowhere. A practicing, cognizant Catholic does whet he or she does in the sincere imitation of Christ, without regard to the salvific value.

            I have never heard a Catholic going around asking people “are you sayyyyved?” Only reformed (small R) fundamentalists, who IMHCO really would do better to live Christlike lives as an example, rather than asking……

          25. AF: you are absolutely right! Backed up by the Greek in Romans 9. Ergon nomou (works of the Law) vs. agathios ergon (intrinsically good works). [This means that] every time it says that we are not saved by works, we must read that as “works of the law”. Absent an explanation that withstands the Greek, don’t see how your conclusion is anything but a form of confirmation bias. But I understand, you think differently.

            B: It’s the word of God that thinks differently and rebukes your false “grace-produced-works-salvation-false-gospel”.

            You are oblivious to the fact that when God says we are justified apart from works, HE MEANS ANY WORKS, NO MATTER WHAT KIND THEY ARE.
            Paul has gone on record using the word “law” to designate the Scriptures as a whole. For instance, he appeals to the law in 1 Cor 14:21, but he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, which of course is not part of the Pentateuch. And in Rms 3:19, he describes his citations from the O.T. in verses 10-18 as “what the law says”. However, these verses are derived from the Psalms (5:9, 10:7, 14:1-3, 36:1, 53:1-3, 140:3…and Proverbs 1:16, and Isa 59:7-8) all of which categorically proves that the law cannot be restricted to the Pentateuch as you falsely assert (!!!).

            Also, in Rms 3:21, he uses the word to refer to the entire O.T. by describing the whole of Scripture as, “the law and the prophets.”
            These facts wreak havoc with all of the “good works” quotes Catholics typically throw out like M-25: supposedly, as a direct result of doing such nice things as “visiting me in prison, you may now enter into the joy of thy Lord”.
            NO.
            M- 25 is not a fully orbed thesis on justification, nor was it meant to be, considering the numerous passages in which we are told we are NOT saved by works of righteousness!
            Rome is aware of those verses, especially Rms 11:6; that if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. The Satanic ploy is to sneakily search for a way to dupe the laity into believing that good works CAN NOW be meritorious without disrupting the priciple of salvation by grace. And this they do by convincing themselves that whenever we read of not being saved by works of the law, we must take that reference to mean the good works contained in the Mosaic law. Scripture, as well as all Christian academia, refutes you.

            Catholics have no choice but to admit that God has taken away the Jewish law for justification per Acts 13:39. But comically, they then think they have it made in the shade by getting into heaven by their grace-produced good works… “done in faith”…..—which, as Sungenis says, are “the determining factor in our salvation” (NBFA, p. 215).

            WE OBJECT! And thus appeal to Romans 4 and the life of Abraham, who I will remind you CLEARLY lived before “Jewish Law”. Hence, his justification cannot be said to exclude Jewish Law in the face of his good works– just as Catholics think their justification excludes Jewish law in the face of THEIR good works…..beeeeeeecause…. the law was not in place at the time of his justification. Conclusion? When Paul tells us that Abe was justified apart from his own good works, that is exactly what he means…ANY WORKS OF ANY KIND, end of story. And if HE can be justified without the introduction of “Jewish Law exclusions”, then SO CAN WE!

            To sum up: By limiting Paul’s meaning to “works of law” to the Mosaic or ceremonial law, RC theology is then able to promote some other kind of law required for salvation (namely, their “system of grace” as Mr. Sungenis puts it, which is funneled through the sacraments, enabling RC’s to do good deeds, which then “merit” heaven). Yet, I have just proved that the apostle did not limit the law to the Mosaic law in particular. Rome is merely substituting one set of Mosaic law observances for another (i.e., her deluge of requirements for salvation which include swallowing the Eucharist, papal subordination, an unspecified amount of good works, marian madness, etc…).

          26. Barry – lots of opinion backed up by cherry-picked exegisis from Psalms, etc. I could do that as well, and have from elsewhere in Scripture. Your rebuttal doesn’t stand up to the clear language of the quotes I provided, esp in light of the Greek translations.

            Therefore, my exegisis, backed by quotes from the original Greek, stands.

            Your mileage varies, and I understand why you think that.

            I’ve provided enough for any reasonable reader’s decision space.

          27. “And thus appeal to Romans 4 and the life of Abraham, who I will remind you CLEARLY lived before “Jewish Law”.”

            By the way, moral/natural law, as discussed both in the Catechism (1950-1960) and my post, predates “Jewish” (Mosaic) Law….excerpt as follows, note reference to the Decalogue:

            1950: The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

          28. “Also, in Rms 3:21, he uses the word to refer to the entire O.T….”

            Ummm…we all agree that Mosaic Law referred to here is no longer required for justification and salvation (as I said, the Decalogue is a manifestation of natural and moral law, predating everything else). The Jerusalem Conference in Acts finalized this.

            Doesn’t at all change the meaning and usage of ‘ergon nomou” and “agathos nomou” in Romans 9 and other places. Still a clear differentiation between New Covenant-fulfilled ‘works of Mosaic law” and ‘good works” required along with faith, for salvation. Matt 25: 31-46, etc., again…..

          29. AK: I really don’t care what one man writes,

            B: I told you, it has page after page of RC endorsements, so it’s not “one man” but an accurate representation of RC belief, otherwise it would not have received the imprimatur and that other “nilly willy” certificate I can’t recall the name of at the moment.

            AK: i have no idea if you have taken it out of context

            B: Oh stop it. The book is called NOT BY FAITH ALONE, and he argues that works are the “DETERMINING FACTOR” for salvation. No way to take THAT out of context, (like…ummm, Trent, when they took the word “truly” from J-6-51 and stuck it into the mouth of Christ in a VERY out-of-context, UNinfallible manner I might add).

            AK: [You are taking things out of context when you say]
            “they TEACH THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW! (CCC 16, 2068)”

            Wrongly quoted. The Catechism says that the Ten Commandments – not the entire Mosaic Law – must be obeyed.

            B: Your efforts to try and make me look bad are in vain. I never said Catholics are obligated to keep the “ENTIRE” Mosaic law. Talk about taking things out of context, “wrongly quoted”….my immaculate foot! I must award you the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award for that one!
            Obviously, since I quoted 2068, I knew very well they stated the 10 commandments in particular, and the 10 commandments I will have you know, are part of the Mosaic law thank you so very much! In any case, since not one nice Catholic has ever kept the 10 commandments perfectly, and are uninterested in accepting the “entirety” of the righteousness of Christ who has fulfilled that very law in its entirety IN OUR ROOM AND STEAD, they have condemned themselves to hell out of their own catechism. Reminds me of that video, “Catholicism: Crisis of Faith”, which you can find on youtube, asking people when they come out of Mass, “What are you basing your hopes for heaven on?” The answers were pathetic, “I’m trying the best I can”, “I hope my good deeds will outweigh my bad ones”, yada yada yada. Boy, am ***i*** glad there was a Reformation!
            Anywho, I have a great idea. Why don’t you go to Google and ask it, “Does God require the 10 commandments be kept for salvation”…and see how far it getsya.

            AK: Jesus apparently agrees that what needs to be kept of the Old Covenant is the Decalogue – Mk 10:19, Luke 18:20,

            B: I have an idea! Why don’t you go to Google and ask it, “Does Jesus Christ, per Mk 10:19 and Luke 18:20, teach us that we need to keep the commandments FORRRRR salvation?”…and see how far it getsya.

            AK: [How dare you say] “I probably have more good works under my belt than Mother Teresa! ”
            That’s good, but I humbly suggest you re-familiarize with Matt 6:1-4.

            B: Frankly, I’m nauseous that you even make the insinuation that I was bragging. You know DARN well that I was trying to make a point (namely that I do not put any TRUST in those works to “let me in”, as opposed to RC dicta), and so your “arrogant” claim fizzles out like a burnt ember. Apparently, you forget that when Paul was trying to make a point also, he did not hesitate to bring in HIS credentials on more than one occasion.

            AF: A practicing, cognizant Catholic does what he or she does in the sincere imitation of Christ, without regard to the salvific value.

            B: Baloney. Catholcs run around with the ….”HOPE”…. says 1821 that the “good deeds done in God’s grace” will bring them their eternal reward.

            AK: You seem to think, and have repeatedly implied, that Catholics run around with a works-salvation checklist. That would be the “ou ek ergon’ that gets one precisely nowhere.

            B: This “ou ek ergon” is another novel trick to sneak in good works through the back door of heaven hoping God will not notice. Let us examine it.

            “For by graceyou have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

            Your position reaches for a desperate distinction to make good works salvific, but it’s a lost cause, count on it.
            Your thesis is that in the Greek, the phrase “not because of works” (ou ek ergon) is paralleled to the earlier phrase, “not your own doing” (ou ek hymeis). …both of them basically meaning the same thing. Got it.
            That said, you assume the works Paul is rejecting here are the works that would be our own doing (without regard to the grace of God) which would give us reason to boast. For example, Jewish Jerry Lewis thought 50 years of doing Muscular Dystrophy telethons would open heaven’s gate. Got it.

            Hence, you believe that Protestants are wrong to EQUATE the works “of your own doing” in Eph 2:8-9 with the “good works” in Eph 2:10 which were created for us to do. You are saying that God switches gears here (from one verse to another!) and that these must NOT be equated, but are instead, different categories….alleging that the difference between works “of your own doing” and “good works”… is the grace of God. The first kind does not save and the second does. Got it.
            But guess what? We compleeeeeetely reject this scenario! Naturally, it is typical with RC emissaries to brazenly read back into the Text your already preconceived notions. This “switching gears” tactic is reminiscent of the RC trick to admit that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said he was the bread of life, but after verse 47 he switches gears and demands that they actually eat him. Sheesh!

            Anyway, there are a myriad of reasons why this position will not stand, not the least of which is that it is nonsensical on its face and that there is not any indication of it elsewhere. Second, the Titus 3:5 torpedo wherein we are told that God has NOT chosen to save us by any works of righteousness which we do. This is a blanket statement and may safely be assumed that he means ANY TYPE OF GOOD WORKS, in OR outside of God’s grace. Is it not true that you believe that a “work of righteousness” may indeed be classified as a work done in God’s grace? The moment you admit to that (and you must) then you’ve already admitted that your position is not 100% ironclad and that it is at least 50% possible that Titus 3:5 is not making any distinction at all as I submit.
            So where else do we go to get extra help? How about the fact that Paul, who said that all the things he had done (with God’s grace of course!) were, to him, considered as…DUNG. That is precisely what I meant to convey to you when I told you of the great number of all my wonderful and glorious good deeds. They are classified as RUBBISH, in comparison to the excellency of Calvary’s cross.
            Furthermore, the example of the man on Judgment day in 1 Cor 3 is what SUPREMELY destroys the RC rubric. This was a guy who had done many good works but with, shall we say, for all the wrong reasons. Self-aggrandizement was probably an issue here, and therefore, his works (you will agree) fall SMACK DAB into the category you are wishing us to believe in; namely, works done WITHOUT God’s grace. Fine. Got it.
            The man apparently “wanted to be seen of men”, but God saw right through it and tells us, in metaphor, that all his good deeds were “burnt up”. IOW, they were not to be rewarded at all.
            However, the key point here is that THIS MAN WAS STILL SAVED! Evidently, at his core, he STILL believed in the Savior’s work, and for that, he who had no works to offer, was saved by FAITH ALONE. Point: If then, it is possible to still be ***saved*** with “bad” works done ***outside*** of God’s grace, as was this man, then the salvific value of good works done ***IN*** God’s grace, do not carry the salvific value the RCC claims they have, otherwise that man would be LOST.

            That’s called logic.

          30. The book is called NOT BY FAITH ALONE,”

            Title’s correct. Can’t speak for the rest of it.

            “Your efforts to try and make me look bad are in vain.”

            Where did you get that idea? Just disagreeing and showing you why.

            I have an idea! Why don’t you go to Google and ask it, “Does Jesus Christ, per Mk 10:19 and Luke 18:20, teach us that we need to keep the commandments FORRRRR salvation?”…and see how far it getsya.”

            Sure, later. But it doesn’t change anything else I set before this group.

            Frankly, I’m nauseous that you even make the insinuation that I was bragging. ”

            I apologize for that. You know what’s in your heart. Who am I to judge?

            “But guess what? We compleeeeeetely reject this scenario!”

            Who’d a thunk it? We agree to disagree.

            “They are classified as RUBBISH, in comparison to the excellency of Calvary’s cross.”

            Mine too. Doesn’t change the fact God wants us to do them. He works in mysterious ways, and who can know His mind?

            However, the key point here is that THIS MAN WAS STILL SAVED! ”

            Well, we partially agree on something – that the sacrifice of the Cross gave all humanity the opportunity for salvation. You and I disagree on the mechanics.

            That’s called logic.”

            Funny…I thought it was interpretation….

            Off to study for the RCIA class I am teaching Sunday. “Mary and the Saints.” Have a good night.

          31. Oh, one more….

            “For example, Jewish Jerry Lewis thought 50 years of doing Muscular Dystrophy telethons would open heaven’s gate. Got it.”

            Maybe he just wanted to do telethons because he was a good man, and had personal experience with the ravages of MD.

  13. The ‘you (insert religion) killed XXXXXXX in XXXX’ is so irrelevant and unworthy either of introduction or response by thoughtful, civil theological apologists of all faiths – unless the conflict is ongoing such as Israel (or indeed, the West) vs radical Islam. Europe got a bellyful of Protestant vs Catholic religious war 1618-1648 that led to the Treaty of Westphalia where signatories agreed not to go to war for reasons of religion (there are enough others as the following 300 years proved). The reasons regents adopted, co-opted and sponsored a religion was almost always to act as a unifying national force as much as of faith – a lot of them believed absolutely nothing but in their own worldly ambitions. And disloyalty to that faith was considered treason, and a reason to inflict death, individually or en masse. It’s a historical, not a theological discussion, and wholly out of place here. It makes no sense to bring up how Catholics killed Huguenots, or how Catholic clergy were slaughtered in Elizabeth 1’s England, in support of modern apologetics. About the same as a discussion of modern political issues of how incipient racism affects the culture, when a Black Lives Matters activist born in 1975 tells a white guy born in 1976, you owe me reparations for slavery that ended in 1865. it’s going to go nowhere, and rightfully so.

    A senior Virginia cadet at VMI told me, a new cadet from New Jersey, that ‘you damn Yankees came down here blah blah blah….” My response, when your great-granddaddy was getting bayonetted at Gettysburg my relatives were serfs in Slovenia or shepherds in Cyprus. No dog in the fight…and in reality, neither do you, here, in 1972…..

    In short…this discussion, outside historical context, used as a foil or hammer against other faiths, is worthy only of cretins, two-year-olds, and of course Barry Baritone, aka Flounder, who usually trolls it up for argument here because he’s so devoid of attention in his miserable personal life.

  14. Joe, nice article.

    You write, “This is what I call the Protestant catch-22, the belief that you have to choose between heresy or schism. But here’s the grim irony: committing an act of schism in the name of Scripture is contrary to what Scripture demands. In fact, St. Paul warns (Galatians 5:19-21):”

    When I first read the passage in the Greek, they put the complete fear of God in me. This literally coincided within a few days of Matt P explaining the CCC’s teaching on justification and me reading an Orthodox statement on the same doctrine. I immediately came to the conclusion, “Maybe the Orthodox formulation is not exactly what I am used to, but it is not unbiblical and is it worth the chance of going to Hell to be that picky about it.”

    Ironically, at this point I find the Orthodox doctrine much superior and Biblical to the forensic justification.

    So, it is with sadness Oct 31 came and went. For one, last year my church had me dress as Luther and give a speech to the children (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45on-2LZGZo&index=16&list=UUu9TDs-dxsf5InzXY7Vkk6Q). You can already tell that I knew I was defending a man I knew not to be good. Second, I have been essentially abandoned by many of my Protestant friends, though thankfully not all. They are afraid to address the issues, because I think people are starting to figure out if they actually engage in the Scriptures and with history, their Protestant worldview will crumble.

    On my own blog, I reflected upon the fact that we can reform the Church without schism. If any many faced the worst odds ever of doing it, it was St Athanasius. Yet, he pulled it off. But he waited decades, not 2 years like Luther. The article is here: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/10/31/luther-versus-athanasius-how-does-a-man-of-god-reform-a-church/

    Again, I give my thanks for those here who have prayed for me and engaged with me.

    God bless,
    Craig

    1. CT: I think people are starting to figure out if they actually engage in the Scriptures and with history, their Protestant worldview will crumble.

      B: Excuse me, but millions over time have left the RCC because the RCC was responsible for murdering… millions. A million others have left for purely theological reasons, such as myself, so your opinion is seriously flawed and unworkable. You yourself, being Orthodox, utterly reject one of the main doctrines of the RCC; namely, the infallibility of the Pope, which I do also. You yourself, having “engaged in the Scriptures and with history” have concluded that the “Catholic worldview” in that respect, “crumbles” in a heap, to use your word.
      I might also add Vatican 1 said if you don’t believe in papal infallibility, you cannot be saved. And people on this thread wonder why I get a little angry? Apparently, it does’t bother you that the people you like to be friends with, hold a little secret in the back of their heads that they never mention; namely, that you, Mr. C.T. are damned. Now if you kept that in the forefront of your mind, your demeanor would change, and your words would become more rancorous, as they SHOULD become in the face of false doctrine. You prefer to drop grapes into the mouths of those who think you are headed for hell. Fine. That’s your decision. But Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you”. Know what that means? It means that if everyone thinks you’re the best thing to happen since chocolate ice cream, there’s something seriously missing, to say the least, from your approach, because the TRUE gospel is always going to offend.

      1. Excuse me, but millions over time have left the RCC because the RCC was responsible for murdering… millions.

        We truly can’t judge the truth of a doctrine on the wickedness of a few who held that doctrine (unless that doctrine teaches that holding that doctrine automatically results in moral improvement). You have to compare apples to apples. Protestant heros to Catholic/Orthodox Saints. If we go by the worst of the bunch, pretty much all religions/philosophies are ruled out.

        A million others have left for purely theological reasons, such as myself,

        Of course, you have been free to do so, but at the peril of leaving a well-thought out, carefully defined theology crafted by many unambiguously holy men (I’m thinking in particular the Church Fathers). Their arguments against justification by faith alone hold much weight due to their genuine virtue and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as their continuity with others who have said similar.

        …so your opinion is seriously flawed and unworkable.

        While his statement is flawed, it’s not unworkable. He genuinely believes that history and the Scriptures support the Orthodox position, and has a fairly good argument (I assume) to back himself up.

          1. OOPs…typo…Matt 16:18. But you knew that, having once been Catholic.

            Was this meant for Barry? I’m currently Catholic.

      2. Hey BB,
        Sure as THAT HECK OF A HELICOPTER IN THE SKY OVER MY HEAD, I HAVE LOOKED AND CANNOT Ffind where Vatican I said what you say they said AT
        (Barry Baritone says
        November 3, 2017 at 7:22 pm:
        I might also add Vatican 1 said if you don’t believe in papal infallibility, you cannot be saved.)

        Were you once a Catholic?

          1. M: Alexander, I COMPLETELY MISSED THAT! Thank you, profusely.

            B: Who the helicopter cares if I was once an RC? Foolish Catholics who find that out have responded more than once to the tune of, “Look, if you’ve been molested by a priest, get over it and come home to Rome”.

            Is that what you wish to say to me?
            If so, save your breath.

          2. He probably found he could make a nice living not working, playing parstard to and fleecing a flock of Deliverance-like Ozark ruminants, and that he has to ‘recertify’ his creds to them by his trolldom on Catholic blogs…hey, it’s better’n eternal life, right.

        1. Hi Margo,

          He may have once been Catholic, but he must not understand that an anathema is an excommunication, not a judgment on whether one can be saved or not.

          1. Furthermore,

            He does not seem to realize that anathemas only apply to those who are in communion with the Catholic Church. Does not make sense to excommunicate those who are not in communion anyway.

          2. He’s probably basing that on a crude understanding of the Church’s traditional teaching on “Outside of the Church there is no Salvation”. It makes sense, if you’re booted outside the visible Church, how then can you be saved?

            Except that there are Canonized Saints that died Excommunicated and still made it to heaven, and the Church acknowledges this.

          3. D: Barry must not understand that an anathema is an excommunication, not a judgment on whether one can be saved or not.

            B: Wrong, as usual. Leave it to a Protestant to tell a Catholic what he REALLY believes.
            When the Pope issues an anathema, he uses a formula dreamed up in the eighth century and still in effect, which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God…in virtue of the power given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and
            ***we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate***
            so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

            Consequently, an anathema is defined by your church as judging the malefactor as HELLBOUND… unless he wakes up and smells the coffee. Again, contrary to you, it izzzz a judgment call that states you CANNOT be saved….”unless”.

            You are refuted.

          4. “….so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;”

            That’s right, Flounder. The Church – GOD’s ONLY CHURCH ON EARTH!!!! – anathematizes the one who *breaks God’s rules.* WE act as HIS agent on earth per Matt 126:18 – learn it, live it, love it. It’s a WARNING, not a sentencing – condemnation being an authority reserved to God – as you are so fond of doing. It’s up to the recalcitrant to repent and return. Can’t you even read what you cut/paste? I guess not….not the first time, as KO pointed out about under-educated evangelicals….the Church is saying, you made the choice to give yourself to Satan in this life, in your mortal flesh…may you suffer at the hands of the evil one sufficiently that your mortification causes you to repent so that at least your soul may be saved. There, Flounder, I fixed it for you. Now go have a fit of the vapors

            I would imagine if someone broke whatever rules you have in your little bunker Charch o’Calvoon as judgmental as you are you’d probably encourage suicide, as you have to Catholics.

          5. A.F. the Church acknowledges [that certain people by name, have made it to heaven]

            B: The RCC is so full of hot air, if it was a balloon, it would pop.
            And how, pray tell, would THEYYYY know?
            For all the times I have heard you people yackety yack that “the RCC does not have the knowledge to ever consign anyone in particular to hell for sure”, now we’re met with the notion that they do have the knowledge that certain people in particular went to heaven!
            When will the madness end?

          6. B: The RCC is so full of hot air, if it was a balloon, it would pop.
            And how, pray tell, would THEYYYY know?

            1. There’s a canonization process that verifies this.
            2. The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church teaches that the Holy Ghost protects the Church from error. This is one such instance.

          7. A.F. There’s a canonization process that verifies [certain people go to heaven]

            B: The word “saint” is used over 25 times and no where does it refer to a canonization process whereby sainthood may be verified. It is simply another trick of the devil to get people’s mind off of praying to God alone.

            A.F. The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church teaches that the Holy Ghost protects the Church from error. This is one such instance.

            B: The canonization process which determines that a particular person has arrived at sainthood is merely a DECLARATION of something. I would argue that it does not fall under the guidelines of how the RCC defines infallibility; namely, that this declaration of someone’s supposed position in heaven, does not have anything to do with “faith and morals”; neither does the Pope officially make the claim that this is an infallible “decision” now set in stone, to be held by all the faithful. Many RC’s believe infallibility must be in a “canon” that ends with an anathema. We do not see this when it comes to the canonization process.
            As for the Holy Spirit protecting the church from error, I refuted that at 5:35. By putting just one word in the mouth of Christ that he did not say, nullifies all claims of Holy Spirit inspiration in general, and has the domino effect on all Catholic doctrine in particular.

          8. The canonization process which determines that a particular person has arrived at sainthood is merely a DECLARATION of something. I would argue that it does not fall under the guidelines of how the RCC defines infallibility;

            You would argue incorrectly. Canonizations are included in the Catholic Doctrine of infallibilty. Multiple Catholic sources state this.

            I refuted that at 5:35.By putting just one word in the mouth of Christ that he did not say, nullifies all claims of Holy Spirit inspiration in general, and has the domino effect on all Catholic doctrine in particular.

            Already answered you on that below. We disagree. I particularly reject your claim that the Council of Trent put words in our Blessed Lord’s mouth.

          9. A.F. I particularly reject your claim that the Council of Trent put words in our Blessed Lord’s mouth.

            B: Deny it all you want. The proof is for any grade school student to see. Trent quotes Christ as “SAYING” that it was “TRULY” his body that he was “OFFERING” under the species of bread. But he did not “SAY” he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone that the bread was TRULY his body, let alone that there was a metamorphosis going on in the bread.

            There is no way even the Pope can get out that one. The infallibility of Goliath (aka, Council of Trent) is disproven and destroyed by these small stones of truth in my Davidic fanny pack And if Jesus did not give infallibility to the RCC, then all RC doctrine must be beheaded as Goliath was, and is to be avoided per Deut 18:21 and Jeremiah 23:30-40.

          10. of·fer·ing:
            noun
            a thing offered, especially as a gift or contribution.
            “animals as sacrificial offerings”

            Synonyms of offering:
            immolation, sacrifice, victim

            Definition of sacrifice

            1 :an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially :the killing of a victim on an altar
            2 :something offered in sacrifice
            3 a :destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

            Now tell us how the metaphoric term “offering” does NOT apply to Christ’s sacrifice (esp definition #3 – note the word “offered”) on the Cross?

            You were saying something about grade school? Let us know when you finish – is Parster Jimmy yer home-skul teecher?.

          11. Barry, I’ve already explained why I think that He DID say that he was offering something and that the elements were TRULY His Body and Blood. Your whole argument has been refuted before, regardless of whether you agreed with the refutation.

          12. Flounder is addicted to metaphor when it works for him, as in “My Flesh is real food and My Blood real drink” really means sumpin’ else….”

            And oh, the argument that this is metaphor because the disciples could not have cannibalized Jesus on the spot in John 6, falls apart when one considers the simple concept (difficult for some blinded by Satanic-goateed squint-eyed 16th century heretics) that the Passover offering, the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Resurrection had to happen first for the bread and wine to be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood for consumption by the “truly” faithful.

        2. M: I cannot find where Vatican I said if you don’t believe in papal infallibility, you cannot be saved.

          B: Well I would be more than delighted to tell you, but I fear you might be in the early stages of Alzheimers, as I answered this question for you in particular not too long ago.
          This is one of the main reasons Catholicism continues to flourish. Arguments are refuted and then forgotten. Only to be picked up again and repeated as if they were never addressed to begin with. Sheesh!

          Anyway, you will recall I furnished a link to the Pope’s encyclical, where he quotes Vatican 1

          “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation” (#46 & Footnote 17). THAT MEANS, you go to hell

          http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis_en.html

          As I recall, you made the understandable objection where you supposed that V-1 was only issuing passports to hell to those who depart OUT of the RCC, and not anyone else. I could see why you might think that, and so to clarify the issue, we must dig deeper. A better translation was brought in where the word “deviate” is used, and this is in perfect harmony with Boniface VIII’s demand that “EVERY” human creature “MUST” be subject to the Pope in order to be saved. This confirms my interpretation of Vatican 1 is correct. They are saying that ANYONE, in OR outside the church, who deviates from RC doctrine, will have hell to pay.
          Vatican 1, as you know, was where papal infallibility was pulled like a rabbit out of a hat, and it was there where we read..

          “The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the ***true faith***”.

          And what does that “true faith” include? Papal infallibility of course! Now if the “true faith” clause means “everyone on earth” without exception, is obligated to adhere to the “true faith” of the RCC to get to heaven, then a denial of P.I. means you will go to hell. Consequently, when they tell us that, “This is the teaching of ***Catholic truth***, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation”, they must mean EVERYONE who refuses to comply will get the ax, not just those who decide to leave.

          1. “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation” (#46 & Footnote 17).”

            Hey Flounder, what part of **it’s your choice** to “depart” from the teachings of God’s Church on Earth, thus endangering **your own salvation** that you don’t get?

            We (Catholicism) presents…you decide….

          2. This is one of the main reasons Catholicism continues to flourish. Arguments are refuted and then forgotten.

            Or…Catholicism may well continue to flourish because people genuinely become persuaded that Catholicism has a better case that Calvinism. Or they may find it impacting their personal life in a way Protestantism could not (or so they believe). Or they may find the threat of Hellfire for abandoning the Roman Catholic Church a genuine danger for their immortal souls. Or they may experience God in prayer in a way that they believe is only compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

            I also believe you are overestimating your ability to refute Catholic Apologetics. I think I speak for many here that we sometimes let you have the last word on any given argument because we’re simply tired of arguing.

          3. Good morning, Bare. The reason I asked the same question is that your first answer, as this current one also, failed to answer the question or to prove any point. Of course you believe that you proved your point or answered the question. If you were really at peace with your own belief, why do you think you feel the need to resort to ad hominem? Thanks, Bare, but my memory is not your problem. It certainly is not my problem. But if you think it is a problem for you, please enjoy that glee for the picosecond you have it.

            So friends, here’s a little site about discernment. It reminds of the goodness of our Lord and of the qualities, goals, methods of our rival.
            “Draw your strength from the Lord and from His mighty power. Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens” (Ephesians 6:10-12).

            Often it is easy to forget that there are other forces at work in the world other than ourselves. While Christians understand that God is active in our lives, it is sometimes forgotten that angels and demons are also present and active. Angels protect us from evil and assist us in doing good. Demons try to deceive us and tempt us to sin. At times, demonic activity can be intense, but we know God is always more powerful and can save us. It can be hard to know what is really going on, and the Bible tells us that, “Satan masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). To help us understand the bigger picture, the Lord gives the gift called Discernment of Spirits.

            Discerning spirits is a gift in which the Holy Spirit helps a person know what they are dealing with. Our natural reason alone is incapable of detecting all that which comes our way and is beyond our control. The Holy Spirit informs us if an issue is due to demonic activity, or if it is a test from God, or if it is a result of a choice we made ourselves.  St. John Chrysostom wrote in the early centuries of the Church:

            “What is, “discerning of spirits?” The knowing who is spiritual, and who is not: who is a prophet, and who a deceiver: as he said to the Thessalonians, ‘despise not prophesying:’ (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21) but proving all things, hold fast that which is good.’ For great was at that time the rush of the false prophets, the devil striving underhand to substitute falsehood for the truth.” He says the gift helps, “to discern and know which is he that speaketh by a pure spirit, and which by an impure.”- Homily 29 on 1st Corinthians

            It is very important to be prayerful when using this gift, and let God direct everything. St. Theresa of Avila, a Doctor of the Church, gives some guidance on how to tell if a message is from God:

            “The Lord impresses His words upon the memory so that it is impossible to forget them, whereas words that come from our own understanding are like the first movements of thought, which passes and is forgotten.”

            “The Divine words resemble something of which with the lapse of time a part may be forgotten but not so completely that one loses the memory of its having been said.”

            “A further indication, which is surer than any other, is that these false locutions effect nothing, whereas, when the Lord speaks, the words are accompanied by effects, and although the words may be, not of devotion, but rather of reproof, they prepare the soul and make it ready and move it to affection — give it light and make it happy and tranquil.”

            “I may listen for many days, and, although I may desire to hear them, I shall be unable to do so; and then, at other times, when I have no desire to hear them, I am compelled to.”

            When a locution comes from the devil the soul “suffers a disquiet” and is left in a state of “great aridity.” When something is supernatural and from God, the words “are understood much more clearly than if they were so heard, and, however determined one’s resistance, it is impossible to fail to hear them.”

            Signs to Look For The Congregation for the Clergy at the Vatican published some guidelines for priests in Confession, and part of it addressed some signs to look for that can indicate if something is from God, or an evil spirit. This is good advice that is always good for people to recall when trying to discern.  From, The Priest, Minister of Divine Mercy:

            99. The works of the spirit of evil are accompanied by pride, independence, sadness, discouragement, jealousy, confusion, hatred, deception, disdain of others, and selfish preferences. It is very difficult to distinguish these areas especially in the absence of spiritual direction and taking into account temperament, culture, and natural qualities. The areas or themes which are to be discerned are those which belong to the path of vocation (as lived out in ordinary every day circumstances), contemplation, perfection, fraternal life and mission. There are, however, personal and community situations which require special discernment; these would include a change in the state of life, new insights or impulses, structural changes, some weaknesses, and extraordinary phenomena.

            100. Since the Spirit blows where he wills (Jn 3:28) it is not possible to formulate strict norms about discernment. However, the saints and the spiritual masters continually refer to certain constants or to signs of the actions of the Spirit of love who acts outside of human logic.

            No spiritual situation can be well discerned without tranquility of mind which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It seeks out not one’s own interest or to dominate others, but the best way of serving God and one’s brothers and sisters. Spiritual counsel (in the context of discernment) operates with the guarantee of interior freedom which is not conditioned by selfish interests nor by the fashions of the moment.

            Necessary for discernment are: prayer, humility, detachment from preferences, listening ability, study of the life and teaching of the saints, knowledge of the teaching of the Church, careful examination of personal interior inclinations, ability to change, and freedom of heart. In this way we can train a good conscience or form that charity which wells up from a pure heart, from a clear conscience and from a sincere faith (cf. 1 Tim 1:5).

            What to do when the source of something has been discerned If the Lord shows that something is from Him, we should cooperate with whatever purification or lesson the Lord is giving. If the Lord shows something is from a choice we made, we should repent, learn from it and change our lives to protect us from making the same mistake again. But if something is from demons, we must follow the instructions of the Bible, “draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power” (Ephesians 6:10).

            “Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit.” – Ephesians 6:11-18

            If we discern demonic activity, we should ask God to save us by asking God to bind the demons and deliver us from them. We should also repent of our sins, and ask the Lord to show us if there was a particular sin that invited the demons which caused the problem. One way demons enter people’s lives is by taking sin as an invitation, especially sin that involves the occult. But, if we remove sin from our lives, it is like closing that door so the demons cannot enter our lives through it. Jesus spoke of the importance of repentance for effective deliverance saying, “When an unclean spirit goes out of a person it roams through arid regions searching for rest but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my home from which I came.’ But upon returning, it finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then it goes and brings back with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they move in and dwell there; and the last condition of that person is worse than the first” (Matthew 12:43-45).

            The Holy Spirit can also help us understand the severity of demonic activity. Demons afflict people in various stages, including temptation, obsession, and possession. It is very important to discern if something is due to natural causes such as mental, emotional, or physical health issues, in order to apply the correct remedy to the correct cause. Healing and deliverance prayer can resolve problems, and the gift of discerning spirits is important to make sure that treating the whole person is not neglected if the problem is not only spiritual. In more severe cases of demonic activity, an exorcism may be necessary, and since it is so serious one must be closely protected by the authority of the Church by turning to a priest.

            While this may be a frightening subject, it is also important to keep in mind that Jesus has the final victory. With prayer and humility at the foundation of discernment, we know that the power of God can overcome and remove demons. Even though demons are powerful, only God is Almighty. Demons are intelligent, but only God is omniscient. Demons may be crafty, but God alone is even more creative and powerful.  God’s plan is always trustworthy and safe. Discernment of Spirits is a tool that helps in the spiritual battle, but we must also remain humble and in prayer, because the power to wage the spiritual battle comes from God, and the victory is His.
            “Not by an army, nor by might, but by My Spirit, says the LORD” – Zechariah 4:6

          4. Okay, Bare,
            I researched your web site and your claim. Your web site has no particular relation to Vatican 1 but has everything to do with its title, which is: the RCC in China with respect to communism.

            ON COMMUNISM AND THE CHURCH IN CHINA
            TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN AND BELOVED CHILDREN,
            THE ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
            AND CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF CHINA
            IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

            The First Vatican Council was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868.

            The document you reference Ad Apostolorum Principis was an encyclical written in 1958 by Pius XII.

            What you say this document says is not what it says.

          5. Margo – you know, in another stunning and enervating example of the mind-numbing repetitiveness and circularity of BBs “apologetics,” I pointed this-exact-thing out months ago in another topic.

            Barry went all Flounder, damage-control bluster mode as usual, ignore dates and context, this is from the Vatican so it is Cat’lik holy writ, you have to obey, bla bla…..

            He ran out of arguments ages ago, and must agree with Pope Francis on the environment as he’s so heavily into recycling trash. .

          6. AK,

            Your sadly humorous comments bring a poignant smile, especially the recycling program of the current, and ‘going Flounder.’

            Best of the day to you and yours.

          7. Hey Bare,
            If you are going to quote ANYONE, please ascribe the quote to the correct person. Ascribing YOUR own quote to me is not appropriate. YOU said what you say I said. DUH. (I kinda’ could get used to typing as do you, in all KAPS. HA!)

          8. Here’s one more correction for you, Bare:

            1)You incorrectly quote Vatican I. Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; Coll. Lac., Vll, p.484 specifically says THUS: “4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” ENDANGERING faith and salvation is different from LOSS of salvation. It is a bit of a nuance which makes all the difference between heaven and hell, if you know what I mean?

            2) This section of Vatican I is not about papal infallibility. Read it again. Then read it again. Then pray for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding from the Holy Spirit. Discern Him if you can (read the saints for how to become His friend.) Return to the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic faith to allow Him to fully dwell within you. Return to confession. Receive communion. Pray. Pray. Pray more.

            Until then, good day and may
            God bless you, Bare.

          9. M: I researched your web site and your claim. Your web site has no particular relation to Vatican 1.

            B: Oh stop it. I provided you a direct link to a papal document which QUOTES VATICAN 1. This “relationship” quip is totally nonsensical.

            M: [The title is]

            ON COMMUNISM AND THE CHURCH IN CHINA
            TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN AND BELOVED CHILDREN,
            THE ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
            AND CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF CHINA
            IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

            B: Yeah, so what? The point was the Pope quoted Vatican 1 (!!!) in paragraph 46 and footnote 17.

            M: The First Vatican Council was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868.

            B: Yeah, so what? The point was the Pope quoted Vatican 1 (!!!) in paragraph 46 and footnote 17.

            M: The document you reference Ad Apostolorum Principis was an encyclical written in 1958 by Pius XII.

            B: Yeah, so what? The point was the Pope quoted Vatican 1 (!!!) in paragraph 46 and footnote 17.

            M: What you say this document says is not what it says.

            B: IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT DOES. The alert reader should see the pointless billowing smoke you keep blowing out of your nose which is no doubt a stench in GOD’S nostrils, especially when you have the GALLLLLLLLL not to provide any proof to back up your naked assertion that “I did not say what I mean”.
            You are refuted.

          10. Bare,

            As the Cat In the Hat would say, “I humbly bow to the voice of authority.” Guess what? That ain’t you!

            Good night.

      3. Leave it to a Protestant to tell a Catholic what he REALLY believes.

        This is one of the primary reasons why we repeatedly get into arguments with you. Can’t we let each other answer for ourselves?

        1. A.F. This is one of the primary reasons why we repeatedly get into arguments with you. Can’t we let each other answer for ourselves?

          B: But Mr. Folkerts….as I see it, if what I am hearing by a Catholic is technically inaccurate, they have lost the right to answer for themselves if I provide the proof to that effect.

          1. But Mr. Folkerts….as I see it, if what I am hearing by a Catholic is technically inaccurate, they have lost the right to answer for themselves if I provide the proof to that effect.

            The way I see it, they retain the right to answer for themselves (Calvinist or Catholic or Confessional Lutheran or Buddhist or Hindu or Atheist or who-knows-what-else). Despite that any of the above may not hold to their own defined position consistently, I still think it’s best to phrase it Socratically: “doesn’t your church believe X (doctrinal citation)?” It gives the other a fair chance to defend themselves, helps understand where the battle lines should be drawn (which may be different for different individuals), and promotes a more friendly form of dialogue.

            The point is to demolish devilish arguments. What better way than to defeat the Devil’s nonsense and ceaseless emnity toward man with sensibility and kindness? Our war may be theological in nature, and spiritual in Scope and combatants, but the Weapons are the Virtues and the Holy Scriptures.

            Romans 12:21 “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”

          2. AF: [We should use the approach] “doesn’t your church believe X (doctrinal citation)?” It gives the other a fair chance to defend themselves, and helps understand where the battle lines should be drawn

            B: I usually DO put the RC position before any comments I make about it. Or, if I begin with “this is untrue”, I proceed to tell them why. Like it or not, John the Baptist STARTED OFF with calling them “you brood of vipers”, which immediately casts a black cloud over your thesis to be a charity church mouse “at the get-go” when it comes to false doctrine. And rather than calling Mary the most prized human example, Jesus gave that honor to this man, much to every Catholic’s regret.
            In any case, I know what you’re getting at. Namely,

            A.F. promoting a more friendly form of dialogue.

            B: Discerning and exploiting the logical inconsistencies of opposing positions is a vital skill in apologetics that can not always, and I don’t believe it was intended, to be endowed with the “friendliness factor”. Even Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. In this kind of territory, it’s practically impossible to avoid turning up the heat. Jesus insulting the Pharisees 16 times in Matt 23 is proof enough that we are not to put to death our… “emotive expressions of discontent”. That’s all part of being human and I don’t think I’m sinning at all. What does, “Be ye angry and sin not” mean to you?

            A.F. The point is to demolish devilish arguments. What better way than to defeat the Devil’s nonsense and ceaseless emnity toward man with sensibility and kindness?

            B: Been there, done that. The “kill them with kindness approach” may work in typical evangelistic situations, but not when it comes to false doctrine and bad behavior. Again, the Baptist got his head cut off for not beating around the bush by telling you know who that he was committing you know what.

            A.F. Romans 12:21 “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”

            B: Yes, this can be put into practice perhaps in 90% of the time, but NOT when it comes to false doctrine leading people to hell.
            This is spiritual warfare (Eph 6) and we all know that opposing parties are not in the habit of sending chocolate covered cherries over to their enemies.
            The apostles were strong, bold, fearless, dogmatic, intolerant, unaccommodating of sin and error, and inflexible concerning the gospel. Thus, when I read in the catechism that it is necessary for salvation to keep the 10 commandments (#16 & 2068) my knee-jerk reaction is to tell you that the purpose of the 10 commandments was not to offer salvation to those who could keep it (which no one has ever done), but to show us our guilt so that we would henceforth accept Christ’s “payment” that satisfied God’s justice on our behalf. The Catholic will come up with some jabberwocky excuse and I then will most likely call that person a fool at some point, just as Jesus called Herod a “fox”. So be it.

            21st century Protestant and Catholic leaders are pragmatic, ecumenical, gullible, tolerant of error and sin and will do anything to avoid being controversial and offensive. But it should not be so.

          3. What does, “Be ye angry and sin not” mean to you?

            It means that the passion of anger is not inherently sinful, but that you should not allow the passion of anger to cause you to sin, or to deliberately foment hatred in your heart. I’d venture a guess that this is your take as well?

            The “kill them with kindness approach” may work in typical evangelistic situations, but not when it comes to false doctrine and bad behavior. Again, the Baptist got his head cut off for not beating around the bush by telling [Herod] that he was committing you know what.

            Pretty sure this is where we differ here. I would argue that even in the case of exposing falsity, it is necessary to maintain kindness. I think you could improve in seeking to imitate our Blessed Lord and St. John the Baptist, if this is what you are going for.

            Yes, this can be put into practice perhaps in 90% of the time, but NOT when it comes to false doctrine leading people to hell.

            Again, I think we differ here. I would argue that overcoming evil with good must be put into practice 100% of the time, even when there is false doctrine involved.

            Thus, when I read in the catechism that it is necessary for salvation to keep the 10 commandments (#16 & 2068) my knee-jerk reaction is to tell you that the purpose of the 10 commandments was not to offer salvation to those who could keep it (which no one has ever done), but to show us our guilt so that we would henceforth accept Christ’s “payment” that satisfied God’s justice on our behalf.

            I understand. Truly, I do. However, I still believe that you’re incorrect here, and that Christians justified in Christ *do* need to keep the 10 commandments, and that Christ’s payment in satisfaction of the honor of God the Father does not absolve us of the need to obey the commandments once having been Justified.

            21st century Protestant and Catholic leaders are pragmatic, ecumenical, gullible, tolerant of error and sin and will do anything to avoid being controversial and offensive. But it should not be so.

            Agreed. I’m not advocating for a “Church of nice” approach, as so many have rightly criticized the modern approach to dialogue. I am advocating a balanced approach though. Our Lord did not criticize the pharisees only, but also affirmed their genuine authority to teach the Law and affirmed their (correct) understanding that Loving God and Loving neighbor is the fulfillment of the Law. I’ve taken note that you have improved in the area of at least calling some of our statements “pious”, but I’d still say you have a ways to go, even by Calvinist standards.

          4. “Discerning and exploiting the logical inconsistencies of opposing positions is a vital skill in apologetics…”

            When you can get there without lying and/or rehashing old debunked flounder stew, let us know.

          5. Another bit of grammar on display: A Catholic has lost THEIR right! (Does this mean a Catholic has lots of gerbils in THEIR pockets? Suddenly one becomes more than one! It reminds me of the loaves and the fishes miracle! Is that true only so long as Barry provides the Proof? Go for it, Bare. I’ll read it tomorrow.

        2. Hi AF,

          My apology that this post probably belongs to another thread, but I’m short of time in looking for it.

          Re: Fasting prior to Passover and fasting prior to receipt of Eucharist. Fasting of the firstborn prior to Passover derives from OT and Tradition. It is still practiced in Judaism today. Further, every good Jew cleanses his kitchen and removes from all corners of the house any chametz (any leavened bread derived from grain). A just Jew ate only UNLEAVENED AND NEWLY PREPARED BREAD. The mere presence of CHAMETZ was and is strictly prohibited. I post these facts for your edification. Others will probably misconstrue some or all of this.

          https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/preparing-for-passover

    2. Craig,

      I hope things are going swimmingly with you. I want you to know, even when we butted heads, I never thought you were damned. In the wrong? Yes. But damned? No. I leave that judgment up to God.

      1. Duane,

        I don’t mind if people think I am damned now. I do believe schism, normatively, is a sin that casts one outside the pale of salvation. This appears to be the teaching of the Scriptures and all of the fathers that were not universalists. Both Orthodox and Catholics in the last 100 years seem to be backing off from the idea, which I personally see as a theological novum. If historicaly I was convinced the Orthodox were in schism, I’d become a RC catechumen.

        I’m not kidding in saying that Gal 5:20 put the fear of God in me. Please pray for me.

        God bless,
        Craig

        P.S. For the record, I am fairly confident that the Orthodox are not in schism. Not being infallible, I do not claim I can completely convince anyone of this. Further, with my recent track record, I would not consider myself the most compelling of sources either 🙂

        1. Craig – your witness is truly inspiring. Has been a pleasure to watch.

          “I don’t mind if people think I am damned now.”

          Considering your accuser, I would exercise caution putting those two words in the same sentence…”people”…and “think…” in BB’s case they are perceptibly mutually exclusive.

        2. I do believe schism, normatively, is a sin that casts one outside the pale of salvation. This appears to be the teaching of the Scriptures and all of the fathers that were not universalists. Both Orthodox and Catholics in the last 100 years seem to be backing off from the idea, which I personally see as a theological novum

          I heartily agree, denying that schism puts oneself outside of salvation is definitely a novelty. I do, of course, add the important caveat of the ignorant, or the coerced, but in general, schism is schism.

          1. This is why I continue my prayers day and night for unity. I think it will take another generation for there to be serious headway, but I think if we can take away anything from the sort of wish-washyness on schism is that there is a growing desire for unity. As long as this desire is strong than the wish-washyness, God can use this call for good.

            God bless,
            Craig

  15. Barry,

    Can you read? Once again, I have highlighted the part you hope no one notices:

    we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

    The whole point of the act clear. Excommunication is the last resort to bring about repentance and salvation. And it is taken from St. Paul, verbatim.

    you are to deliver this man to Satan* for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

    Now Barry, why are you teaching the Church teaches the anathematized cannot be saved, when your own quote from what the Church teaches says the soul can be saved?

    Leave it to an ex-Catholic to try and distort what the Church actually teaches, and try to lead the sheep to Perdition.

    Get behind me Barry.

    1. D: Can you read? Once again, I have highlighted the part you hope no one notices:

      we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

      B: No, can’t UUUUU READ? Your original statement was, QUOTE

      “an anathema is an excommunication, not a judgment on whether one can be saved or not.”

      I told you the RCC says, QUOTE

      “WE JUDGE him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate”…[unless!…]

      So….the first 2 words are unambiguous: “WE…JUDGE”.

      Hence, an anathema is a JUDGMENT to hell…”unless”.

      My point is crystal clear for those who don’t have cobwebs in the windmills of their mind. For you, there appears to be the need for an exterminator.

      1. Hey Flounder, check this out:

        Merriam Webster:

        Definition of judge

        :one who makes judgments: such as
        a :a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court
        b :one appointed to decide in a contest or competition :umpire
        c :one who gives an authoritative opinion (cf Flounder: the definition that applies to the discussion)

        The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (about which you know little because youuuuu have shut Him out) forms an **authoritative opinion**, and calls it a judgement, on the nascent result of aberrant (aka, sinful) human behavior. And in the quaint parlance of the 17th century (are you following so far?), the Church passes this opinion, aka judgment, onto the poor soul too far befuddled by one or more of the Seven Deadlies to understand by him-or-herself what’s in store for them absent repentance.

        Read and heed, yokel.

          1. All ever prove is that you’re a rabid psycho who snarls, lies, engages until squashed as we did here, then you run.lick your wounds, cry to Parster Jimmy, then come back with the same-old-crap, circular, embellished or outright lies,and the whole thing starts again.

            If you’re driven by “God’sMercy”to save errant Catholic souls, well, even the other Protestants here think you are a buffoon…..whuzzat tell you?

          2. At 5:35 I proved the RCC is NOT guided by the Spirit.

            Except that we disagree with your argument. I’ve already explained before why I disagree with your argument, and continue to hold that the Council of Trent was *spot on* about our Lord and the Eucharist. Truly, your argument only works if you already have a pre-existing commitment to memorialism. I’ve taken note that many of your arguments are like this. Take out the assumption of protestant doctrines and many of your arguments don’t really work.

          3. A.F. we disagree with your argument [at 5:35 that the Holy Spirit was not guiding Trent]. I’ve already explained before why I disagree with your argument

            B: You proved absolutely nothing. As I recall, you were the one who told me that an infallible statement can only be identified by its being in a “canon” with an anathema attached. I confronted your objection from every possible angle at 5:35 with no response.
            You are at liberty to deny it until you’re blue in the face. You have no defense.

            A.F. [We] continue to hold that the Council of Trent was *spot on* about our Lord and the Eucharist.

            B: You are blind. I painstakingly walked you through the errors of Trent and you could not defend putting the word “Truly” in the mouth of Christ if your life depended on it. And all of this is not even to mention the obnoxious statement they include in their scatterbrained document that Jesus never obligated ANYONE to partake of both bread and wine. It is disgusting beyond measure and sure to incur the wrath of God on that final day. Get a clue Mr. F….Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. The RCC has clearly BROKEN the Scriptures (if words have any meaning!) by dispensing with his command to utilize BOTH B & W, only to tell us only one will do.
            The sin of Trent os no less breathtakingly stupid than King Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. This good king went from royalty to leprosy in a matter of minutes, all because he decided to modify God’s commandment as it pertained to worship. Over 80 priests confronted him that he was erring greatly, but Uzziah only became enraged. Consequently, he was struck with leprosy on the spot.

            Likewise Trent, also deserving a dunce cap, going so far as to say we are not even obliged by any divine command to partake of both bread and wine! Like Uzziah, they fly into a rage and tell their detractors, “If anyone says that by God’s command [we] ought to receive both kinds of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema” (ibid, canon 1). However, the dual axiom of bread and wine provided at the Last Supper is a foundation that stands immovable, regardless of the bulldozing tendencies of the Roman oligarchy to uproot it.

          4. “….and you could not defend putting the word “Truly” in the mouth of Christ if your life depended on it….”

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

            “However, the dual axiom of bread and wine provided at the Last Supper is a foundation that stands immovable,..”

            Alleluia! Flounder believes in the Eucharist! See you at Mass – be sure (as the lapsed Catholic that you are) to make a good general confession before you Receive. Maybe if he is ordained before you make your return, you can make your confession to Father Joe……

          5. The only thing you ever “prove” is that the state of mental health services in the Ozarks is nonexistent.

          6. As I recall, you were the one who told me that an infallible statement can only be identified by its being in a “canon” with an anathema attached.

            You recall incorrectly, that was AK I believe, or maybe that was Al. All the “A” names here are easy to get mixed up.

            You are at liberty to deny it until you’re blue in the face.

            I only need to deny it once. You mis-attributed. I have never made the argument that only Canons are infallible in an Ecumenical Council.

            You are blind.

            You haven’t convinced me in the slightest that I am blind.

            The RCC has clearly BROKEN the Scriptures (if words have any meaning!) by dispensing with his command to utilize BOTH B & W, only to tell us only one will do.

            In your opinion. Largely because you start by assuming memorialism. Also, Ultraquism is dumb, precisely because it ignores Christian historical practice.

            “If anyone says that by God’s command [we] ought to receive both kinds of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema” (ibid, canon 1).

            This is the only part of your comment that is correct.

          7. 214 comments and counting and still you’re not done arguing about justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, and memorialism — and it’s always the same arguments, over, and over, and over, and over.

            …….sheesh…….

          8. AK: [You said] “….and you could not defend putting the word “Truly” in the mouth of Christ if your life depended on it….”

            [My reply is] John 6:53 – “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

            B: All of your posts are for all practical purposes, useless, but I answer to anyone looking in can see the paucity of your position.
            Your John 6:53 quote was plainly dealt with at 5:35 and is in fact, where Trent stole the word “truly” from, and then fiendishly transported it over to Last Supper account, (quoted in CCC 1376) where Jesus did NOT say any such thing, and which instantly exposes Trent as a religious fraud. There is no way out of it. You can kick and scream all you want, but why spend your life being a cry baby when I’ve clearly given you the evidence that it’s time to send in a letter of resignation to the Vatican.

            AK: [You said] “However, the dual axiom of bread and wine provided at the Last Supper is a foundation that stands immovable,..”

            Alleluia! Flounder believes in the Eucharist!

            B: Oh stop it. The last time you partook of bread and wine was probably at your first communion, so your dedication to both elements is hypocritcal to the maxx.
            If you are on steroids, you need to lower the dosage.

            See you at Mass – be sure (as the lapsed Catholic that you are) to make a good general confession before you Receive. Maybe if he is ordained before you make your return, you can make your confession to Father Joe……

          9. “Your John 6:53 quote was plainly dealt with at 5:35 and is in fact, where Trent stole the word “truly” from, and then fiendishly transported it over to Last Supper account,…”

            Two issues here…first, let’s consult Squire Merriam-Webster, shall we?

            Definition of truly

            1 :in all sincerity :sincerely —often used with yours as a complimentary close
            2 :in agreement with fact :truthfully
            3 a :indeed —often used as an intensive truly, she is fair or interjectionally to express astonishment or doubt
            b :without feigning, falsity, or inaccuracy in truth or fact
            4 :with exactness of construction or operation
            5 :in a proper or suitable manner

            Does Flounder see the term “metaphor” in there, anywhere? We see “sincerity”….”truthfully”….”Intensive truly”…..”without feigning”…..nope, no metaphor.

            And…is Flounder, the Sola-tard Supremo of this humble Blog, **really** saying that Scripture doe not say what Scripture says, clearly, in every version I can find? Could is be that Flounder DOESN’T BELIEVE IN THE BAH-BUULE???!!! Except when it serves **his** purposes? My God…..you’re beginning to sound like…a Protestant….maybe even a Lutheran…..

            “The last time you partook of bread and wine was probably at your first communion,…”

            Actually, tonight at Mass. Could have done either or both. I do both. Trent is satisfied. Alleluia.

            You are very entertaining! Please do continue! I have not had this much fun dissecting an inanimate corpse since high school biology (Bergen Catholic HS, Oradell, NJ, 1972).

          10. Also, you misquoted the canon from Trent by leaving out a significant clause:

            “CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.”

            You replaced “all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating” with “we” editorially. It’s fair to make editorial changes for brevity, but this editorial change alters the meaning. With the original, full quote, your argument falls to pieces, since the Council of Trent specifically interprets the command to partake of the species of bread and wine to apply to the celebrant of mass.

            The 2nd canon makes this even more clear:

            CANON II.-if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

            Here’s the session in question (Session 21):
            http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch21.htm

          11. You can kick and scream all you want, but why spend your life being a cry baby when I’ve clearly given you the evidence that it’s time to send in a letter of resignation to the Vatican.

            Or, we can disagree with the significance, quality, and accuracy of your argument that Trent imported truly from John 6. No kicking and screaming necessary.

          12. A.F. This is the only part of your comment that is correct: “If anyone says that by God’s command [we] ought to receive both kinds of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema” (ibid, canon 1).

            B: But the problem is that you actually believe it (!!!).
            HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?!
            While I understand you are blinded from on High and can’t expect to fight God’s decree hanging over you, perhaps someone looking in may witness the utter GAUL of Catholicism. It should be painfully obvious to the truth seeker that Catholics are under a form of religious dementia resulting from being blasted with the curse of 2 Thess 2:11-12. The fact that you can CONDONE, APPROVE, SUPPORT and TEACH OTHERS that Jesus Christ did not ever give the command to partake of both bread and wine, is the epitomy of stupidity and you are absolutely, positively LOST.
            “The Scriptures cannot be broken” said the Creator of the universe, and the RCC has BROKEN them just as someone drops and breaks a dish. It is a COMPLETE departure of the faith once delivered (Jude 1:3) and speaking of dishes…. like Jerusalem, the Lord will eventually, “wipe out [the Roman Catholic Church] as one wipes out a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down” (2 Kings 21:13).

          13. “..looking in may witness the utter GAUL ….”

            That would be “gall” as opposed to Gaul, as in “Omnes Gallia in tres partes divisa est..”

            Oh…yes…this:

            “….is the epitomy of stupidity …”

            The juxtaposition of those two words is irony supremo. The ‘epitome’ of irony….if you “cain’t spel,” what else can anyone on here trust you to get right? From your little additions and omissions, quite obviously…nothing….

            Is you real last name Malaprop?

            Got’ em again KO.

          14. But the problem is that you actually believe it (!!!).

            A Roman Catholic that believes in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches? Imagine that…

            While I understand you are blinded from on High and can’t expect to fight God’s decree hanging over you…

            This again?

            If I took your arguments seriously, I would not convert to Calvinism, but rather leave Christianity. How can you Love a God that deliberately, *DELIBERATELY*, prevents people from seeing the truth, in such a way that **they can never repent on this Earth**?

            So here is a better interpretation of the passage in question (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 in my Bible, slight numbering difference, also this is my own personal fallible interpretation)

            “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

            Note. God does not send the error itself, but the operation of error (which I interpret further as meaning that God removes illumination from their mind to understand certain truths rather than causing a defect actively), and this is in response to Iniquity. But if they would repent and Love truth, would not God remove this speedily from them? After all, St. Paul does not only recommend avoiding those who do not obey his epistle, but calls upon us to admonish them *as a Brother*. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

            Also in the same Epistle, St. Paul admonishes the believer to hold not only to his written epistles, but also his Traditions:

            2 Thessalonians 2:14 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

          15. A.F. you misquoted the canon from Trent by leaving out a significant clause: You said
            “If anyone says that by God’s command [we] ought to receive both kinds of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema” (ibid, canon 1).

            The canon actually says

            “CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating [i.e., those not celebrating being defined specifically as the clergy at the altar] let him be anathema.”
            You replaced “all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating” [meaning the priestly celebrants] with “we” editorially. It’s fair to make editorial changes for brevity, but this editorial change alters the meaning. With the original, full quote, your argument falls to pieces…

            B: It most certainly does NOT.

            A.F. since the Council of Trent specifically interprets the command to partake of the species of bread and wine to apply to the celebrant of mass.

            B: They do NOT specifically interpret any such thing!

            A.F. The 2nd canon makes this even more clear:

            CANON II.-if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen,

            B: NOTE! “Laymen, comma”

            A.F. and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.
            Here’s the session in question (Session 21):
            http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch21.htm

            B: First of all, you are very confused and are not reading the word “LAY PEOPLE” into the equation for some reason. Lay people like you are included in restricting Communion to only one kind! Back to that in a minute. But let it be said that there ARE no “just causes and reasons” to validate their destruction of the Lord’s Supper under ANY circumstances, as they claim, for, “The Scripture cannot be broken”.
            Trent was picking up on Constance, which, QUOTE, “prohibits and forbids Communion under the form of bread and wine to ***lay people*** and to clerics not officiating…”
            Listen to Satan at Constance: “Even though Christ administered this venerable sacrament to his disciples under the form of bread and wine, nevertheless, IN SPITE OF THIS, the CUSTOM of communion under only one kind must now be held as law.”

            I spit on such a statement. So now a “custom”, unheard of for 1400 years till Constance, may over-rule Christ’s command? It is exactly as Jesus said, “You make the commandment of God of none effect in order to keep your tradition”.
            And Mr. Heschmeyer doesn’t think we needed a Reformation??? Catholics are well aware that Paul also taught the reception of both kinds no less than 5 times and incurred guilt on those who would partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner. But you will say, being “unworthy” doesn’t apply to mutilating the Lord’s Supper.
            Nonsense.

            So at the end of the day, this is a case of tunnel vision. You don’t want the laity to be included in their prohibition of bread and wine and I don’t exactly know why. Is this not practiced every day by Catholics world wide? So it seems to me you wish to argue simply for the sake of arguing. Trent does not restrict communion under only one kind to the celebrant alone, but to the layman as well. THAT INCLUDES YOU. Trent’s chapter one, QUOTE, “TEACHES THAT LAY PEOPLE, (Again, “Lay people, COMMA”) and clergy who are not celebrating, are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament under both kinds.”
            THAT INCLUDES YOU, hence, my insertion of the word “we” for brevity’s sake.
            Thus, what my post says at 5:35 remains untouched.

            I hopped skippity jumped over to my 5 volume set of “The Examination of the Council of Trent” by Chemnitz, written just after the Council closed. Trent’s ruling on Communion under only one kind, thus mutilating the Lord’s Supper and representing a complete departure from the very institution of the Son of God, caused QUITE a ruckus, as well it should have, “no doubt in heaven itself” he says, “for a man acts unbecomingly before the Lord when he celebrates this mystery in a manner other than taught by the One instituting it. For just as it is a crime of sacrilege either to abrogate or to appoint anything additional to a normal man’s last will and testament, how much more the Son of God’s last will and testament? Surely it is a dreadful piece of presumption to take away and forbid the use of the testamentory cup from the greater part of the church….if, however, the institution is either taken away or adulterated or mutilated and changed, we can in no way make or have true sacraments. And lest anyone think that this command of Christ is satisfied if only one is done, Paul, in speaking of the cup, uses the words, “in the same way” in order to show that this command applies also in the same way and with equal reason to the cup, no less than to the bread. No reasons or arguments should even be admitted against the express words of institution. “This do”…is clear. Both kinds are necessary to preserve the integrity, wholeness and consummation of this sacred Communion, and therefore the obstinacy displayed by Trent to persist in defending this unjust prohibition and ungodly mutilation of the Lord’s Supper, must be rejected.”

          16. First of all, you are very confused and are not reading the word “LAY PEOPLE” into the equation for some reason. Lay people like you are included in restricting Communion to only one kind!

            Yes! Correct.

            Your entire comment consists of misinterpreting me in believing that only clergy not consecrating communicate under one kind and continuing to promote this insane narrative of “Ultraquism or you’re mutilating Christ’s command”. No, the laity also are not required to receive both kinds, and neither does this contravene Christ’s command since the celebrant is required to communicate under both kinds. This is a perfectly valid custom, and interpretation of Scripture with regard to the necessity of receiving both kinds.

            St. Thomas Aquinas promotes this same thing in the Summa Ch 80, Q. 12:

            http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article12

          17. Also, your truncation of Constance Changes the meaning (starting to notice a trend here). Here’s the section in full:

            In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.

            http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm

            The bolded sections are the ones that contravene your argument. The Council of Constance had all authority and good argument to affirm the very old and venerable custom of the laity receiving under the species of bread alone.

          18. So at the end of the day, this is a case of tunnel vision. You don’t want the laity to be included in their prohibition of bread and wine and I don’t exactly know why. Is this not practiced every day by Catholics world wide? So it seems to me you wish to argue simply for the sake of arguing. Trent does not restrict communion under only one kind to the celebrant alone, but to the layman as well. THAT INCLUDES YOU. Trent’s chapter one, QUOTE, “TEACHES THAT LAY PEOPLE, (Again, “Lay people, COMMA”) and clergy who are not celebrating, are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament under both kinds.”
            THAT INCLUDES YOU, hence, my insertion of the word “we” for brevity’s sake.

            But it still falsifies the evidence, seeing as Trent plainly teaches that the consecrating celebrant must receive under both species, so I continue to reject your editorial change., seeing as teaching that the command of God to receive under both kinds applies to the celebrant specifically is a perfectly valid interpretation. Also, at my home parish, we receive under one kind (even though at most Catholic parishes the laity receive under both kinds).

          19. So the Council of Trent refutes you, Bare.

            Does your hoppity-skippity jump-start copy of Chemnitz claim to accurately quote Trentz? Does it claim to be inspired and “truly, truly” contain the words of Our Lord? Perhaps Chemnitz’ words were (GASP) ‘STOLEN’ from another section of the Bible or from Trent and somehow we cannot believe them? Just as (you earlier argued) we disciples are not to consider the words of Our Lord from the Cross to John.

            In college and grad school, one learns a cardinal rule of research and rhetoric: USE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL whenever possible. So I decline to use your skipped-jumped-hopped Chemnitz. I use the words of Trent and the justification and explanation offered by the authors and participants thereof. Read original Trent. Read the words of Our Lord at John 6:51 and John 6:58. Then argue your point.

            Faithfully rendered Trent can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT21.HTM

            Faithfully rendered Scripture can be found here:
            “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”King James Bible. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
            Live · 58 NLT · 58 KJV · 58 ESV · 58 NIV · 58 NASB
            John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven …
            biblehub.com/john/6-51.htm

            John 6:51 Verse (Click for … if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh. …
            Flesh · 51 KJV · 51 NIV · 51 NASB · Moreover · 51 ESV
            Food For Your Spirit He That Eateth Of This Bread Shall …
            https://www.bizapedia.com/trademarks/food-for-your-spirit-he-that

            THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
            Session XXI – The fifth under the Supreme Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, 1562

            CHAPTER I
            LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
            This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: ,[4] also said: ;[5] and He who said: [6] also said: ;[7] and lastly, He who said: ,[8] said, nevertheless: [9]

          20. Well, Bare, for some reason the scripture quotes from Trent did not copy in my post! But I assure you, the applicable quotes are contained in the EWTN site. The relevant quotes are from John 6:51 and John 6:58.

          21. A.F. [You are] continuing to promote this insane narrative of “Ultraquism or “you’re mutilating Christ’s command”

            B: Because THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT IS: MUTILATION.

            A.F. Ultraquism is dumb, precisely because it ignores Christian historical practice.

            B: Historical practice beginning over a thousand years later? Spare me.

            A.F. the laity [is not] required to receive both kinds, and neither does this contravene Christ’s command since the celebrant is required to communicate under both kinds.

            B: It most emphatically DOES contravene the Lord Jesus Christ, and your reason that “as long as the PRIEST takes both elements all shall be well” is beyond ridiculous. Reminds me of when Bob Hope died. An interviewer asked his friend, “Was Bob Catholic?”
            Answer? “Well his wife took the faith more seriously than he did, so I’m sure she was able to get him to heaven by proxy”.

            A.F. This is a perfectly valid custom, and interpretation of Scripture with regard to the necessity of receiving both kinds.

            B: What?! A perfectly valid custom with regard to the necessity of receiving BOTH kinds, you tell me, was the custom to receive ONLY ONE?
            Do you hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth?
            Plus, how dare you say that this mutilation of the Lord’s Supper is a valid interpretation of Scripture! “Take and eat” and “drink from it all of you” were the marching orders for EVERYONE, and thus, the Catholic position must fall to the ground in a dead heap. To think this slop was inspired by the Holy Spirit is a sign, I am sorry to say, of religious dementia.
            Does what Paul write about communion under both kinds pertain only to priests behind the altar? NO. His epistle addresses the whole “church of God which is at Corinth”, and adds that it is written to “all who call on the name of the Lord” and that, “in every place”.

            A.F. St. Thomas Aquinas promotes this same thing in the Summa Ch 80, Q. 12:
            http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article12

            B: His reasons for agreeing to the mockery/mutilation of the Lord’s Supper are weak, feeble, shameful, disgraceful and insulting to the Lord who instituted it. Let’s look at them

            Mr. Aq: it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest’s duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ’s body without the blood.

            B: Good. He admits it is proper. Now for the “BUT”.

            Mr. Aq: But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.

            B: There it is folks! The reason Catholics think they can throw Christ’s command under the bus is summed up under the pretext of. heavens to betsy, it might SPILL. Elsewhere we read Rome’s 16th century apologists bringing up the long beards on men, and oh my, if a drop of wine slithers down the beard to the ground, that means “jesus” has fallen to the floor like a raindrop.
            Meh.
            Boy am I glad there was a Reformation!

            Mr. Aq: [We admit that] Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): “We have learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether.”
            Therefore [the objectors conclude] it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ without His blood”.
            [But he meant the PRIESTS!].

            B: Baloney he did. He categorically stated “some PERSONS, and not priests in particular. Here we go again, the typical Catholic Peppermint Twist. Even though “all have sinned, it doesn’t mean that….Mary is an exception. Even though we read of the brothers and sisters of Christ…it doesn’t mean that, they were cousins. Even though divorce is forbidden, let’s call it an annulment instead so the records show a low rate of divorce in the RCC. So even though Pope Gelasius says certain PERSONS were taking only one element, he was referring to priests.”

            We don’t buy it A.F. (!!!) and you are completely wasting your time trying to convince people with a thinking brain filled with the Spirit, that this ludicrous doctrine of “only one kind needed” had its origin in heaven.

            Mr. Aq: But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all…

            B: Here we go again: salvation by proxy! This is pure garbage! Where, pray tell, did the Lord ever say it was alright for someone to receive the sacrament by proxy for someone else?
            Answer?
            NOWHERE.

          22. “We don’t buy it A.F. ”

            “We” again.

            Just how many pet gerbils do you have, and where do you keep them?

            On second thought, don’t tell “us.” Eww-www…..

            On a positive note, yer spelin’ has improved since I schooled ye….

            BTW…”we” see a lot of opinion – some falsified, some out of context, pretty much all unsubstantiated and easily “re-fruited” – on Catholic doctrine in your posts…or would that be “private interpretation?”

          23. M: So the Council of Trent refutes you

            B: Prove it.

            M: In college and grad school, one learns a cardinal rule of research and rhetoric: USE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL whenever possible.

            B: In college, I learned when you accuse someone, that you must quote that person and show how your evidence refutes them. This you did not do, and so your complaint is dismissed.

          24. BB said – B: In college, I learned when you accuse someone, that you must quote that person and show how your evidence refutes them. This you did not do, and so your complaint is dismissed.

            Me – I sure wish you’d apply this to the CCC and all the other works you left out context and flat out added words to support your position and then claim it was not done with malice. We all now know you do it on purpose and with malice which makes you nefarious liar.

            I really don’t get you. You say you are trying to get us out of a cult and believe you are behaving as Jesus and the Apostles would but none of them the had to employ these cowardly and evil tactics. They were preaching the true Gospel, that’s why they didn’t need to do all this cloak and dagger stuff.

            You employ tools of darkness to supposedly shine the light. If you were preaching the Lord’s gospel these tactics would not be necessary. All you have managed to do is discredit yourself here and reinforced my view that the gospel you are trying to spread is lacking, otherwise truth and transparency would be enough.

            In God’s eyes the ends do not justify the means.

          25. “I really don’t get you.”

            CK – I think I do. I have run into this before. BB (Flounder) is motivated not by a desire to evangelize, nor theological interest as most posters here – he is a blind hater. Someone who hates as vehemently as BB will go to any lengths to attack his target, including lie and cheat. Something happened to get him this way and it wasn’t apologetics. Consider….

            BB just *loves* and admires fellow Calvinist apologist James White. Now, there are few apologists out there in fundie-land who hate Catholicism as publicly and vehemently as Parster Jimmuh. And he has garnered the love of that peculiar subgroup – apparently including Flounder – of Protestant fundamental-Calvinists who one online article has perceptively described as strangely and increasingly ‘insular and tribal.’ That these people love him is telling, as his older sister, Patty Bonds, recently revealed a childhood of continuous sexual abuse at the hands of their father, incidentally also a Protestant clergyman, I believe a Baptist. Her witness to this all-too-common atrocity is available on line. When Ms Bonds came out with this, lacking any support from her extended family – including her younger brother – she providentially turned to the one place where all should find solace, the Catholic Church; she is now a consecrated virgin. And for that unforgivable sin, the good Christian parster has taken to viciously and hatefully attacking his sister, and anyone else who comes to her aid and defense (in particular, convert and theologian Steve Ray), through his so-called “ministry.”

            I have two points to make here. First is, hatred like BBs and White’s doesn’t spring from nowhere – it is generated very often by early abuse, either first-or-secondhand. Second, without deep and expert intervention, the abused tend in life either to run towards more abuse, or to become abusers themselves – or both. This is my strong vibe on Barry, who for some reason of his own, has targeted Catholicism. I offer as evidence, his pit-bull but pointless circularity through many topics, his vehemence, his condescension, his incoherence, his doubling-down on inexpert, obviously parroted, non-contextual or doctored research – do all these collectively sound like the intellectual conversion from Catholicism that he claims? I am theorizing some level of abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy, and for allowing the conditions that created such anger, our Holy Mother Church has much for which to weep, alongside Jesus, and for which to atone – even if I am wrong about Barry.

            A sad case, and something to consider. I make fun of Barry a lot, in hopes of making him self-aware and deflating some of his bombast (his spelling has gotten better…;). Hate him? No….pity, pray for, sad at the demonstrated pathos, but hate? No…that’d be unworthy of a Catholic.

            BTW….I **by no means** in my screed want to imply that Protestant clergymen are abusers in general. I’d then be as guilty as Hollywood in their broad-brush attacks on Catholicism (interesting, God’s sense of irony there….given recent news).

            As the world becomes more savvy through shared information, the truths of these sects is available – not a great recruiting tool – and that is making them desperate, hence the increased anger at Catholicism which is enjoying a steady, if slow, turnaround through the New Evangelization. I sure see it here in Colorado Springs, in the heart of what’s called the Protestant Vatican.

          26. Hey Bare,

            I guess my memory is too short, but I do hereby truly confess that I remember none of your words. As soon as I read them, they’re gone. That is how I discern the good or the lack of that within them.

            So, No. I won’t be repeating any of your words to you. You can do that yourself. And you can of course edit them as you do scripture and the writings of the Church, and us here. Whatever knocks you out so you cannot see the scales on your eyes.

            Good day and good bye.

          27. A.F. Your entire comment consists of misinterpreting me in believing that only clergy not consecrating, communicate under one kind

            B: That is exactly what you said: QUOTE:

            “since the Council of Trent specifically interprets the command to partake of the species of bread and wine to apply to the celebrant of mass”.

            A.F. Also, your truncation of Constance changes the meaning…Here’s the section in full:

            B: Spare me your insidious lie that what I posted CHANGES THE MEANING of anything! You have not proved a thing by the type you submitted in boldface. Reading it over again only confirms the absurdity of it all. I love this little ditty tho:

            “the approved custom of the church [is that] this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting”

            B: LOL. The RCC advocates “fasting” before receiving it (CCC 1387)… even though the apostles partook of the bread “as they were eating”?????? (Matt 26:20). Yeah, right.

            A.F. The Council of Constance had all authority and good argument to affirm the very old and venerable custom of the laity receiving under the species of bread alone.

            B: They did NOT have any authority to take the ax to Christ’s command and slice it in half! They also did not have “good argument” either, but rather, slippery and wretchedly wicked arguments that put a muzzle on Christ’s mouth once and for all.
            Furthermore, if the claim for such a “VERY OLD” custom existed, one would think you would provide a sling of quotes, since you had no objection to posting the entire loooooong screed of Constance. Where are the quotes from antiquity? Either produce this long look list of convincing data so we can examine them, or admit you’ve been duped.

            A.F. Constance says, “Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics ”

            B: I trust I am a reasonable example of those who “stubbornly assert the opposite”? Consequently, let this be a lesson to all those limp- wristers, including the Pope, who insist on pretending on calling us your “brothers”. When will the madness end?

          28. A.F. [You say] So at the end of the day, this is a case of tunnel vision. You don’t want the laity to be included in their prohibition of bread and wine and I don’t exactly know why. Is this not practiced every day by Catholics world wide?”

            [Answer: the reason is because] Trent plainly teaches that the consecrating celebrant must receive under both species

            B: By proxy for the laity as Aquinas suggests? Poppycock.
            I’m amazed you don’t see the lackluster light in your comment. No one is arguing that the priest must not take both elements. But this is precisely the thorn that bothers the Protestant when invited to sit on the Catholic cactus. There is simply NO GOOD REASON to deny the laity, nor is there any indication to do so from Holy Writ whatsoever. I would love for you to title a post on “The Scripture cannot be broken”, and then write a few sentences on how communion under only one kind does not nullify that principle. But we both know that if I were to hold my breath for that to happen, I would suffocate in the interim.

            Trent says, “Although Christ handed down the Eucharist to his apostles under both kinds, nevertheless, all Christians are not therefore bound by a law of the Lord to reception of both kinds”. The only thing I can gather from this obnoxious statement and its illogical conclusion, is that simply because these things were said ONLY to the apostles, then by virtue of THAT ALONE, they have license to proclaim the institution of the Lord’s Supper does not pertain to the whole church! But this type of argumentation is pure misery. It is just as fallacious when they further try to justify putting an apple in Christ’s mouth to shut him up. They quote chapter 6… “If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch. 1). They assumed that because the Lord mentions ONLY bread in this verse, and not wine, then (whala!) receiving Communion in either form is sufficient!
            Will someone pass the smelling salts, I think I’m gonna faint!

            This only proves that the bulletproof vest Trent wears is padded with feathers, and that this type of shot-gun apologetic will never get past the “blazing eyes of fire” waiting for them on Judgment Day (Rev 1:14; 19:12). We easily pierce through their armor by saying that it’s as common as the noonday sun to speak on any given topic, while taking for granted things that are not mentioned. For instance, everyone agrees that just because drinking is not mentioned in, “Give us this day our daily bread”, that this is a prayer that we die of thirst. Consequently, Trent’s disgraceful attempt at logic to defend their position, is not indicative of infallibility at all, but rather “scripture twisting” at its worst (2 Peter 3:16).

          29. The corrections are just as suspect as the originals. It’s the same game children play at birthday parties: One child whispers into another’s ear. The second child whispers the same story into a third child’s ear. Then go round the mulberry bush in a game of musical chairs. Take your pick of any child’s story and pin it on the tail of the donkey. Now ‘we’ all comprehend! Now eat the feather duster shot from the BB gun!

          30. Grape juice….

            Many years ago, I dated a Baptist girl who swore up and down that I headed for hell because I drank Scotch and wine. (she smoked dope like Cheech Marin, but it’s OK, Bah-bool don’t say nothing on that). Scriptural grape juice it was, and do you know why? Because at Cana, the water-turned-grape-juice hadn’t had time to ferment. This hyar idee was confirmed by a relative who married a teetotaling Baptist. Despite the clear words of Scripture…

            …let that sink in…..some words are mo’bettah than others…a bit Orwellian, dont’cha think?

          31. M: The corrections are just as suspect as the originals.

            B: Oh yeah, right Margo, I “made up” my own correction.
            Are you on medication?

            M: It’s the same game children play at birthday parties: One child whispers into another’s ear. The second child whispers the same story into a third child’s ear. Then go round the mulberry bush in a game of musical chairs.

            B: Must I put a dunce cap on your head with all the rest?
            FYI, the RCC is the fount and apex example of “whispering into the ear”… stories we are supposed to believe that have been a part of the deposit of faith from the beginning. And incredibly, they expect gullible victims such as yourself to accept these whispered stories (even though they can’t tell you how many or exactly what they are) on the same level as Holy Writ, “for salvation”. The lunacy of whispered traditions that you can’t identify in their totality, and yet demand they be believed, is just as nonsensical as Pharaoh demanding their captives produce more bricks, but refusing to give them the materials to do so!

            Send me your address and include your hat size and I’ll send you the cap.

          32. “Must I put a dunce cap on your head with all the rest?”

            Do you ever say anything different? You at least should vary your insults. Use some of the ones you use to keep the vulnerable members of your flock in line. Pastor White approves. So does his daddy.

            “Are you on medication?”

            This is what you said a topic or two ago, to a woman who was mourning the loss of her father. I won’t call you the names you so richly deserve, partially because of Matt 5:22, and I do think it gets you off. I’ve said this before – your presence here is a not-so disguised blessing, because anyone who reads your disordered-narcissist rants will assume the worst of Protestantism – some who call themselves Protestant here have said as much.

            The Tiber and Rome awaits those who see and internalize your example.

          33. Barry: [Speaking of Catholic Theology] Even though “all have sinned, it doesn’t mean that….Mary is an exception. Even though we read of the brothers and sisters of Christ…it doesn’t mean that, they were cousins. Even though divorce is forbidden, let’s call it an annulment instead so the records show a low rate of divorce in the RCC. So even though Pope Gelasius says certain PERSONS were taking only one element, he was referring to priests.”

            Me: I can only surmise from such an insane and misguided comment that all subtlety is lost on you, and that your hatred of Catholicism has almost completely blinded your intellect, as well as put you at complete enmity with our Lord, and, judging by the reaction of most people here, at enmity with most of your fellow men, protestant and Catholic alike. Every category that you listed here (and indeed, just about every juxtaposition that you make in the comments on this blog) has a more sane, logical, sensible, and sober Catholic interpretation.

          34. B: Even though “all have sinned, it doesn’t mean that….Mary is an exception. Even though we read of the brothers and sisters of Christ…it doesn’t mean that, they were cousins. Even though divorce is forbidden, let’s call it an annulment instead so the records show a low rate of divorce in the RCC. So even though Pope Gelasius says certain PERSONS were taking only one element, he was referring to priests.”

            Me: I can only surmise from such an insane and misguided comment that all subtlety is lost on you, and that your hatred of Catholicism has almost completely blinded your intellect,

            A.F. My hatred of RC doctrine is right on target. While Protestants are happy to let the Text breath on its own, Catholics spend their careers trying to twist it to their liking. The above example never end…. Peter puts himself on the same level as any other elder, but the RCC says he was only being humble, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t the Pope; “Before they came together” and “had no union with her UNTIL”, does not mean that a union occurred AFTER; Even though the Bible says “Mary gave BIRTH to Jesus”, the RCC presents a type of “birth” other than through the birth canal by saying the birth left her unaffected…”her virginity remained intact” claims JPII…thus impugning Jesus’ full and real humanity. And on and on it goes, constantly making addendums and wild-eyed speculations to the word of God based on the flimsiest of implications and without a speck of support.

            A.F. Every category that you listed here (and indeed, just about every juxtaposition that you make in the comments on this blog) has a more sane, logical, sensible, and sober Catholic interpretation.

            B: Obviously, millions violently disagree with your superstitious explanations and are quite confident that it will those in your camp who are in for a shock to the system on Judgment Day and not us.

          35. “My hatred of RC doctrine is right on target.”

            Satan agrees. He groks hatred.

            ” Obviously, millions violently disagree…”

            China’s Communists comes to mind. So does Iran – Allahu Akbar, y’all. You’re in good company.

            Paranoid delusion is always more fun when it’s shared.

          36. AK: Satan agrees. He groks hatred.

            B: It’s amusing how you just so flippantly think that everyone on this board would know what the word “grok” means. I certainly don’t know what it means and never heard it before in my life; neither will I take the time to look it up, coming from you.
            Just goes to show how insensitive you are to the reader. Considering no one else knew it, I am happy to say we can skip over it and not worry about whatever lackluster point you were trying to make.

          37. “It’s amusing how you just so flippantly think that everyone on this board would know what the word “grok” means.”

            You really need to expand your horizons, Flounder. A guy named Heinlein – obscure author (in the lower Ozarks) but worth reading. You are, indeed, a stranger in a strange land….

            “Just goes to show how insensitive you are to the reader….. I am happy to say we can skip over it …”

            Three comments here:

            Not insensitive to any “reader,” just to you.

            The irony of you chiding over “insensitivity” gives hilarity hernias to the assemblage, but is (predictably) lost on you.

            Your desperation is increasingly obvious. You and “we’uns” gerbils.

            In conclusion to your latest dissection, anytime you want to adopt a posture of civility, “we” shall respond in kind.

          1. AK – Catch the bullet of BB’s characterization of Trent: “Shot-gun apologetic”!

            CALL 911! Another feather has gone floating.

      2. Barry,

        Except your passage proves my point. The final words from the passage says the one anathematized can still be saved. Which is what I said. Here are the final words once again: that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

        If, as you say, the anathema damned them to hell, how come the final words of the passage you posted say it is being done so that the soul can be saved?

        Man, refuting these ex-Catholics is too easy. Who’s next?

        1. Man, refuting these ex-Catholics is too easy.

          Easy to refute, yes. Easy to convince that it’s time to stop arguing, no.

  16. Comment for Barry:

    In your own comments it is clear you hate Roman Catholicism more than Orthodoxy. The Orthodox have much more in common with Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. This made me think that your comments do not appear to be motivated by conviction, but rather hate. You had some horrible experience in the Roman Catholic Church, and understandably (but irrationally) blame the whole edifice of Roman Catholicism.

    If hate is what motivates you, then I think we can all agree that this is not good and endangers your soul.

    Please pray for this and I ask others here to pray for you.

    God bless,
    Craig

    1. CT: In your own comments it is clear you hate Roman Catholicism more than Orthodoxy.

      B: I never said I hated Ortho, but I have said I hated Catholic doctrine, which is a perfectly legitimate position to take, embraced by millions. In Revelation, Jesus says he “HATES” false doctrine, and in numerous places we read that false doctrine is “cursed”. Therefore if the Creator of the universe can hate these things, I can too (!!!) so your complaint (if it is indeed a complaint) is instantly dismissed.
      My hatred for the doctrine does not PROVE I am right of course, but if it is true that the things purported to be needed for salvation by the RCC are not really needed at all– as I insist, then my hatred is indeed valid and will congratulated on that final day (Rev 2:2).

      CT: You had some horrible experience in the Roman Catholic Church, and understandably (but irrationally) blame the whole edifice of Roman Catholicism.

      B: It’s hard for me to withhold from calling you an idiot, so I will put into action self-control and refrain from doing so. Instead, I will tell you that that is the typical reply and it is 100% FALSE! It would be different if you had only read one comment of mine and PERHAPS come to that conclusion. But as you well know, I have provided a truckload of evidence to prove my position over and over again….and even if you didn’t believe ALL of it, you’d have to believe I’m submitting rock solid biblical criteria that stands head over heels on top of the most of miserable replies I receive. You don’t even ENTERTAIN the thought that even tho what I’m doing is a thankless task, God may consider it an act of MERCY on my part to spend a few hours being a catalyst for Catholics to investigate some things things that they otherwise would not. If it gets them so annoyed to go back to the Scriptures, THAT IS A GOOD THING for everyone, including me.
      Sadly, one must conclude that your brain is full of cobwebs and dust…because it’s simple common sense that if I didn’t give a pretty little damsel about Catholics, the logical response would be to do NOTHING. That’s what people do when they could care less. NOTHING. I do…SOMETHING.

      CT: Please pray for this and I ask others here to pray for you.

      B: A pious thought, but I do not need any prayers to adjust my thinking that bowing down to the Pope is necessary for salvation…which it is not…. or to believe some fairy tale about the MOTHER of Mary, someone who is not even MENTIONED in the Bible, is necessary for salvation…which it is not. As I said before, to which you did not respond (nor have you dealt with anything I’ve ever said for that matter), not even YOU believes that bowing down to the Pope is N.F.S. per Boniface VIII, neither do you believe that papal infallibility is NFS either, per Vatican 1. If you perceive these things to be false and have fears that those who believe such things are headed for hell, how dare you tell ME that what I do “endangers myyyyyy soul”, while blowing kisses to those who believe in “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4????????????????

      1. “or to believe some fairy tale about the MOTHER of Mary, someone who is not even MENTIONED in the Bible, is necessary for salvation”…

        Red herring… whatever, what Catholic on Earth thinks a fairy tale about the mother of Mary is NECESSARY for salvation? Are you a moron, a drunkard, or a foolish American die-hard (aka die never) irksome street Bible-handling preacher?

        1. K.O. what Catholic on Earth thinks a fairy tale about the mother of Mary is NECESSARY for salvation? Are you a moron, a drunkard…

          B: I assume your initials stand for “Knowledge Outage”? Ya know, like a power outage?

          The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is demanding that we believe the proposition that Maria Marvelous, “from the moment of her conception”…yada yada yada. Her conception has to do with…(hello!)…HER MOTHER. Thus, anyone who is not compliant with this dogmatic faith innovation about her MOTHER, the daughter, and the sinlessness resulting therefrom, is doomed.

          Ludwig Ott affirms that “Dogmatic Faith” is the indispensable pre-requisite for the achieving of eternal salvation”….which are those things that are dogmatically defined by the RCC such as the above (See pages 4-5 & 253 of “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

          1. “Her conception has to do with…(hello!)…HER MOTHER….”

            Flounder, did you think that one all by yourself or did Parster Jimmy have his hand all-the-way-up his blog-troll sock puppet?

            Find **anywhere** in Catholic dogma where St. Anne, the mother of Mary, is mentioned as having anything top do with Mary’s spiritual state at conception? Other than her role as the earthly bearer of the Theotokos? Answer…St. Anne had **nothing** to do with The Blessed Virgin’s special God-given grace of total sinlessness (which we Catlik’s call “The Immaculate Conception” as validated by the belief-worthy visions of St.Bernadette of Lourdes). That was the work of the Holy Spirit – read LUKE 1: 28-35 sometime…that “Full of Grace” thingy….y’know, Kecharitomene….

            KO, our lovable resident pagan, did you, again….it is fun to watch. Now go scrape the bunker walls in frustration, with your worn-down fingernails…more paint chips for your mac n’cheese.

        1. K.O. Well, I believe in the gospel of the ONE “risen from the ashes to worship more trees and elves, and praise the fruits and birds”. Ready? Set? Go!

          ==+++ALL GIVE THANKS TO ODIN THE MIGHTY!!!!+++==

          ==+++ALL GIVE THANKS TO FREYA THE TRUE ONE!!!!+++==

          ==+++ALL GIVE THANKS TO THE RISING SUN!!!!+++==

          ==+++ALL GIVE THANKS TO THE MONOLITH AT DUSK!!!!+++==

          B: Just thought I’d mention that I don’t know WHAT the helicopter yer talkin about, and I wonder if anyone else does.
          Have you had a lobotomy?

          1. Some people really cannot find an irony even when thrown at their faces. It was just an answer to Barry’s flow: ‘while blowing kisses to those who believe in “another jesus and another gospel””. As if people here believed in “another jesus and another gospel””. Another compared to whom? Barry believes as much in an individual gospel as I, who believe in the ONE “risen from the ashes to worship more trees and elves, and praise the fruits and birds”. As I said before, worshiping trees and birds is much better than worshiping Barry’s Jesus.

            ===

            And no, I’m not from San Francisco, and I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean.

          2. It was just a little humor. I lived in S.F. most of my life and can confirm there are a lot of neo-pagans, and the like, living there….people who might have no problem with your little chant above. 🙂

    2. RE: Barry,

      The Book of Revelation is a good example for how to assess Christians, whether this assessment be on a micro scale of one individual, or a macro scale of communities, parishes, dioceses,countries or even the entire, worldwide, Church. And what we find, is that things happening in these seven Churches described in the first 3 chapters of Revelation portray both good aspects and the evil aspects of these Churches. And in none of them are there only evil things described, and in all of them there is called for a continuance of good practices and a purging of evil practices, when lack of faith or the presence of vice are present.

      So, when analyzing our fellow Christians, it is good to be like the Lord as portrayed by John in this scripture. It is not good to be an absolutist wherein one views an opponents theology, ideas, words, art, actions, writings, etc.. in only two colors, black and white. Or, also, that a person is absolutely going to ‘burn in hell’ for his misunderstanding of some exotic doctrine. Or, also, when a person thinks that a phrase, or word, in the Bible can have only one meaning, and that the author of that word or phrase was absolutely using those words in only one strict and absolute sense, leaving no room for nuance, or generalization, or even a common sense understanding. And such absolute and hasty judgements are typically termed ‘rash judgement’ because the truth of the matter is not given time for proper assessment and study…but rather a quick and hasty judgement is made without an impartial inquiry into the truth of the matter. And so, such rash judgements are historically known to be both a vice and a sin.

      Concerning Barry, we see that he, like the rest of us has some black and white, but also some colors and shades as well. He certainly has zeal, and he certainly likes to research history to prove his point (…not saying that he always sees that history correctly, though). He also has a good deal of humor in his debating style and a sharp wit as well. These are all pretty good qualities. But, Barry is inclined to make exaggerated or extreme conclusions (black and white type) where really such certain conclusions are not warranted. For instance, when using a text from a Church Father such as Cyril of Jerusalem, he will not acknowledge the person himself, or the meaning derived from comprehensive treatise that he wrote, but rather just a meager paragraph or word that he himself is interested in. That is, Barry makes a rash judgement that Cyril believes in something, such as a Calvinist understanding of ‘sola scriptura’, without really understanding the overall ‘core’ beliefs of the man himself, of which is amply available to be understood in the entirety of Cyril’s 23 lectures, and other writings as well. So, this is a negative for Barry’s approach. And it is just one example. He takes the same approach to many scriptures as well, and with other early Fathers and saints (such as St. Clement), also. If he took a comprehensive view of Cyril, he would realize that these very lectures delivered were held in a basilica built by Constantine. It was entirely Catholic, replete with an altar for the Eucharistic liturgy. And also, Cyril was following a style of catechesis long ago established in Church history and found in writings such as the “Apostolic Constitutions”, the “Didache” and the ” Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus”. Moreover, so much of this catechesis of Cyril (as can be proved by a simple reading of it) is filled with precepts derived from Church ‘tradition’. And, Cyril might even exaggerate the importance of this sacred tradition at times, such as when he teaches that even the catechesis itself must be followed in the ‘order’ and time frame that he himself is presenting it, with the catechumens missing no lectures lest they possibly damage something ( a true understanding of the Catholic faith) that cannot be repaired easily, if at all. So, Cyril is here teaching something very different from what scripture teaches, and yet when Cyril praises scripture in an off hand way in another section of the lectures, it is seen in an absolute (black and white) way by Protestants such as Barry, as proving ‘sola scriptura’. What Barry fails to acknowledge is that so much of the other content in the lectures are imbued with teachings derived from ‘sacred tradition’, and not ‘sola scriptura’, and so it is upon ‘tradition’, that pretty much the entire edifice of his lectures are presented.

      So, Barry has his good points. But he also is often ‘rash’ when citing sources from history, be that the CCC, Sacred Scripture, St. Cyril, St. Clement, The Council of Trent, and many other references that he uses. And, if he could give a plausible explanation of how Protestantism actually existed in the early Church, and how the sacraments were used in the Protestant way, the catechesis also conducted in the Protestant way, how the TULIP doctrines were put into practice and with real and tangible examples from history….then that might be somewhat believable. But, just being a ‘perma-critic’ of both the ancient and modern Catholic Church offers nothing positive for the proof of the existence of any sort of Protestant doctrine and practice in 2nd-10th century ancient Christian History.

      I pray that both Barry, and all of us also, are as honest as possible when conducting our apologetics here, and that we limit our exaggerations and rash judgements, and provide plausible scenarios and proofs for our many arguments. And also, do all of this in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the extent of our abilities.

  17. I never said I hated Ortho, but I have said I hated Catholic doctrine, which is a perfectly legitimate position to take, embraced by millions.

    Craig may have been incorrect in his assessment of the cause of your angst, but that he identifies a very serious attitude problem is spot on.

    A pious thought, but I do not need any prayers to adjust my thinking….

    Craig’s point wasn’t that you need prayers to adjust your thinking. His proposition was that you needed prayers to adjust your attitude. A sentiment which I heartily agree with.

    or to believe some fairy tale about the MOTHER of Mary, someone who is not even MENTIONED in the Bible, is necessary for salvation…which it is not.

    St. Anne is also publicly venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    1. “St. Anne is also publicly venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church.”

      There are many ancient Christian writings that didn’t ‘make the cut’, for one reason or the other, and so, didn’t make it into the canon of sacred scripture. But, just as we scrutinize the 1st Letter of Clement, and accept it as a note worthy early Church document, so too, other ancient writings can be accepted in the same way. The Protoevangelium of James is one of these ancient writings, going back to about 145AD. And though not a ‘Gospel’, it does describe the popularity of folk tales regarding the infancy and early life of both Jesus and His holy family. It seems to be a collection of random accounts from various of the “Holy Family’s” early history as saved by oral tradition until the 2nd century. And one of these accounts gives the names of Mary’s mother as “Anne” and her father as “Joachim”.

      These stories were also translated into many languages throughout the Christian world, which proves that whether true or false, they were at least very popular in the 1st-5th century.

      In my opinion these shouldn’t be regarded as mere ‘fairy tales’, as Barry denigrates them. But they should be read in a general way, and at least acknowledge the fact that so many Christians in the ancient world were very interested in the early life of Jesus and His holy family. And moreover, they attributed to the same Holy Family an exceedingly high degree of honor, wonder and glory…something similar to the authentic Christmas accounts found in the Gospel of Luke, wherein we find Magi/wisemen/kings and angels worshipping the child Jesus, and providing Joseph and Mary with treasures to honor and be used by their newly born King.

      In all of this we can praise these early Christians who loved Jesus so much that they wanted to know everything about both Him and His holy family. And so they set these stories down on paper to memorialize their great devotion.

      Other great writings from the early Church that should be read by all are the ‘Didache’ and the ‘Shepherd of Hermes’. Both were very well read by many ‘Fathers of the Church’ in the 1st centuries of Christian History. Here is what the ‘Bible-researcher.com site has to say about it:

      “The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of the second century, and is quoted by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2) as Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it among the νόθοι or spurious writings in connection with the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian Fragment it was “written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.” This shows the very high esteem in which the work was held in that age. It was very widely employed in private and in public, both in the East and the West, until about the fourth century..”

  18. Hey Flounder:

    Have you noticed that even the one identifiable Calvinist on this blog, irked, won’t ally with or back you up, even though you have attempted to do so with him? That **everyone** here – Catholic, pagan, Protestant, holds you in some degree of contempt, and the disrespect for the quality of your apologetics is *universal?* What does that tell you? Does it tell you that you are succeeding even one nanometer’s-worth in your stated goal of getting people to research and then think like you do? Are you afflicted to that degree with narcissistic personality disorder that you-can’t-see at all what you are accomplishing, what you aren’t? Do you care beyond an opportunity to spew hate?

    Everyone on this blog would be as joyful as the father in Luke 15:11-32 if you put away the hate – NOT your beliefs or your passion – and dealt with the others on this forum with the civility you see in just about every exchange *except* those-involving-you.

    Take a hint….

    1. AK, to Barry: Do you care beyond an opportunity to spew hate?

      Me: I’m becoming increasingly convinced that he does not. He only cares if people leave Catholicism, and that is all.

      AK, to Barry: Everyone on this blog would be as joyful as the father in Luke 15:11-32 if you put away the hate – NOT your beliefs or your passion – and dealt with the others on this forum with the civility you see in just about every exchange *except* those-involving-you.

      Me: Completely agree. Truly, I do. I increasingly find no reason to believe that Barry is ever going to change his attitude, and it may well take a miracle from God.

      AK, to Barry: Take a hint….

      Me: *sigh*….I wish.

      1. He only cares if people leave Catholicism, and that is all.”

        Well, my pleasure is that he’s awful frickin’ disappointed on here.

        And one only needs take a look at US Calvinism to realize that the so-called ‘Calvinist revival’ of a few years back is a fad that is already fragmented (like the rest of Protestantism) and out of steam. So the bottom line is, Flounder can rail, fuss,and bitch like the angry little tent-thundering girly-man he is, but ‘splaining Calvinism and it’s “yer damned, you totally depraved little worm, and you can do nothing about it” to savvy and worldly millennials….Just look at the “Calvinism debunked’ videos on YouTube to see Protestants eating each other their little home-grown theologies, savaging the tulip garden….it’s a great recruiting tool (sarcasm noted). Some evangelicals, Pentecostalists with their pandering rock-show worship services get some in the door of Christianity, but it leaves a lot of people hungry for something else…young, smart couples like the Truglias. I had to hold my guts in from guffawing when Flounder basically told Craig – he of the world-class theological intellect – that Craig was stupid.

        Meanwhile, young men and women quietly keep documenting their profound intellectual conversions to Catholicism, their joy at finding a *real* faith home, no longer no longer having to ‘church shop’ (as one young mother in my RCIA class explained to me) and their hunger for the Eucharist. And they are talking to their counterparts who are also tired of searching. Read “Evangelical Exodus” to see what happened when the rector of Southern Evangelical Seminary started teaching Aquinas and the Fathers. The mass Tiber-swims of seminarians, alumni, and faculty,over two dozen in a few years.

        I am with Craig, in his earlier post…we’re not ready quite yet for Christian unity, but it’s coming, and IMHCO that road leads to Rome. Barry just doesn’t matter..he is the obsolete man, and no more than an annoyance. But he is entertaining.

        1. AK: I had to hold my guts in from guffawing when Flounder basically told Craig – he of the world-class theological intellect – that Craig was stupid.

          Me: Totally agree on your assessment of Craig — even when he was a Calvinist, the man had and has a great mind. The irony is that the vast majority of Barry’s accusations *typify himself perfectly*. I’ve noticed a kind of “just deserts” from our Lord, that He will allow you to become like whatever kind of person you happen to hate.

          AK: Read “Evangelical Exodus” to see what happened when the rector of Southern Evangelical Seminary started teaching Aquinas and the Fathers. The mass Tiber-swims of seminarians, alumni, and faculty,over two dozen in a few years.

          Me: Heard about that — it’s amazing and a breath of fresh air that there are people that honest and hungry for truth in the evangelical movement.

          AK: Barry just doesn’t matter..he is the obsolete man, and no more than an annoyance.

          Me: Yep. And more obsolete than you probably think. He reminds me of what I might expect had I tried to argue with one of my puritan ancestors from the 1600s….I don’t even understand how people become this anti-Catholic, as that was never part of the Protestantism that I was a part of (aside from a few cheap jabs at Mary and disagreement with Infant Baptism, the Pope, Baptismal regen, etc.).

          1. Alex, i have recounted several times here my experiences as a New Jersey Catholic in a southern military school in a part of Virginia that was powerfully Baptist. Was very enlightening,but generally not hostile…then my first assignment in the Air Force was in rural Missouri. Hoo,boy…was that another awakening.But the people were nice, mostly curious about this strange creature in their midst. It wasn’t until I arrived in Colorado Springs in 1997 that I and my family got a full load of evangelical buckshot to the guts. Thankfully some events have taken the wind out of their local sails a bit, but it was disheartening to see the hatred that Christians can hold for each other. It was not something with which I had had to contend much in my life. Flounder sure shows me it’s not a dead issue. But it is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

            I think as I said, it’s desperation. The Gamaliel Rule in Acts applies here….

          2. AK: it was disheartening to see the hatred that Christians can hold for each other.

            B: And it was disheartening to see the venom spewed forth from Trent calling their adversaries, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”.

          3. “And it was disheartening to see the venom spewed forth from Trent calling their adversaries, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”.

            I guess they thought the limp wrist and feather duster approach was inadequate to the situation of mass heresy. You seem to have learned well from those whom you purport to hate the most.

          1. HAHAHAHA! Reads like the old Soviets spewing impotent invective on defectors to the West.

            It ain’t workin, Barry’…the witness of those brave men is absolutely amazing – they are taking many with them by their example and you can do nothing about it.

    2. AK: Have you noticed that even the one identifiable Calvinist on this blog, irked, won’t ally with or back you up

      B: Have you noticed that not even one identifiable Catholic on this blog has been unable to explain the error of the Council of Trent at 5:35? You can jump up and down, hit your head up against the wall and foam at the mouth, but the evidence speaks for itself. That being so, all RC dogma, without exception, according to God Almighty, is to be rejected because “they have not spoken about me those things that are true.”

      AK: **everyone** here – Catholic, pagan, Protestant, holds you in some degree of contempt,

      B: I’ve confronted that little diddy numerous times before. You, being ignorant of the Text, forget that the true Christian fighting for the truth is to EXOECT abuse and “woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you”. IOW, Jesus says, at the very least, that if “everyone loves you”, there is something seriously wrong with your approach. And the least that can be said of me, is that my “approach” is generating the very thing you think should NOT be expected.
      You are refuted.

      1. “And the least that can be said of me, is that my “approach” is generating the very thing you think should NOT be expected.”

        I have heard many times that President Obama was the best gun salesman since Samuel Colt. That aphorism, considering your “approach”just seems to fit here. You are one hell of a salesman for Roman Catholicism. Or at least, “what denomination is that guy? Remind me never to set foot in one of those churches…”

        While I would prefer to see you disappear and civility return to this blog, you are in a strange reverse sense, making stronger Catholics by your antics. God does work in strange ways.

        So, keep on keepin’ on.

        1. AK: you are… making stronger Catholics by your antics.

          B: If I’m a duck, then you must be the water that rolls off my back.

          Your comment will be taken seriously when just one “strong Catholic” can explain to me why I should believe in the infallibility of Trent in light of their taking Jesus so rudely out of context.

          1. B: If I’m a duck, then you must be the water that rolls off my back.

            Barry, I don’t know where you get these aphorisms, but they’re priceless. Qua-aack.

            “Your comment will be taken seriously when just one “strong Catholic” can explain to me why I should believe in the infallibility of Trent in light of their taking Jesus so rudely out of context.”

            C’mon Barry…..awlms, margo, LLC in past topics, alexander and I believe others have quoted contra your criticisms of Trent until they’re keyboarding fingers bled and you came back with the same stuff. The bottom line is, we’ve both made our points and we have not convinced the other of anything. And I’d bet you a beer (ok, a grape juice) that it isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

    1. Superb article, Dave! It puts down succinctly and comprehensively what so many of us were trying to convey regarding Cyril over the last few days. To anyone who actually read the entirety of the Catechetical Lectures, including the various selections provided in your article, the notion that Cyril could be supporting ‘sola scriptura’ is absurd. It’s so comical as to be confounding, because those making the claim ignore the entirety of the Lectures that Cyril is giving, and this is completely contrary to basic principles of intellectual honesty…which Catholics would presume to be a quality, or normal value, of any sincere Christian.

          1. It’s a common vice of many protestants to ignore the beautiful and grace filled words of the early Church Fathers. How can one fail to love these saints after reading them?

            But, they prefer their own points to the beautiful and faith filled hearts of these champions of Christ’s Church. It seems they prefer winning an argument to gaining divine wisdom from these great teachers.

    2. D.A. But of course it is often observed: “a man convinced against his will retains his original belief still.” We can only provide the evidence . . .

      B: Yes, and that’s exactly what I did in response to one of your articles a few months ago. I can’t recall what you were talking about, but in response to it, I thought I it apropos to present my evidence for Trent stuffing a word into the mouth of Christ at the Last Supper just like we stick an apple in the mouth of a pig on a platter at one of OUR Suppers. See this thread at 5:35.
      YOU SIR, promptly deleted my comments the next day.
      The word “coward” comes to mind, I wonder why.
      So yes, I agree with you: “We can only provide the evidence”…and on Judgment Day I am confident you will see all your precious beliefs melt before your eyes like the Wicked Witch of West melted at the end of “The Wizard of Oz”.

        1. D.A. How impressive. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . .

          B: The reader will note that my challenge to Mr. Armstrong to deal with the evidence that the “infallible” Council of Trent added to the word of God” was met with a snore.

          Now let’s deal a little bit with his article. I can’t get to it all here, but we recall, “the first to put forth his case seems right, until another steps forward to cross examine him” (Prov 18:17).

          D.A. [Quoting Cyril] For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures….Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say”

          Catholics have no problem with these statements.

          B: On the contrary, Catholics have a HUGE problem with the principle set forth by Cyril which is simply the same behavior we see shown by the Berea’s in the book of Acts, who checked out the Scriptures to see if the things preached by Paul were true. The crux of your denial which opines there is no tension whatsoever with Cyril and RC doctrine, is contradicted by Karl Keating regarding the “Assumption”.

          “Still, fundamentalists ask, “where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commisioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that is true (“C & F”, p. 275).

          “The MERE FACT that the church says so”….what a crock. Keating shows a complete disregard for Cyril’s philosophy to “check things out”, and is likewise a COMPLETE repudiation of the Christocentric principle to (yep, you guessed it) “check things out” —–and not just mindlessly believe in a supposedly infallible church the Bible no where mentions, not even in the book of ROMANS, where it should be mentioned if the claim were true. For example, in Mark 7:6-13, He says, “…but you say, if a man says to his father or mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God) you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition.” The Jews claimed the Corban Tradition was of divine origin. Yet the Lord Jesus REJECTED it, and on what basis? It’s incompatibility with Scripture! The point is, that which is claimed to be divine is SUBJECT…is SUBJECT to and hence, INFERIOR to Scripture. “If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them” says the Lord in Isaiah, and thus there is no light in the RCC, only darkness.
          Keating’s claim that Christ gave any particular church a “guarantee” that they would always be right is ludicrous on its face due to the complete absence of any such claim or example in the Text itself, and hence, your pretended assertion that Catholics are in perfect harmony with Cyril who advocated… “not listen to me, check it out”, is completely dishonest.

          D.A. We only [have a problem with] Cyril [if he] intended them to be in opposition to or in exclusion of the authority of the Church and tradition;

          B: But you DO have a problem in that your comments suggest that the RCC wants it both ways! This is manifestly illogical. You imply it’s perfectly OK to check out the Scriptures as Cyril teaches, but out of the other side of your mouth, the RCC says your conclusions must be in lock-step with what the church already teaches (!) so the possibility of the magisterium being wrong is not up for consideration. Excuse me, but this is arguing in a circle! This makes the RCC win every argument no matter what. The RCC has rigged the game in her favor to triumph regardless of what any one concludes. All of this nullifies the word of God and makes the command to “TEST” all things, utterly pointless.

          D.A. Cyril died in the decade before the Church finalized the canon at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

          B: Augustine presided over both of them, and this is what he had to say in his “On Christian Doctrine”, Book 2, chapter 8, written circa 400:

          “Accordingly, among the canonical scriptures he will judge according to the following standard; to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority. IF, HOWEVER, HE SHALL FIND THAT SOME BOOKS ARE HELD BY THE GREATER NUMBER OF CHURCHES, AND OTHERS BY THE CHURCHES OF GREATER AUTHORITY (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I THINK THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE AUTHORITY ON THE TWO SIDES IS TO BE LOOKED UPON AS EQUAL.”

          Here we see an implicit, but nonetheless clear repudiation that the Church of Augustine’s age acted “infallibly” with respect to the canon as you falsely believe. Auggie wrote that if various churches differed as to which books were to be included and which were to be rejected, their authority was to be regarded as… EQUAL!!! Hence, for him to even raise the POSSIBILITY of such an occurrence, utterly militates against the belief that they considered their rendering to be an INFALLIBLE determination of the canon. What you omit to say is that the RCC did not come to her rock solid conclusions until circa 1550 at Trent, for even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:

          “The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (Under, The Canon).

          D.A. Now, imagine if Cyril had said this about Scripture, that it “teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge.” Webster and King would be all over that as proof that he was teaching material sufficiency of Scripture and also formal sufficiency…

          B. While that may be true, you know darn well the RCC would have done the SAME thing, in MANY other instances, so your comment is dismissed. Only one will do. Watch my mouth very carefully…
          Now imagine, if Jesus had said that of all those born of women, none is greater than Mary, Catholics would be all over that as proof for all the marian dogmas. Instead, he named someone else to take that honor.

          D.A. Protestants arbitrarily reject the Apocrypha.

          B: Excuse me, but we have verrrrry pinpointed reasons for doing so, too numerous to mention here, and so the accusation of “arbitrarily” is a canard.

          D.A. The canon of Scripture is never listed in Scripture…Right off the bat, this is contrary to several of the tenets that the authors laid out in the Introduction to Vol. III:

          D.A. However, right off the bat we are immediately reminded that this is a hypocritical accusation. You say the canon is never “listed” in Scripture. But is it not true that your infallible dicta is never… LISTED…. in its infallible “fullness” on one sheet of paper on this Earth? Oh how often the world must endure the Catholic yachety-yack about the “FULLNESS” of the faith they possess! But Is it not true that no one can agree on precisely how many times the Pope has utilized this alleged “gift” in all its fullness? If then, neither the hierarchy or the laity can give us a straight answer, then no Catholic on Earth can be sure how many times the Pope has spoken infallibly and therefore can never be sure that they are obeying the “fullness” of infallible commandments. So what good is the gift? Is this not a false gift per Proverbs 25:14? “Whoso boasteth of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain”.

          So. No LIST of infallible statements shall be forthcoming.

          Again, the RCC claims to be the custodian of the Bible, to whose infallible interpretations we must refer to. Unfortunately, just as the world will never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop, is it not true that we will never get a …”LIST”…of how many verses she has infallibly defined?

          Again, the RCC tells us that we are to cling to “Tradition” just as tenaciously as we do to Scripture. Yet…..is it not true that she cannot provide us a…”LIST” of exactly what those Traditions are so that faithful foot-soldiers of Rome can know for sure that they are keeping them all?

          Hence, if the Catholic cannot furnish us with a… LIST… of ex-cathedra statements……and a LIST of infallibly defined verses……and a LIST of Traditions that are equal in authority to the Bible, then by what right does the Catholic have to demand that Protestants explain their LIST of the table of contents in the Bible???

          As a side note to simply show the formation of the canon takes root within the Text itself, I will remind you that infallible Jesus “canonized” many of the books Himself by mentioning all the martyrs from Abel (Genesis) thruuuuuu Zechariah (2 Chron 2:24). He also left no room to doubt the Psalms (Luke 24:45), Jonah (Matt 12:40), Daniel (Matt 24:15), and that very same Daniel records reading Jeremiah (Dan 9:2). Joel is mentioned in Acts 2:16; Job in James 5:11; and in the synagogue, Jesus read from Isaiah (Luke 4:17). Peter quotes from Proverbs (2 Pet 2:2), and the chief priests quote from Micah in Matt 2:5. Also, the many resemblances to the book of Ezekiel in Revelation would be too numerous to mention. Now if there was no infallible Jewish magisterium in antiquity, then it stands to reason that we do not need one today. The least that can be said is that “God will use means”, but that means does not necessitate the use of an infallible magisterium. How, for example, did a man living 100 years before Christ, know that Isaiah should be in the canon without an infallible magisterium to “officially” tell him? The point being, to imply that your opponents would be absolutely CLUELESS without the RCC as a guide into what should and should not be in the canon, is fraught with difficulties.

          1. I used to play baritone in school. It was fun.

            The Assumption is not expressly indicated in Scripture, but there is indirect, deductive data that is quite harmonious of it, and suggests it:

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/armstrong-vs-collins-walls-6-assumption-queen-redux.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/11-bible-passages-marys-assumption.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/defending-mary-revelation-12-her-assumption.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/08/is-marys-assumption-able-to-be-inferred-from-scripture-alone.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/05/bible-on-marys-assumption.html

            This is no problem, since sola Scriptura is neither expressly indicated, not taught at all, and is contradicted many times over in Scripture. And of course the canon is not in Scripture. Other doctrines are indicated by only very few Scriptures (original sin, Virgin Birth).

          2. The reader will note that my challenge to Mr. Armstrong to deal with the evidence that the “infallible” Council of Trent added to the word of God” was met with a snore.

            Rightfully so, since your argument falls apart if you don’t assume memorialism, and interpret Luke in light of John 6. We Catholics don’t accept your argument and continue to hold that the Council of Trent is quite infallible.

            On the contrary, Catholics have a HUGE problem with the principle set forth by Cyril which is simply the same behavior we see shown by the Berea’s in the book of Acts, who checked out the Scriptures to see if the things preached by Paul were true. The crux of your denial which opines there is no tension whatsoever with Cyril and RC doctrine, is contradicted by Karl Keating regarding the “Assumption”.

            [Quote from Karl Keating]

            Checking doctrines against Scripture is not a particular to Sola Scriptura, and can work fine with the Catholic view of authority as well. After all, where do we start? We can start assuming Scripture is infallible and prove that Tradition and the Church are also infallible. Or, we can start assuming that Tradition is infallible, and prove that Scripture and the Church are also infallible. Or, we can start assuming that the Church is infallible, and prove that Scripture and Tradition are infallible. Of course, you deny that Scripture teaches that Tradition and the Church are infallible, so we have to use the only source you trust: Scripture.

            On the other hand, you seem quite convinced that Calvinist tradition is very infallible. As soon as you realize that you are also operating with a tradition and a Church hierarchy, and it’s not a matter of Scripture vs Tradition but tradition vs Tradition, we might be able to actually get somewhere in dialogue.

            …not true that your infallible dicta is never… LISTED…. in its infallible “fullness” on one sheet of paper on this Earth…

            Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum.

          3. “who checked out the Scriptures to see if the things preached by Paul were true.”

            Millions of Jews checked out the Scriptures to see if the things preached by Paul were true. They concluded they were not true.: outreachjudaism.org/jesus-death-atone-for-sin/, https://outreachjudaism.org/rabbi-tovia-singer-explores-striking-prophecies-about-the-messiah-that-refute-core-church-teachings/ etc.

            They have their own interpretation of “Scripture”, just like one has her own interpretation of Dante or Shakespeare or the Vedas. Or Nietzsche.

            “Oh, but it’s the Spirit!”

            Yes, the Jews think they are inspired in their interpretations, and that Xtians are afoul. Nothing can prove either side. Yes, the Protestants think they are inspired in their interpretations, and that Catholics are misguided. Nothing can prove either side. The Muslims think they are inspired in their interpretations, and that Xtians and Jews are nefarious conspirators who trick monotheists to worship the devil or un-godly “gods”. Someone in this mess must be insane. And none can “disprove” the other. But there are sensible historical accounts, from which no Calvinist, Baptist or Muslim run like it’s the Ragnarok.

          4. AF: [Mr. Armstrong snored in your face because] your argument falls apart if you don’t assume memorialism, and interpret Luke in light of John 6.

            B: My dear Mr. F, I will say this as calmly as I know how. What the helicopter do you mean, PRECISELY and by definition, if you don’t mind, by…. “memorialism”…. since you threw that at me last time with no explanation either. You are woefully unclear. And WHAT …(the helicopter) do you want me to see in Luke in relation to John 6 that militates against my charges at 5:35?
            Thank you so very much for your time.
            Furthermore, I will thank you also not to take the liberty to read Mr. Armstrong’s mind and tell me what his “snore” signified.
            Now your catechism says, “the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one (#65).
            Yet… I proved that Trent DID add a word. Deal with it.

            AF: We Catholics don’t accept your argument and continue to hold that the Council of Trent is quite infallible.

            B: A council which tells us that Jesus never obligated anyone to partake of both bread and wine is certainly not infallible, now get serious.

            AF: Checking doctrines against Scripture… can work fine with the Catholic view of authority as well [when we opine that]… Scripture, Tradition and the Church are also infallible.

            B: I believe I countered that argument by showing Tradition was UNDER the jurisdiction of Scripture per my example given to Dave of the Corban Rule. Jesus would not tolerate claims for its “traditional divine origin” for a moment, and therefore, your hypothesis of an evenly divided, triple form of authority, is unworkable and refuted by the Lord himself.
            I will remind you that only S is classified as “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and T is not. And don’t expect me to believe that after telling us S was “theopnuestos”, that he all of a sudden decided to file his nails, only to appoint RC dignitaries to tell us of a “theopnuestos” T on the same level as Holy Writ. Have you ever read Psalm 138:2? “The Lord has magnified his WORD, even above his very name”. Thus, T has no right to be on the same pedestal.

            AF: On the other hand, you seem quite convinced that Calvinist tradition is very infallible.

            B: That is completely untrue. You misread me badly.

            AF: As soon as you realize that you are also operating with a tradition and a Church hierarchy, and it’s not a matter of Scripture vs Tradition but tradition vs Tradition, we might be able to actually get somewhere in dialogue.

            B: NO. We cannot get annnnnywhere, EVER, as if to say there can ever be such a thing as compromise. The differences are dramatic and too overwhelming to ignore. Making matters worse, there will ALWAYS be the great divide if the concept of infallibility continues to be the pink elephant in the room. That being so, the RCC is beyond the point of no return; she “must always” be right and will never back down as you well know. Ergo, the dialogue you wish to happen can only be with the aim to convince us that she has been endowed with this miraculous gift, which we can trust for our salvation. Fine. in like manner, we shall we argue that they most certainly have NOT been given any such thing, and its necessity for salvation is for the birds.
            It is clear then, from both of our perspectives, God has obviously appointed enmity on this matter till kingdom come (i.e., we read that if someone comes a knocking bringing you another gospel, do NOT even wish them well on their journey); and Paul would not tolerate the Galatian error, “no, not for an hour”. Enmity is unavoidable, and
            since the RCC of antiquity has stated “infallibly” at Trent that their adversaries are “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”, the advice I’ve received here to “tone down” a bit rings false, especially after being told in no uncertain terms from Trent that “you are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). Trent’s tone is acceptable, and mine, which doesn’t even come close, IS NOT?
            Meh.
            Yes, we should tolerate each other in dialogue, here and on the street because sharing your evidence with your spiritual counterparts is an indirect form of “praying for your enemies”. The Holy Spirit is on deck to use the conduit of his word to tap people on the shoulder for salvation at any time (John 3:8) by opening up their eyes to the Scriptures (Luke 24:45) and thus would endorse both parties to do their stuff, “so that the better argument may be manifest to all” (1 Cor 11:19; cf: Prov 18:17).

            I think what you’re trying to say by “T vs. T” that essentially we are all products of our environment and the traditions that shaped us, and so, (I would agree) to a certain extent, the title of your next book may be called “Tradition vs. Tradition” without any objection from me.
            Problems arise however, when we start reading and peel back the layer of the Catholic onion. For example, RC apologists typically use 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15, John 20:30, and John 21:25 in defense of the Catholic understanding of T. These verses are offered as proof of an oral tradition functioning during the New Testament period, and therefore prove the existence of Rome’s concept of T. But they NEVER explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral, NECESSARILY means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed on via T! They simply conclude that if at some time God’s word was oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated. We emphatically deny this. The principle seen by Joshua meditating on the word day and night (1:8), automatically leaves no TIME to meditate on anything else, let alone T.
            When all the cards are on the table, I say, contrary to you, that it DOES come down to S vs. T. The two elephants in the room are how each party defines T. You look at it as something “vital” and passed down by word of mouth that only the RCC is privy to. But this type of T was the very concept promoted by the Gnostics (!) and rejected by the early church as heresy. The early church knew nothing of an oral T independent of S as a source of REVELATION. For them, S was the ultimate and final authority. “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? (says Augustine). “For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher”.

            AF: [It is not true] when you say that RC infallible dicta is never listed in its infallible “fullness” on one sheet of paper on this Earth…See Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum.

            B: Rome and Denzinger do not claim that all the unspoken traditions of the RCC are included in this work in their “fullness”, which is what I was arguing. Moreover, if the work has been updated (and it has, and will continue to be), it cannot be a work in it’s fullllllness, but a work in progress.

          5. “But they NEVER explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral, NECESSARILY means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed on via T! ”

            Why not? Matt 16:18 created a Church, and a hierarchy through the Keys and Peter. Unless you are tied to sola scriptura, which itself is unscriptural, the John Henry Newman idea of development of doctrine applies wonderfully to the way the Church grew over the past 2,000 years.

            “They simply conclude that if at some time God’s word was oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated. We emphatically deny this.”

            Thanks for your opinion.

            “But this type of T was the very concept promoted by the Gnostics (!) and rejected by the early church as heresy. ”

            Catholicism, not even close to Gnosticism. Another of your hyperbolic convolutions, in the fond and forlorn hopes someone will go, ‘gee, a golden nugget.’ See that happening? It’s an arguable thesis *if* you are referencing the discredited “history” of Hislop’s “The Two Babylon’s.” But then, I could point to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and call it a legitimate source of early-modern Jewish history. I’d be just as wrong as you.

            “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? (says Augustine). “For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher”.

            More out-of-context cherry-picking of Augustine, as Calvinists do with every other Church Father. Been there, seen that, re-fruited. Which is why you got the “I’m bored” z-out from Dave Armstrong.

          6. Barry: My dear Mr. F, I will say this as calmly as I know how. What the helicopter do you mean, PRECISELY and by definition, if you don’t mind, by…. “memorialism”….

            Sure. From Wikipedia:

            Memorialism is the belief held by some Christian denominations that the elements of bread and wine (or juice) in the Eucharist (more often referred to as The Lord’s Supper by memorialists) are purely symbolic representations of the body and blood of Jesus, the feast being established only or primarily as a commemorative ceremony.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism

            I use the term “Memorialism” as a short-hand for the Zwinglian view on the Eucharist in the same way I use “Transubstantiation” as a short-hand for mine.

          7. Barry: A council which tells us that Jesus never obligated anyone to partake of both bread and wine is certainly not infallible…

            Me: A council which tells us that Our Blessed Lord never obligated the laity to partake of both species of bread and wine is quite possibly infallible.

          8. B: A council which tells us that Jesus never obligated anyone to partake of both bread and wine is certainly not infallible…

            AF: A council which tells us that Our Blessed Lord never obligated the ***laity*** to partake of both species of bread and wine is quite possibly infallible.

            B: Give it up A.F., it’ll never work. You know in your heart that Jesus meant what he said. And you even have Constance & Trent admitting, “Even though Christ administered this venerable sacrament to his disciples under the form of bread and wine, nevertheless, IN SPITE OF THIS…”

            YOU ARE RISKING YOUR ETERNAL SOUL on a bunch of kooks sweeping the words of Christ under the rug and saying, “nevertheless, in spite of this…(!!!!!!!)

            Honestly, Jesus MUST laugh at Catholics worldwide always on a rampage to quote him saying “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, but at the end of the day, NO DRINK, and all because the fear of dribbling down a man’s beard! Uhhh….even if we were to suppose for a moment that the Lord would agree with the “dribbling beard excuse”, why continue to withhold the cup from women?

          9. “Give it up A.F., it’ll never work.”

            Take your own advice. You’re playing a stupid cynical game, when you KNOW you care not a whit for bread and/or wine, because you believe neither has any significance beyond “memorializing.”. And look who is denying the **clear command** of John 6 and the Synoptics, overlaying a fantasy of ‘metaphor’ on the clear words of Christ. And if the Church, out of respect for the Blood of Christ (which you in grave error think is just wine) and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit withheld for a time the Precious Blood, from the *laity only,* determining under that same guidance that one species is sufficient, then so be it. Pretty damn hypocritical of you to insist the clear language of John 6 and the Synoptics is not what it is – Christ identified when he was speaking in parable or “truly”, of which I kindly provided you the definition in this topic thread – and then try to convince us or **anyone** that you care about the “command” to take both Species.

            If you cared you’d make a general confession and be back at Mass this Sunday.

          10. B: [Augustine said] “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? (says Augustine). “For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher”.

            AK: More out-of-context cherry-picking of Augustine, as Calvinists do with every other Church Father.

            B: It’s such a delight to repost Augustine and let your lame reply stand for all to see, just as unsubstantiated as is your transubstantiation.

          11. I have heard this wishful fantasizing about Augustine from you on innumerable occasions, and from Calvinist friends on a few others. It’s just like you to ignore the also innumerable times in this blog others have posted Augustinian quotes which are complete refutations of your out-of-contexts. Let’s revisit, and I kve no doubt we’ll do so agaun:

            This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life. (Questions 76.1; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 105; Defferari, Vol. 70, 195)

            Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

            [E]ven those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself, after saying, “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;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.” (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapter 20; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

            That’s just a refutation by Augustine of ‘sola fide.” Here’s what he says about Church authority on the Scripture (which blows Sola Scriptura out of the water):

            “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)”

            There’s lots more, but anyone reading gets the idea. Find someone or something else to “justify” yourself if you can.

          12. AF: you KNOW you care not a whit for bread and/or wine, because you believe neither has any significance beyond “memorializing.”.

            B: Your misrepresentations are so outrageous it would be comical if it weren’t so sad. I guess I should reply for those who might not see that your words are utterly pointless.
            I have bent over backwards on this very thread at least 25 times to state that we ought to partake of BOTH bread and wine REGARDLESS of what Christ meant by the institution itself. THAT, sir, is called obedience, and since that partaking of B & W is exactly what I engage in as a matter of course, your abysmal accusation is worse than ridiculous.
            The rub comes in because YOU happen to think that the elements have some supernatural/cannibalistic/metaphysical significance and I don’t. Based on YOUR infatuation with the B & W, you say I don’t care a whit about the B & W, which, if you proclaimed in a class on Logic 101, you would swiftly be kicked out of the room.

            There is nothing wrong whatsoever to consider the elements as mere memorials because that is all Christ ever commanded! The Text is utterly SILENT with regards to Jesus “OFFERING” himself in sacrifice to God the Father at the Last Supper ***before*** he went to cross and you know darn well know it; neither is there any explication about sort nebulous type of metamorphosis going on in the elements, and neither are we commanded to believe Jesus ATE himself, as that lunatic from the past said:

            “He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood”
            —–Aphraates the Persian Sage (280 – 345 A.D.)

            God despises doctrines that promote controversial speculation (1 Tim 3-4), and Transubstantiation promotes just THAT, as Aphra above exemplifies.

            AK: And look who is denying the **clear command** of John 6 and the Synoptics, overlaying a fantasy of ‘metaphor’ on the clear words of Christ.

            B: Oh stop it. Once again, you opine that I am ditching the clear command based on your ***disagreement*** that metaphor was being used. However, your mere dismay doesn’t prove for a nanosecond that I’m ditching anything, so your allegation cannot stand. Jesus knew that when he said those words in J-6 that he was about to split the world in half by his ambiguous speech. Those who understood him correctly (the sheep), would be saved, and those who misunderstood him incorrectly (the goats) would be lost. He also knew it would be debated until kingdom come and that’s fine with me. I am EVER so confident that you are 100% wrong and am happy to let the facts stand on their own alongside your ever so worthless replies.

            AK: Christ [said that the bread was] “truly” [his body] of which I kindly provided you the definition in this topic thread

            B: As I pointed out at 5:35, Christ did NOT say the bread was “truly” his body. Those at Trent had smoke coming out of their ears while responding to Luther, just as your ears are to me. So to PRESS their point and to emphasize the metamorphosis of B & W at ALL costs, Trent GOOFED, by snatching the word “truly” from 6:53, and planting it in the mouth of Christ to make their point. This proves they were NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, even tho they claimed to be at both the beginning and the end of their decree. Thus, they were all a pack of lying wolves.

            At 10:10 I told you:

            “you could not defend putting the word “Truly” in the mouth of Christ if your life depended on it….”

            And what was your brilliant response?

            AK: [My reply is] John 6:53 – “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

            Which was the very thing I was arguing AGAINST, you blind bat.
            Now get it straight: JESUS CHRIST DID NOT SAY THE BREAD WAS TRULY HIS BODY AT THE LAST SUPPER! What you are doing is condoning the height and apex of out of context eisegesis, as Trent did. The fact that you REALLY think it’s alright to take a word from one place and use that word to quote the Creator of the universe in another place…just to emphasize your point…. is how I KNOW FOR A FACT you are deluded (on purpose by the way) because you care MORE for what a church says, than you do for the One who created the church (2 Thess 2:11-12).

          13. Which was the very thing I was arguing AGAINST, you blind bat. Now get it straight: JESUS CHRIST DID NOT SAY THE BREAD WAS TRULY HIS BODY AT THE LAST SUPPER!

            He used the word “truly” – emphatically – in John 6: 53, as you and I both posted. How may times does The Son of God have to say something for the commanding truth of it to penetrate the pain-chip pica-poisoning in the stiffening folds of what’s left of your brain?

          14. “He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood”
            —–Aphraates the Persian Sage (280 – 345 A.D.)

            Did you pull this out of the Alexander Hislop’s sock-puppet vent, or your own?

        2. Dear BB,

          The repetitious claim that Trent has put words into the mouth of Our Lord and has contravened His words at the Last Supper is wearisome, hence sleep-inducing. The accurate, complete, and relevant section of Trent (except for Scripture quotes which did not copy) was posted earlier and is repeated below, including Trent’s scriptural quotes. The reasoning of Trent is clear and convincing as it is wholly Scriptural. The germane quotes are John 6:51 and John 6:58. This is the rationale for not requiring laity to receive communion under both forms.

          CHAPTER I
          LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
          This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: ,[4] also said: ;[5] and He who said: [6] also said: ;[7] and lastly, He who said: ,[8] said, nevertheless: [9]

          THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
          Session XXI – The fifth under the Supreme Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, 1562
          This faithfully rendered Trent is from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT21.HTM

          Relevant scripture is from John 6:51-58. “He that eateth my flesh shall live forever.”

          – Your Sister in Christ,
          CARGO

          1. Here’s one last try to show Scripture quotes which again did not copy above.

            …For He who said: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”,[4] also said: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever”;[5] and He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,”[6] also said: “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world”;[7] and lastly, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him”,[8] said, nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever.”[9}

          2. And further, Mr. BB,
            Flesh by its nature does already contain blood. Check out your medical texts.
            And BTW,
            God bless you, brother B.

            – Your Sister in Christ,
            CARGO

          3. M: And further, Mr. BB,
            Flesh by its nature does already contain blood. Check out your medical texts.

            B: Fine. And so you wish to justify eating only the bread because there is, technically, blood therein. I understand your point perfectly.

            But!

            BUTT!

            BUTTTT!

            Put on your thinking cap!

            BLOOD DOES NOT CONTAIN FLESH!

            Consequently, your theory collapses. The option then that the RCC gives to only drink from the cup to get the benefits of the blood and the FLESH, cannot stand; that is, if we take your advise to refer to the medical texts as our guide.

            I answer you to emphasize the “controversial speculations” which Tranz creates at every juncture (1 Tim 3-4) and is why God has allowed it yes, but does not have anything to do with it. It is a doctrine reserved for the goats.

          4. “B: Fine. And so you wish to justify eating only the bread because there is, technically, blood therein. I understand your point perfectly.

            But!

            BUTT!

            BUTTTT!

            Put on your thinking cap!

            BLOOD DOES NOT CONTAIN FLESH!

            Consequently, your theory collapses.”

            Last I heard, blood comes frommmmm flesh……the relationship is biologically symbiotic and theologically palpable…..any other theological doctrinal you require to minimize your floundering?

          5. BUT your sister in Christ, Mr. BB, asks: Where in scripture do you get the authority to declare certain Christians and their doctrine goats? By your fruits you shall know them is what I read in scripture. And the keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter and to the which Christ founded with the promise of his Holy Spirt so that it would prevail against the gates of hell, and what IT declared bound would be bound in heaven. Eat your heart out, BB, if it makes you feel the power of the Gnostic heretic you quote. Good luck with that and your faith as it evaporates on JD.

            CARGO (and proud of it)

          6. Further, Mr. BB, here’s another bit of arcane knowledge for your cap: The consecrating priest does place a morsel of bread into the cup of wine. Why do you think that may be? DUH! As if there were not evidence enough of the Holy Spirit’s speaking through the RCC, if you need more miracles, I’m hopeful He’ll give you all you need. Your choice is to ignore Him or praise and thank Him for his Kindness and His love and beg forgiveness for your sins and those you’ve experienced of others.

            http://www.uscatholic.org/church/scripture-and-theology/2011/10/why-does-priest-pour-water-wine-and-put-piece-bread-cup

            Your Sister in Christ,
            CARGO

          7. M: The repetitious claim that Trent has put words into the mouth of Our Lord and has contravened His words at the Last Supper is wearisome, hence sleep-inducing.

            B: So sorry to have bored you my dear, but would you mind explaining to me how my words could be sleep-inducing if you are ALREADY in a state of spiritual coma?

            Now I quite understand that old habits do die hard, and this is such a shock to your system that you’re in denial. Perhaps, to press the point further, we ought to rephrase it and put the burden on YOUR shoulders then, since you don’t believe anything ***I*** say.
            Yes! I think that’s a brilliant idea if I do say so myself.
            OK, Cargo…..answer me this: Trent quotes Jesus as… “SAYING”… that the bread he was… “OFFERING”… was …”TRULY”… his body (CCC 1376).

            Now, my love….would you please tell me where I might find that in the BIble?
            Thank you so very much.

            M: The reasoning of Trent is clear and convincing as it is wholly Scriptural.

            B: Au contrair, Pierre. The reasons Trent gives are muddled and perfectly disgusting. Let’s go over it, shall we, as I realize repetition is the best form of learning:

            It boils down to this: Trent claims, “[Even though Christ said] ‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you’, [He also said] ‘He that eateth this bread shall live forever’.

            There it is in all their satanic glory. Because of the fact that Christ ONLY mentions the single word bread in one place (in opposition to the former where blood is included), we are to believe that THAT, ipso facto, MEANS IT IS PERFECTLY ALRIGHT TO TAKE ONLY BREAD AT COMMUNION!

            I submit this is THEE WORST type of exegesis that can only have hatched from the papistic pit of hell. Ummm….does the prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread” exclude the desire for water as well?
            You know it doesn’t!
            Or, you will tell me, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk 16:16), concluding baptism is necessary for salvation. But… if I say to you, what about all those verses where “BELIEF” is only mentioned (e.g., John 3:18; John 5:24; John 12:44; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13)….may I not conclude that my faith in Christ is enough?
            You will respond, “Heavens to betsy no! Just because baptism is not mentioned in those verses does not mean baptism is not necessary for salvation!

            And by those simple points of logic, you are refuted. That, coupled with the elementary instruction that Jesus said to “DO THIS”, and the RCC says you may NOT “do this”, proves they have plainly “broken the Scriptures” —which the Lord said was off limits, and have uplifted their “vain traditions received from their fathers” (which he said was off-limits)….that the word of God now becomes nullified, which he also said was off-limits.

            M: This is the rationale for not requiring laity to receive communion under both forms.

            B: And it is a rationale that provoked OUTRAGE when it first reared its ugly head, and continues to do so today from those who are privy to the facts.

          8. “OK, Cargo…..answer me this: Trent quotes Jesus as… “SAYING”… that the bread he was… “OFFERING”… was …”TRULY”… his body (CCC 1376).”

            Do I have to treat you to another heaping helping of Meriam Webster? Didn’t you even want to wait for another topic to open before you embarrassed yourself, again?

            You must have an endless tolerance for humiliation…..

          9. BB and AK,

            When AK speaks, I listen. When BB speaks, I am not only not humiliated, I am proud to carry the name of CARGO! Jesus earned the right to call the Pharisees vipers; He was the SON OF GOD. BB? BB seems to know neither purpose nor meaning of either CCC or dictionary. Pile up the helping heapings, AK! Are you not hungry or thirsty yet, BB?

            God bless the mess.

            Your sister in Christ,
            CARGO

          10. CARGO!

            Gerbil surprise stew garnished with bunker-wall leaded-paint chips may be easy to chew and an acquired taste for Ozark-livin’ Calvin-thangs who lack a set of opposing molars, but it is rather deleterious to the synapsoidal rhythms of said denizen’s reptilian brain (the only one they have – their small skulls havnt’ developed far ‘nuf for a true cerebrum…).

            I humbly submit my small insignificant theological load for entry on your manifest… 😉

          11. AK: [You told Cargo] “OK, Cargo…..answer me this: Trent quotes Jesus as… “SAYING”… that the bread he was… “OFFERING”… was …”TRULY”… his body (CCC 1376). Where may we find that in the Bible?”

            Do I have to treat you to another heaping helping of Meriam Webster? Didn’t you even want to wait for another topic to open before you embarrassed yourself, again?

            B: Oh my. It looks like you just misspelled “Meriam”. Tsk, tsk. Looks like I now have license to take allllll those times when you criticized myyyy writing style, and bury them in the nearest available coffin where they belong.

            Now what you submitted at 11:07 was pure irrelevance: You told me there…

            AK: Definition of judge: one who makes judgments: such as…
            The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit

            B: There it is folks. The typically lame argument: namely, the church said so, I believe it and that settles it”.
            Which of course, is a non-answer, and doesn’t even BEGIN to deal with my complaint.
            We are well aware, thank you, of what Trent says, but they have MISquoted the Lord Jesus Christ, exposing once and for all that they were not infallible at all, especially since they claimed the Holy Spirit was “guiding them day by day”.
            To explain this error, you refer me to the entity RESPONSIBLE for the error! Oh no you don’t. That’s arguing in a circle and will not be tolerated.
            Conclusion? The Council of Trent said it, I don’t believe it and that settles it.

          12. Good morning Barry!

            Oh my….I saw that and decided, what the helicopter. Well, I’ll leave it to the court of public opinion to decide if there’s a difference between my typo and your phonetic transcriptions. I suspect no one but you and I will notice nor care. I certainly have lost interest.

            In any case, in our new spirit of Christian charitable apologetics, you can expect no more spellin’ corrections from me. Ave….

          13. M: The consecrating priest [places] a morsel of bread into the cup of wine. Why do you think that may be? DUH!

            B: My dear Cargo….you leave the impression that the reason the priest puts a morsel into the cup, is as universally known as their is a sun up in the sky. However, methinks if I were to go to the neighborhood RCC and ask 100 people coming out of Mass that very question, NOT ONE of them would have a clue.

            Now as to the link you so graciously provided for us dumb bunnies, the reader will note that the reason comes down to….and I can scarcely say it without laughing my brains out…..but I’ll try. I’m taking a deep breath, and holding on to the counter for support. My chest is out, stomach in, legs spread…..my voice box ready…..here goes….

            THE REASON THE BREAD IS DROPPED INTO THE CUP IS BECAUSE IT IS A SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF THIS THAT AND THE OTHER THING!

            Oy vey.

            A ssssssymbolic rrrrrrrrepresentation you tell me?
            Uhhhh….Protestants have bent over backwards to give you one biblical reason after another for the sssssssymbolic rrrrrrrepresentation of the goings-on in chapter 6 and the Last Supper, and yet… you have the nerve to try to convince me, without a SPECK of biblical proof, that YORRRRRR symbolic representations at the Mass are worth my listening to?

            Let me guess? “The RCC says so, I believe it and that settles it”.

            I had a hunch you’d say that.

          14. “THE REASON THE BREAD IS DROPPED INTO THE CUP IS BECAUSE IT IS A SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF THIS THAT AND THE OTHER THING!

            Oy vey.”

            You’ve just ventured into opinion-land, Rabbi. Where you seem to spend a lot of time. We Catholics have the appropriate verses from John 6 and the Synoptic Gospels as the irrefutable proof of transubstantiation. We don’t need any more than that. You have your opinion, and we’re fine with that. The Gamaliel Rule applies.

            “A ssssssymbolic rrrrrrrrepresentation you tell me?
            Uhhhh….Protestants have bent over backwards to give you one biblical reason after another for the sssssssymbolic rrrrrrrepresentation of the goings-on in chapter 6 and the Last Supper, and yet… you have the nerve to try to convince me, without a SPECK of biblical proof, that YORRRRRR symbolic representations at the Mass are worth my listening to?”

            Let me guess? “The RCC says so, I believe it and that settles it”.

            Hey…John Calvin and Jimmy White say it and that settles it. Two can play that game.

            And I’d say John 6 and the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper constitute more than a “speck.” Your Calvinist mileage may vary. Good luck with that.

            Have a nice evening.

      1. Hey Bare,

        Faith is only belief. When we arrive at Judgment Day, faith is no longer needed since we will confront the object of those beliefs. Hence, you are correct in saying beliefs will melt.

        So you’d do well to have some grace of good works within your heart and soul. Your faith will stand you no stead.

        (stead
        [sted]

        NOUN
        the place or role that someone or something should have or fill (used in referring to a substitute):
        “you wish to have him superseded and to be appointed in his stead”

        1. MARGO: Hey Bare…you’d do well to have some grace of good works within your heart and soul.

          Barry: Since you appear to take delight in misspelling my name, I think it apropose to officially change your name to… CARGO. Since you’re pinning your hopes on, and teaching others, to pack their bags and unload before the Lord Jesus Christ, a CARGO full of good works on Judgment Day to allow them into heaven, I think the name suits you well, don’t you?

      2. Barry, many of us have recommend to you to cut down on your rather dull attempts at humor . Done right and in moderation it might be somewhat OK. But, note that neither Jesus, nor the apostles, or the Fathers of the Church indulged in it as you do. It is a very poor crutch to use in apologetics.

        Moreover, you might consider reading and ancient Christian text titled “The Shepherd” by St. Hermas. It’s from about 130 AD, or so, and maybe even earlier. But it discusses in depth Christian ethical living practices and disciplines, such as the importance of controlling anger and angst. Many Fathers of the Church promoted the reading of this excellent text by catechumens back in the early centuries. I’m studying it myself right now and it is a great resource to know, and similar to the Didache in some ways.

        1. AWL: Barry, many of us have recommend to you to cut down on your rather dull attempts at humor .

          B: Without a similar admonition to “AK”, who is 10x WORSE, as seen on this very thread, your advice to me is hypocritical to the maxx and will be ignored.

          1. Hey Flounder – many of us, many times, have offered you the olive branch of civility – me as recently as yesterday. You, in a flourish of Calvinist Christianity, spit on it. You reap what you sow (and given your spelin,’ sew…) And I might add, *you* are the guest here….suggest you conduct yourself better than the pig whose mouth you apple-up, with your attendant gerbils.

          1. Read below from the quotes I provided from St. Hermas, Barry. It applies to both of you. Although, I think you are the instigator, AK should refrain from following your lead in excessive sarcasm and ridicule. St. James says it also, to control the tongue even as a rutter is controlled on a boat.

            But, this early Christian writing, ‘The Shepherd’ teaches well on the subject. You both should read it.

          2. AWL: Read below from the quotes I provided from St. Hermas, Barry.

            B: I pretty much agree with Hermy, but he has not presented a fully-orbed picture and appears not to leave any room for emotion. This is like so many who only talk about the love of God, to the exclusion of his justice.

            My defense is: was Christ “charitable” when in Matthew 23, He calls the scribes and Pharisees insulting names 16 times?
            The names are, “hypocrites” (7 times), “son of Hell” (once), “blind guides” (twice), “fools and blind” (3 times), “whited sepulchres” (once), “serpents” (once), and “offspring of vipers” (once).

            In 1 & 2 John, he calls certain persons “liars” and “antichrists”.
            Oh my, how uncharitable!
            Or John the Baptist, (“ye brood of vipers”).
            Or Stephen, “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! (Acts 7:51).
            Or Jesus calling Herod (gasp!) a fox (Luke 13:32).

            Regarding atheists, are we not to conclude from Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 that they are all “fools”? Or from 1 Tim 4:2, Paul refers to “hypocritical liars”, and in 5:13, he writes of “gossips and busybodies”. It therefore should go without saying that those sensitive souls who flinch when hearing someone being called a nasty name, need to stop being offended and cease with the demand for “charity” (which of course has its place as Hermy says, but not in EVERY place!). Since we agree that Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin either, but is rather, a virtue, when one perceives that the word of God is being mishandled.

            Again, In 2 John, he does not simply say that the theology of certain people is antichristian (though it is), nor does he say that they speak lies (though they do). The fact is that he CALLS the people antichrists and liars because that is what they are, just as Trent perceives people like me to “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.
            So when Jesus says that he HATES the doctrine of the Nico’s in Rev 2:15, he did not do so in any sort of “charitable” manner. Hating their doctrine; means, ipso facto, He hated them (Ps 7:11).

            Paul said that if any one comes along preaching any other gospel, they are accursed. That would mean I too may duplicate his behavior per 1 Cor 4:16, “be ye followers of me.” I admit that does not immediately suggest that I’m correct in accusing someone of being accursed, but the terminology I am using is biblical, especially when I have an eye to the glory of God and the good of their soul. When there are opposing viewpoints, the strongest possible language may be used with the intent that the other person see how passionately you disagree, which will perhaps instigate them to further study. For example, I would not hesitate to tell you that the “Immaculate Conception” doctrine that Catholics are forced to believe for their salvation (and thus making it a part OF the gospel) is a “damnable heresy” (2 Pet 2:1). Do you think Peter’s language was uncharitable? If so, your problem is with him, not me.

            My position is that Catholics are victims of doctrines that are “fables”, “myths”, which result from “deceitful workers”, “lying ministers of righteousness”, “seducing spirits”, “doctrines of devils”, “grievous wolves” and teachings that are “perverse”. All of this language is biblical when it comes to interacting with alleged false doctrine. If I furnish evidence to back these perversions up, I am allowed to use it and and I am happy to let God be my Judge. You must remember, if I didn’t care about the issue, I certainly wouldn’t do anything.

            There is no “holding hands” in these matters when it comes to truth. We are to have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather, reprove them (Eph 5:11). What those like me do involved in RC evangelizing do, is CORRECTION, in the form of disputation. The Scriptures conclusively prove that the act of disputing encompassed much of the life of the apostle Paul (!!!) who was accused of turning the world upside down {Acts 9:22,17:2, 17:6, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-10; 19:26, 20:31,24:25, 28:23}. He challenged the status quo and was unconcerned about ruffling feathers, saying, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
            {Galatians 4:16}.

            In conclusion, with regard to my alleged “lack of charity”, let me quote someone from the early 1900’s who sums up my position quite well. He said,
            “To employ soft words and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance; to deal with errors that strike at the foundations of all human hope as if they were harmless; to bless where God disapproves; and to make apologies where He calls for us to stand up and assert; though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause in a sophisticated age, is cruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those who on such subjects attach more importance to rules of courtesy than they do to the measures of truth do not defend the citadel, but betray it into the hands of its enemies.. Love for Christ and for the souls for whom He died will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers by which men’s souls are ensnared.”

          3. Barry, yes there were important times in the Gospel accounts when Jesus said these things. But it is a small percentage of His teaching. Many times, with the Pharisees and others, including the soldiers who crucified Him, He was very patient. So, I think if you view His comments by percentage of His teachings, you will see that it is only a tiny portion of what He taught, or how He acted.

            However, it seems also a bit perverse for Christians to ‘over do’ the criticism. And also, we ourselves are not Jesus Himself (..even though we make up His mystical body)and our judgement is not as keen as His was. So, it is even MORE important for us to watch our negative, sarcastic or inflamatory language. And especially because we are still addressing our fellow Christians.

            So, I think it is best to forget exaggerated insults and just present your arguments. And the same on our side. And this is how others reading will actually have a positive educational experience, and not just witness comments spewed with name calling and threats of damnation.

            And, there is much more in “Hermy’s” writing regarding all of this. Actually, it seems to be a minor theme throughout the whole work, that we are to maintain peace, order, self-control, etc…so as to not ‘sadden the Holy Spirit’, or encourage Him to depart from us.

            I just started studying this writing, after knowing about it for many years, but thinking it wasn’t significant. But, now I think that this Christian literature, early as it is in Church history, provides a lot of insight into the early Church, and also it’s attempt to catechize it’s flock. I’m going to analyze it against the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ to see if they have over-lapping teachings. They seem very similar in some parts.

            Best to you.

          4. Here’s another pertinent passage from St. Hermas:

            Of Sadness of Heart, and of Patience.

            Chapter 1

            Be patient, said he, and of good understanding, and you will rule over every wicked work, and you will work all righteousness. For if you be patient, the Holy Spirit that dwells in you will be pure. He will not be darkened by any evil spirit, but, dwelling in a broad region, he will rejoice and be glad; and with the vessel in which he dwells he will serve God in gladness, having great peace within himself. But if any outburst of anger take place, immediately the Holy Spirit, who is tender, is straitened, not having a pure place, and He seeks to depart. For he is choked by the vile spirit, and cannot attend on the Lord as he wishes, for anger pollutes him. For the Lord dwells in long-suffering, but the devil in anger. The two spirits, then, when dwelling in the same habitation, are at discord with each other, and are troublesome to that man in whom they dwell. For if an exceedingly small piece of wormwood be taken and put into a jar of honey, is not the honey entirely destroyed, and does not the exceedingly small piece of wormwood entirely take away the sweetness of the honey, so that it no longer affords any gratification to its owner, but has become bitter, and lost its use? But if the wormwood be not put into the honey, then the honey remains sweet, and is of use to its owner. You see, then, that patience is sweeter than honey, and useful to God, and the Lord dwells in it. But anger is bitter and useless. Now, if anger be mingled with patience, the patience is polluted, and its prayer is not then useful to God. I should like, sir, said I, to know the power of anger, that I may guard myself against it. And he said, If you do not guard yourself against it, you and your house lose all hope of salvation. Guard yourself, therefore, against it. For I am with you, and all will depart from it who repent with their whole heart. For I will be with them, and I will save them all. For all are justified by the most holy angel.”

          5. AWL: Barry, yes there were important times in the Gospel accounts when Jesus said these things. But it is a small percentage of His teaching.

            B: And so too, do myyyyy comments contain a “small percentage”. You simply cannot possibly be suggesting that I write line after line of gruesome insults, now let’s be honest. It’s more accurate to say that you think my comments should be bereft of ALL of them. Now that’s your opinion and I thank you for it, but in myyyyy opinion you’re advocating a strict “Charity Churchmouse” appeal that I cannot accept.

            Believe it or not, MORE than a few times just before I pressed “reply” I noticed that I “put down” the person… TWICE. I then deleted the second one because I had the self-control to say “once was enough”.

            AWL: However, it seems also a bit perverse for Christians to ‘over do’ the criticism.

            B: I quite agree. Kindly let me know when you think I have crossed the line…and oh by the way, when you do that, be sure to include the quote or I will ignore your advice.

        1. For those who just want a short spiritual snack from the same link, above, here you are:

          “Commandment 1

          On Faith in God.

          First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but Himself cannot be contained. Have faith therefore in Him, and fear Him; and fearing Him, exercise self-control. Keep these commands, and you will cast away from you all wickedness, and put on the strength of righteousness, and live to God, if you keep this commandment.

          Commandment 2

          On Avoiding Evil-Speaking, and on Giving Alms in Simplicity.

          He said to me, Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins the life of men. First, then, speak evil of no one, nor listen with pleasure to any one who speaks evil of another. But if you listen, you will partake of the sin of him who speaks evil, if you believe the slander which you hear; for believing it, you will also have something to say against your brother. Thus, then, will you be guilty of the sin of him who slanders. For slander is evil and an unsteady demon. It never abides in peace, but always remains in discord. Keep yourself from it, and you will always be at peace with all. Put on a holiness in which there is no wicked cause of offense, but all deeds that are equable and joyful. Practise goodness; and from the rewards of your labours, which God gives you, give to all the needy in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom you are to give or not to give. Give to all, for God wishes His gifts to be shared among all. They who receive, will render an account to God why and for what they have received. For the afflicted who receive will not be condemned, but they who receive on false pretences will suffer punishment. He, then, who gives is guiltless. For as he received from the Lord, so has he accomplished his service in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom he should give and to whom he should not give. This service, then, if accomplished in simplicity, is glorious with God. He, therefore, who thus ministers in simplicity, will live to God. Keep therefore these commandments, as I have given them to you, that your repentance and the repentance of your house may be found in simplicity, and your heart may be pure and stainless.”

  19. “…we stick an apple in the mouth of a pig on a platter …”

    “We” again – you have some well-trained gerbils!

    “YOU SIR, promptly deleted my comments the next day.”

    Some blogs are more open than others to the brand of entertainment you bring.

    “The word “coward” comes to mind, I wonder why…’

    Probably because you live your life being an obnoxious POS from the safety of your keyboard?

    How’s all those Merriam-Webster definitions workin’ out fer ya? You know, the ones in this blog where we (no gerbils here) eviscerated your incomprehensible and dying Calvinist theology simply by disproving your flawed and disingenuous (mis)use of English? As in….offering…sacrifice….truly….and now…stead?

    1. At the end of each comment box just after the bar where you click to post your comment is space to tick whether you want to be notified of follow-up comments.

    2. Dave,

      The site’s anti-spam software automatically catches any comment that has lots of links (since those are usually spam). One or two links is usually fine.

      In any case, I found your comment and manually approved it.

      Joe

    1. Try to post your links on the Assumption and Scripture. I also discovered if your post contains any horizontal carrots (greater than, less than symbols) the enclosed between those symbols will not post.

      1. Well, here’s one that has links to the other ones I mentioned in my not-posted comment:

        “Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux”

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/armstrong-vs-collins-walls-6-assumption-queen-redux.html

        This was in response to a portion of the recent book, “Roman but Not Catholic.” I haven’t heard a peep back from either co-author, after 13 critiques and also the most popular critical review posted at Amazon.

        At least Baritone replies. He gets credit for that, The quality may be nothing to write home about, but he isn’t fleeing for the hills, anyway.

        1. Thanks for posting, Dave. I never paid attention to Patheos before. Glad to know about it! The argument you provided on Cyril was excellent. I’ll start reading your other articles.

          Best to you and keep up the great work for the Lord!

  20. Quick question: does anyone find these comments helpful? I’ve heard negative things about this thread from two different people already, and it looks from my skimming mostly like a bunch of grown Christian adults name-calling and acting like arrogant children. Am I missing something?

    I.X.,

    Joe

    1. The comments are extremely helpful second only to your articles of course, please keep them. All conversations can be arrogant at first glance but also full of TRUTH especially in the current social media sphere of things Joe your blog is a regular of mine (up there with Catholic Answers, New Advent, patheos.com etc..) I don’t always take part in these heated discussions but I enjoy reading them. So PLEASE keep them coming.

      God Bless

      Luke

    2. Comments are helpful, but many of us are falling victim to the professional “trolling” tactics. Has gotten out of hand.

      1. TT: Comments are helpful, but many of us are falling victim to the professional “trolling” tactics. Has gotten out of hand.

        B: Really? I wonder who you might be referring to as a “troll”? Whoever that might be (and going by the definition of a troll from what I understand) Jesus Christ must be considered the greatest troll of all. He took it upon himself to break through the curtain of this world without your permission and decided to do something for the betterment of his creation, but oh did HE ever cause a ruckus, coming “unto his own, but his own received him not” (Jn 1:11). Truly a troll if there ever was one.

    3. JH: it looks from my skimming mostly like a bunch of grown Christian adults name-calling and acting like arrogant children. Am I missing something?

      B: Yes. Be careful you do not always accuse people of arrogance when that is absolutely not the case. If someone has the evidence to back up their position, that person is not to be considered arrogant. Otherwise, I could say to you, “who do you think you are by ending off your article by arrogantly concluding the Reformation was invalid”? You would tell me, “But I have merely presented to you the facts”. And you would be right. Thus, the charge of arrogance is out of order.

      IMHO, turning up the heat is fine, as the Bible clearly teaches (which I proved at 9:51). I would say a dull humor is a good thing; for example, if I tell someone they are so full of hot air, if they were a balloon, they’d pop”, I would hope that by sprinkling my evidence with that salt and pepper retort, that it might be the catalyst to cause the person to do further investigation. Too often, people just say “you’re wrong!”, and if I was the moderator and had the time…(and I know you don’t), I would simply delete the comment as it serves no purpose. And certainly, if someone calls you a POS, as someone did here, I would give that person a first warning, and then ban them on a second offense.

      Just my 2 cents.

      1. “Jesus Christ must be considered the greatest troll of all.”

        This is not the first time you have identified yourself and your ill-treatment of your fellow bloggers, with the incarnation and life of Jesus Christ. THIS is a case in point of narcissist personality disorder and ingrained arrogance at the level of the sublime, bordering on psychosis.

        “And certainly, if someone calls you a POS, as someone did here, I would give that person a first warning, and then ban them on a second offense.”

        That was me, you supercilious moral microbe. And I have multiple times, offered you the olive branch, and even backed off my chiding, if only you would discourse in a civil manner, as does Irked or Hans. Others have done likewise, asking you to be civil. Your response has been as above, reveling in and doubling down on your abuse. Your posts offer nothing new, just the same warmed-over, odorous, non-contextual and often falsified arguments and cut/pastes, introduced anew and usually off-topic on each new blog post, hoping *someone* will listen positively to you. Hasn’t happened yet. So you add nothing new or worthwhile which to research or understand.

        And you think that is what it means to be a Christian….

        So I absolutely stand by what I wrote, even if it costs me access here, which I would rather not have happen, but accept. Your presence is ruining this blog, which is probably your intent. But it is Joe’s venue, he will do what he thinks is right.

          1. B at 7:26: I will give you the same compliment you gave to me…
            “So CREATIVE of you!”

            M: The same compliment I gave to you was NOT “So creative of you!”
            M: It was “We are SO creative!”

            Here is another example of why we don’t trust your quotes of Scripture, Church fathers, Councils, or other authoritative citations.

            Lest you question my sincerity,I hereby proclaim: The giving of the CARGO name was apropro, appropriate, and not derogatory. I accept it and I own it. THANK YOU, Mr. BB. BTW: Bare is simply a shortened form of Barry. As Mar would be short for Margo. I intended no offense.
            AK too, I believe, considered that you paid me a compliment.
            It is a KOOL and CREATIVE nickname, and I’m grateful you gave it to me. It demonstrated goodness and is filled with a kind meaning. I’m proud to be known as an espouser of good works. And that is what you recognized, Mr. BB, by giving me that name.

            Alleluia!

    4. Joe: Quick question: does anyone find these comments helpful? I’ve heard negative things about this thread from two different people already, and it looks from my skimming mostly like a bunch of grown Christian adults name-calling and acting like arrogant children. Am I missing something?

      Me: Count me in as one of the negative votes. I think I regret becoming a part of this thread, as my contributions have not seemed to improve virtue in myself or others, but have seemed to encourage vice and retaliation. My apologies, everyone.

      1. AF, In my humble opinion you are one of the best apologists commenting, and continually provide excellent arguments on almost any of Joe’s topics. So, if you think you’ve wasted your time, at least you haven’t wasted ours. I personally learn a lot from you, and all the others, including Barry (…about the Protestant mind set). So, if there is an occasional theological slug fest, at least there is usually a lot of theological content accompanying it, and so it’s not a waste of time. And Barry also believes his intentions are good, and that he is doing us all a favor. 🙂

        The only thing I can think, is that for Joe’s sake, at least, the sarcasm should be reduced a bit. It is only courteous…has we are all guests in his house/blog and so we should try to be respectful towards his concerns about civility and charity here.

        Best to you and all.

    5. I like reading the comments. But it is clear that BB is not here to dialogue; only to throw insults. He uses terms like “Mary Marvelous”; that, I cannot abide. He needs to be ejected.

  21. I defer to your judgment on childish arrogance. On the other hand, there is a lot of good knowledge and impetus to learn. Perhaps the current thread tempts too much against calm charity. I sometimes resort to frivolity (perhaps worse). I do not intend harm, but if others perceive it as such, I’ll refrain. Definitely I’ll examine and pray about it all. Thanks for your input, Joe, and thanks for this site.

  22. Barry,
    I am curious as to which specific Scriptures St. Cyril was referring in his discourse quoted early in this thread, and raised again later as support for the sola scriptura argument derived from the Church Fathers. Are you able to tell which books or letters or prophets he held as Scripture?

    1. M.O. Are you able to tell which books or letters or prophets he held as Scripture?

      B: Yes. In his 4th lecture he says, “Learn carefully from the church what are the books of the O.T. Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books”.
      But he does include in that number, Baruch (which we say, was wrong).

      Getting back to the man and the S.S. principle, his was not that we should be conformed to what the CHURCH says, but rather, conformity to Scripture was the pancake batter that oozed into THAT man’s frying pan.

      “Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”

      Catholics can knock their heads up against the wailing wall as much as they like in trying to deny it, but there is simply no way to subsume Cyril’s understanding of the authority of Scripture into the Roman Catholic paradigm! NO WAY.

      “Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled, but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say…”

      Desperate RC foot soldiers (like yourself?) are compelled to reinterpret Mr. C into a modern-day Roman Catholic. Making us yawn, the retort from the other side is typically, “Mr. C believed such things like “prayers for the dead” and held to a position on the Eucharist similar to modern day Catholics.” They conclude (wrongly) that Mr. C could not have been an advocate of S.S. because those who advocate S.S. do not find these teaching in the Bible.

      But helloooo! This type of defense misses the DISTINCTION between
      a) the principle of S.S. and
      b) the principle of interpretation!

      Let me put this in big letters: EVERY DOCTRINE MR. C PROCLAIMED, HE DECLARED TO BE BASED ON PROOF FURNISHED FROM HOLY WRIT. We certainly don’t agree with everything he said, but so what? No one has a monopoly on truth and nowhere are promised to know it all. Nonetheless, the underlying presupposition of S.S. is right there before your eyes, crystal clear, like it or not. And like it or not, Mr. C does NOT agree with the authority structure and underlying presuppositions of the RCC! Rome says that certain doctrines find their certainty OUTSIDE of Scripture…(See the Keating quote at 3:52) and may be proclaimed true by the nebulous concept of unwritten extra-Biblical tradition or papal trumpet calls.
      Jesus (and Cyril) would never agree to this protocol. Never!

      1. St. Cyril also wrote in these same catechetical Lectures, relating to the Nicaean Creed,this following statement regarding the authority of the Catholic Church:

        “Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, In one Holy Catholic Church, on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.

        It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly . . . (XVIII:22-23)

        And Dave Armstrong, in his article cited above succinctly commented:

        “Now, imagine if Cyril had said this about Scripture, that it “teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge.” Webster and King would be all over that as proof that he was teaching material sufficiency of Scripture and also formal sufficiency (“complete”). But here he is stating these attributes with regard to the Church, not Scripture (the Church teaches with completeness, just as Scripture does); and so for that reason, Webster and King decided that this passage was not commensurate with their sophistical plan of “proving” that the Scripture alone provides this sort of sufficiency or “completeness” — and they deliberately omitted it.

        This is their standard practice with all the Church fathers, and it’s intellectually dishonest, on the grounds that a half-truth or a partial truth is almost as bad as a lie. They habitually present one strain of patristic teaching that agrees with Catholicism: glowing remarks about Holy Scripture, while ignoring all that is said of the Church, tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, popes, etc.”

        Citation:

        Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2013/11/david-t-king-and-william-webster_9.html#FxRHk7PujHICehoy.99

        1. Thank you and good morning, Al.

          Mike, I would invite you also to do two things. First, look at a definition of Sola Scriptura; here is a link from a Protestant website.

          http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/

          Note particularly, that while Protestants may hold the Church Fathers and early Councils in high esteem, they are entirely secondary to ones own Scripture interpretation. Scripture essentially interprets itself – no Church needed nor at all considered . Especially of the Catholic variety.

          Then, see this Patheos link by our new very own blog poster Dave Armstrong. It bears out the salient point that while Fathers like Cyril held Scripture in high esteem – as doe the Catechism, note the numerous Scripture references footnoted on every page – they subsumed interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to Holy Mother Church. This is made very clear in the link:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/05/cyril-jerusalem-d-386-vs-sola-scriptura-rule-faith.html

          This is common practice, pointed out here by Dave and other Catholic theologians, of Reformed (especially Calvinist) field hands (like Barry?) to cherry-pick their way through the grove, looking for ripe bits to create patchwork apologetics, in a subsuming spirit of best-intention confirmation bias, sadly ignoring the context of the entirety of the beautiful orchard of the Church God Himself ordained in Matt 16:18.

          1. I figure if I am an RC foot soldier (with an indeterminate level of desperation ;), Barry qualifies as a Calvinist field hand.

          2. I guess that leaves me in the Church Militant Canine Corps.

            And, mind you, not as a handler.

            …but fortunately I got a pretty sensitive nose for sniffing out enemy combatant baloney…. so as to not be completely useless. 🙂

            🙂

        2. AWL: And Dave Armstrong, in his article cited above succinctly commented:

          B: Spare me. He didn’t SUCCINCTLY do anything but SUCCUMB to ignorance. You people are completing missing the point that I made in 12:20; namely

          This type of defense misses the DISTINCTION between
          a) the principle of S.S. and
          b) the principle of interpretation!

          EVERY DOCTRINE CYRIL PROCLAIMED, HE DECLARED TO BE BASED ON PROOF FURNISHED FROM HOLY WRIT.

          And it does’t matter if Cyril or anyone else sees King Kong or King Tut somewhere in the Text. We are talking what criteria they are using to find their theology, so your entire post, as well as others, is a total waste of time.

          This type of defense misses the DISTINCTION between
          a) the principle of S.S. and
          b) the principle of interpretation!

          1. Barry – you already said all this, and we answered/gave examples *just today* how the Fathers respected Scripture. But Scriptural understanding through the ministry of the Church of Matt 16:18, which Sola Scriptura rejects.

            We get that you think that, no matter what, even if it’s reality that you can’t have it both ways.

          2. AK: Barry – you already said all this, and we answered/gave examples *just today* how the Fathers respected Scripture.

            B: I did not NEED for you to furnish examples of how they respected Scripture as if I was completely unaware of that. Talk about blowing smoke thinking you’ve accomplished something! Catholics who post quotes of early luminaries who gushed over the virtues of Scripture, is on the same level of giving us the recipe for an upside-down cake. It is completey pointless.

            AK: [We ought to bow our knee to the] Scriptural understanding through the ministry of the Church of Matt 16:18, which Sola Scriptura rejects.

            B: But of COURSE S.S. rejects the ministry of the Roman church, for not only was Rome 1500 miles away at the time of the M-16 episode (making the claim ludicrous on its face) but the book of Romans is utterly silent to its superiority as well. That’s called using the brain God gave you, which you appear to not have no interest in doing.
            When all else fails, quote M-16 and all shall be well.
            Yeah, right.

          3. Barry, to understand Cyril you need context, even as Dave succinctly pointed out. Without context you imitate the Pharisees and choose the ‘letter’ over the ‘spirit’. The ‘spirit’ part is the context needed to understand the letter. And it is clear that you are not interested the context of Cyril’s catechetical letters, or of respecting Cyril himself as an excellent catechist. But rather, you are interested only in the ‘letter’, so that you might adapt it/hijack it, to suit your purpose without trying to understand the meaning.

            Better for you to start from the beginning of the Lectures and read them carefully, then you will come to know the heart of the man himself. We also know St. Paul, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and all the other Apostles and ‘Fathers’ in the same way. To not care about the person of the authors of these writings, is to ignore the most important part of Christianity. And it is these holy authors who will live forever, and not the word of their writings.

            At least, Catholics love and honor all of these saints and fathers throughout Church History. And without Catholics, none of the writings of these same Fathers would have even been preserved, copied and passed down; that is, unless there might have been some secret Protestants around back then who had the literacy, interest and love for ‘patristics’ as the Catholics obviously had. But, that is highly doubtable as there is no proof of this in early Church History. Like it or not the Catholic Church has history on it’s side. The Protestants only pick at the crumbs falling from the table of Catholic wisdom, to try to form their own loaf of bread, using those crumbs (minor quotes from the Catholic Saints). But, it’s actually impossible to put the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ loaf together again from those crumbs…even though you try very hard to do so.

          4. “…that is, unless there might have been some secret Protestants around back then who had the literacy, interest and love for ‘patristics’ as the Catholics obviously had….”

            If there were indeed any of those, they were like the Artesian’s in the Rainier Beer TV commercials…..

  23. Reading up on the unbelievably reactive and heated discussion previously, it appears there is such an abundance of vitriol I could distill metaphorical sulfuric acid in ample quantities. The proposal of segregating people into like-minded groups and walling them all off from each other to avoid disputations is looking awfully attractive right about now — as once I said before, we will always disagree otherwise.

    1. Disagreement has been in the Church since before the first Council of Jerusalem. Just consider the brothers James and John, and how they sought to sit at Christ’s right and left in His kingdom. Did he segregate them just because “…the ten hearing it, began to be much displeased at James and John.”?

      And Peter and Paul, were they separated because of Paul’s public rebuke?:

      “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. (Gal. 2:11)

      And, how much angst was generated in the Early Church by the various heresies? By the Gnostics? By the Montanists? By the Arian’s and the Donatists….and many others?

      And yet, because of all of these controversies and heresies we have all of the great writings and theology left to us by the great saints and Fathers of the Church. The doctrine of the faith was made tangible and visible and by those controversies the great minds of that early age were able to dig deep into the true meaning of Christ’s teachings.

      When St, Augustine complained about disputes in his time, it was because the Christians were burning down the churches of their fellow Christian opponents. That’s when you need separation.
      But, there is probably nothing more dangerous than dogs who are so shy as to not bark and alert their owners when enemies are roaming through the neighborhood… thinking they will disturb everybody and be punished by their masters for waking them up. …ie. per Isaiah 56:10.

      However, these same Fathers of the Church also teach by their example how to best deal with theological opposition, and usually it is to discuss seriously the claims of their opponents, and then to give ample and strong reasons against their opponents positions in writing. But, I don’t remember any excessive use of sarcasm by these Fathers in any early disputes, but maybe someone can point it out to me if I’m missing anything.

      1. “But, I don’t remember any excessive use of sarcasm by these Fathers in any early disputes, but maybe someone can point it out to me if I’m missing anything.”

        That’s because they were raised in a society without electronic media/entertainment, where one had to memorize and think.

        Our society has been conditioned to discourse based on the inch-deep riposte dialectic of late night talk show hosts….I am as guilty as anyone who was raised watching Johnny Carson. Rather than a reasoned and thoughtful debate, it’s the quest for the ultimate one-liner put down that has your opponent speechless.

        Think Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale’s debate, where Hollywood-trained Reagan responded to Mondale’s questioning of Reagan’s advanced age with “I won’t stand here and take advantage of my opponent’s youth and inexperience…” The debate was over right then….not that I personally had a problem with the outcome 😉

      2. Mockery, satire and sarcasm aren’t simply mean-spirited responses, they’re rhetorical weapons in the hands of those on the bottom. They defy the status quo, challenge power structures and strip away affectation.

        AWL: these same Fathers of the Church also teach by their example how to best deal with theological opposition, and usually it is to discuss seriously the claims of their opponents

        B: Three other times in your post you refer to the “fathers”…ALWAYS THE FATHERS, never the Bible! You do indeed leave the impression that Scripture is a dead letter unable to be discerned except by those who came after it. You forget, BTW, that you cannot be a FATHER to something that came BEFORE you, which is just as obnoxious as Rome claiming she is the “mother” of the Bible.

        AWL: I don’t remember any excessive use of sarcasm by these Fathers in any early disputes

        B: Again, it is very telling that your mind only goes back so far to those who came AFTER the Text was completed, and not to the Text itself.

        AWL: but maybe someone can point it out to me if I’m missing anything.

        B: No need to busy ourselves with the habits of the papas. Suffice to say that there is more than enough evidence in Scripture alone to demonstrate mockery, satire and sarcasm to satisfy even the casual observer, not the least of which off the top of my head, would be Jesus calling Herod a fox. Likewise, with his interaction with the Pharisees, he appears to be under no obligation to fake kindness toward the damage the pharisaical system was doing.
        I’ve only given you the tip of the iceberg.

        1. Good morning, Al and Barry.

          “Three other times in your post you refer to the “fathers”…ALWAYS THE FATHERS, never the Bible!”

          Yes, who would want to refer to those who learned either directly from, or from those, who learned directly from the Apostles? A travesty, I tell you.

          Calvin, Hus, Luther, Wesley, 1,500-1,600 years distant…well, that’s another story entirely, depending on which of the tens-of-thousands of flavors of Reformed you are, hey, you can name your invented religion after, y’know, a guy.

          Tiptoe through THOSE tulips.

          Oh, by the way…where is TULIP in the Bible?

          1. B: “Three other times in your post you refer to the “fathers”…ALWAYS THE FATHERS, never the Bible!”

            AK: Yes, who would want to refer to those who learned either directly from, or from those, who learned directly from the Apostles? A travesty, I tell you.

            B: You are insinuating that all those early Christians got it right.
            I don’t think so!
            Based on the fact that you ignore Paul prophecying that the minute he goes off the scene, there’s going to be trouble…(Moses said the same thing in his farewell speech), your opinion that proximity to the apostles is a valid apologetic, is fraught with difficulties.
            Even from your perspective, Justin Martyr gets thumbs down because he thought the Eucharist made its way through the digestive system. Someone along the way realized the gross implications of the “Martyr Complex” which would have “jesus” being quite rudely dumped into the city sewer, so someone came up with the bright idea to have him make a fast getaway just as the wafer begins to disintegrate (CCC 1377). So much then, for your supposed “Real Presence”, which lasts for no more than 30 seconds…until the next Mass when the hamster wheel of salvation goes round and round for another spin.

            AK: Calvin, Hus, Luther, Wesley, 1,500-1,600 years distant…well, that’s another story entirely….Oh, by the way…where is TULIP in the Bible?

            B: I’d be delighted to answer that question when you can first tell me how such an early witness to the faith, such as Justin, could have been so duped when it came to the itinerary for the Eucharist after it enters the mouth. After all, he says in his “Apology” , “WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT…” which means this false doctrine (according to you) was running around from the beginning. The point being, that
            this false teaching on Justin’s part shows that, even as early as the second century, traditions can be very clearly WRONG. And, if this can happen as early as the second century, what guarantee do we have that well meaning men have not erred when relaying traditions such as the “bodily assumption”, which first reared its ugly head in the 6th century?
            This is why the safety harbor of Sola Scriptura is so vital.

          2. “You are insinuating that all those early Christians got it right. I don’t think so!”

            Why would anyone question your judgement, I cannot imagine.

            On the Eucharist, what you said:

            “Justin Martyr gets thumbs down because he thought the Eucharist made its way through the digestive system. Someone along the way realized the gross implications of the “Martyr Complex” which would have “jesus” being quite rudely dumped into the city sewer, so someone came up with the bright idea to have him make a fast getaway just as the wafer begins to disintegrate (CCC 1377). So much then, for your supposed “Real Presence”, which lasts for no more than 30 seconds..”

            What the Catechism ‘actually’ says:

            1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

            So, how long “does” the species subsist, Doctor of Gastroenterology Barry? Where did you get 30 seconds? Note, the ‘breaking f the bread’ does not divide the presence of Christ. Embellishing (the polite term) the Catechism with Calvin-isms again? Old habits die hard, I guess. I am sure, in any case, Jesus has no problem with the reality of our humanity since he created us that way. I am sorry you do. I can recommend a good therapist.

            “this false teaching on Justin’s part shows that, even as early as the second century, traditions can be very clearly WRONG..”

            So, add 1500 years…and the inferred additional level of credibility.

            “This is why the safety harbor of Sola Scriptura is so vital…”

            Yes, those Lutherans have it right on their Sola Scriptural interpretations. Oh wait…the Calvinists have it right…oh wait, the Baptists…the Unitarians…..I think the harbor channel is blocked and needs a nice dose of Catholic engineering to clear the way.

            Of course, I realize you think differently. Hope you otherwise are having a good day.

          3. AK: 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

            So, how long “does” the species subsist, Doctor of Gastroenterology Barry? Where did you get 30 seconds?

            B: You get the 30 seconds from the brain God has gifted you with, which you appear not to be very interested in using. What a stupid question, actually. Do you leave the wafer in your mouth for any longer period of time?
            You might tell me, “Yes, one minute and 15 seconds”.
            Get real.

            AK: in any case, Jesus has no problem with the reality of our humanity since he created us that way.

            B: What you mean to say is that the RCC implicity tells us the Creator of the universe is unable to withstand the attack of the very salivary glands he himself created, so the minute those salivary acids begin taking out their guns, your “jesus” must retreat going who knows where after doing who knows what in the confines of your bacteria-ridden spittle.

            Moreover, as usual, you hoppity-skippity jump right over anything you can’t deal with, like the “Martyr Complex” just mentioned… and hope to fast forward the topic 1500 years in the hopes we might not notice.
            Oh no you don’t.
            My objection not only STANDS with how so very WRONG Justin got it, but one may as well ask, “Why may I not believe Justin is right and later RCism is wrong? Why does modern day RCism have the final say?
            You know you can’t answer that question, so I leave you to your delusion.

          4. “What you mean to say ..”

            No, I didn’t.

            ” the Creator of the universe is unable to withstand the attack of the very salivary glands he himself created, ”

            That’s very weird. What I say about God being pleased with His Creation not only stands, it is Scriptural. (Genesis 1:31)

            “Moreover, as usual, you hoppity-skippity jump right over anything you can’t deal with, like the “Martyr Complex” just mentioned”

            You might think what you posit here is worth considering. I didn’t. Please, feel free to declare victory.

            “…so I leave you to your delusion.”

            I am quite happy where I am, thank you. Hope you are as well.

        2. Barry,

          Rather than discounting “the Fathers”, you should be praising, assiduously studying, and rejoicing over them, as they were the “mystical body of Christ” in the early centuries of which Jesus Himself described, when it was written:

          “And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.”

          So, as Christ loves His Church and defines it as His OWN SELF, to discount the Early Church Fathers is an insult to Christ Himself. Moreover, you might consider the words of Christ comparing the Patriarchs of the Bible to His future Church which the same Early Fathers were building, and which we continue to build today:

          “For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.” [Luke 7:28]

          This indicates that the ‘Fathers of the Church’ are greater than the Prophets of the Old Testament. So, why honor the OT patriarchs and scriptures over these ‘Fathers of the Church’? It doesn’t make any sense according to Christ’s teaching. If they are greater… then their mystical and theological teachings are greater also. So, the Bible itself, which you would want to limit yourself to, refutes you in this passage. Why would you trust accounts and teachings of pre-Christian saints that came down to us from oral tradition, from about 2000+ B.C., i.e.. Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, etc.., and not trust the disciples and martyrs that made up the ‘mystical body of Christ’ in the pre-Nicaean Church to 325 AD? Again, it makes no sense. That ancient Judaism might be more trustworthy than ancient Christianity is an absurd assumption in light of Christ’s teaching above. It only reveals the great doubt existing in those that would believe such an irrational idea.

          Again, the Early Church Fathers were the “Mystical Body of Christ” back then, so it’s better to learn from them than denigrate and ignore them.

          And, don’t forget that there would be no Christian scriptures without the same early Fathers of the Church, who chose which writings they thought profitable as catechetical material in the weekly eucharistic liturgies held in those early times. So, without those same bishops and Fathers there would be no ‘New Testament’, as it was these same Christian patriarchs who selected the particular canon, out of multitudes of other options, to be included in the Church’s Holy Scriptures. The scriptures were never independent from the realm of the Church, but rather, emanated from the Church, as a practical resource for spreading the faith of Christ that they were teaching. So, again, this is another reason to praise those early ‘Fathers’, and saints, instead of brushing them off as nothing significant.

          …That is, unless you seek to lessen the significance, influence and impact of teachings of the Early Church, so as to reduce the theological competition it provides for new teachings and commentaries invented in the 16th century…the Protestant ones? Thus, the teachings of Luther and Calvin would be given prominence over Irenaus, Justin, Ignatius, Hippolytus, Cyril, Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, Hermas, Basil, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine, and all the others. Then, yes, it would make sense to discount the importance and value of the Early Church Fathers. It would be a good tactic to ‘white wash’ history so as to be able to create novel Christian ideologies, liturgies,theological doctrines, etc… that were not practiced by those ‘Fathers’. Very sensible.

          1. AWL: Rather than discounting “the Fathers”, you should be praising, assiduously studying, and rejoicing over them

            B: I discount them only to the degree that you leave the impression that they can do no wrong. We are perfectly happy to hear what they have to say, but as Cryil said, “Don’t believe ME, check it out with the Text”.

            AWL: They were the “mystical body of Christ” in the early centuries of which Jesus Himself described, when it was written:

            “And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.”

            So, as Christ loves His Church and defines it as His OWN SELF, to discount the Early Church Fathers is an insult to Christ Himself.

            AWL: The depths you are sinking into religious quagmire appears to very deep indeed. Under no circumstances whatsoever does Christ define the church as “his own self”. The word “church” is used over 100 times in the N.T. and nowhere is it either defined as the “Lord himself”, nor does it refer to a religious edifice in Rome wherein resides the fount and apex of all truth. The simple reading of the Text is that those who were persecuting Christians were essentially, persecuting and showing their contempt for Christ himself. …(which is exactly what he says: [“By persecuting THEM, you are, in essence, persecuting ME”]. Your diatribe that when I “persecute” someone in antiquity, I am thus, insulting Christ, is obnoxious to the highest degree. You do this yourself, do you not? Augustine, for example, stated that Christ, not Peter, was the Rock the church was built on, and in fact, half of the early witness comments on M-16 do NOT agree with RC dogma. Obviously, you don’t agree with Auggie either… and “persecute” him by sweeping him under the rug hoping we won’t notice. This is hypocritical. Your advice will never work because the biblical axiom is to test everything by the word of God and NOT to automatically “praise and rejoice” everything coming out of the early church!

            AWL: Moreover, you might consider the words of Christ comparing the Patriarchs of the Bible to His future Church which the same Early Fathers were building

            B: They were building it on CHRIST, not Peter, as shown by Augustine and too many others to list.

            AWL: “For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.” [Luke 7:28]

            This indicates that the ‘Fathers of the Church’ are greater than the Prophets of the Old Testament.

            B: Well, I’ll believe THAT when you can post a link which seconds your motion, of anyone in the history of the universe who ever commented on Luke 7 in any such manner.

            AWL: If they are greater… then their mystical and theological teachings are greater also.

            B: Sorry charlie, but to think in this manner, will only result in a passport to hell, according to the RCC. Augustine did NOT end up believing that Christ built his church on Peter, which is at loggerheads with Vatican 1, which at the end of the day, if you don’t believe everything THEY say about Petrine Primacy, salvation is “forfeited” and you cannot be saved. By their criteria then, we must believe Auggie is in hell.

            Without making any exceptions in your post to check these people out, your theory that these early luminaries are to embraced without any audition before Holy Writ, is unbiblical and unworkable, especially when you consider that’s a universally known truth that they do NOT always agree with each other! These disagreements turn your advice into dust.

          2. AWL: The scriptures were never independent from the realm of the Church, but rather, emanated from the Church, as a practical resource for spreading the faith of Christ that they were teaching.

            B: But if Paul was shocked that early church TEACHING had them, “so quickly deserting the one who called you”, your thesis that what the church was teaching orally should be on the same level as Holy Writ, collapses in a dead heap (Gal 1:6).

            AWL: So, again, this is another reason to praise those early ‘Fathers’, and saints, instead of brushing them off as nothing significant.

            B: So again, Galatians 1 proves there was a doctrinal trajectory in the area of soteriology, and that being so, all the more reason why the unbroken Scriptures must stand supreme.

        3. Good Day, Fellow Bloggers,

          At 9:01 am, November 9, 2017, Barry Baritone wrote: “Mockery, satire and sarcasm aren’t simply mean-spirited responses, they’re rhetorical weapons in the hands of those on the bottom. They defy the status quo, challenge power structures and strip away affectation.”

          I note that these words are directly from https://relevantmagazine.com/article/4-times-jesus-used-sarcasm-to-make-a-point/

          The specific paragraph in question occurs under this heading: IS RESPECT DEMANDED OF US?, four paragraphs up from the bottom.

          Question to Barry: Why not credit the authors for the words you post as if they were your own? In any event, I understand why you often use the word “we” when you post.

          Good day again, Everyone.

          1. M: Question to Barry: Why not credit the authors for the words you post as if they were your own?

            B: Cargo my love, in 99% of all my posts, I not only cite the places I quote from, but put my initial before anything I say. You will note that I did NOT put my sacred and holy initial before that quote because when the issue of sarcasm came up, I remember reading that article before, and then went to it and pulled it out and put it in my post at the top of my post, intending to use it within the box. Instead, I simply forgot to include it and it was left it at the top of the page with no citation.

            I’m sure you’re quite ashamed now, aren’t you?
            But please don’t make me think ill of you, as when those nasty boys got together to try and find something against Daniel….. they, being unsuccessful, had to concoct a game plan to make him look bad.
            Hopefully, this isn’t in your usual character. If so, I will refer you to the gent on this board who just told me he is acquainted with a good therapist and let him give you the number.

  24. Barry said: “B: You are insinuating that all those early Christians got it right. I don’t think so!”

    Lack of faith and “doubt” seems to be your problem, especially when ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ is what is called for in a spiritually mature Christian. St. Hermas, yes, another Father of the Church, from the early 2nd Century…describes the ‘doubting soul’, and a remedy for excessive doubting, very well, here:

    “Prayer Must Be Made to God Without Ceasing, and with Unwavering Confidence.

    He says to me, Put away doubting from you and do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself, ‘How can I ask of the Lord and receive from Him, seeing I have sinned so much against Him? ‘Do not thus reason with yourself, but with all your heart turn to the Lord and ask of Him without doubting, and you will know the multitude of His tender mercies; that He will never leave you, but fulfil the request of your soul. For He is not like men, who remember evils done against them; but He Himself remembers not evils, and has compassion on His own creature. Cleanse, therefore, your heart from all the vanities of this world, and from the words already mentioned, and ask of the Lord and you will receive all, and in none of your requests will you be denied which you make to the Lord without doubting. But if you doubt in your heart, you will receive none of your requests. For those who doubt regarding God are double-souled, and obtain not one of their requests. But those who are perfect in faith ask everything, trusting in the Lord; and they obtain, because they ask nothing doubting, and not being double-souled. For every double-souled man, even if he repent, will with difficulty be saved. Cleanse your heart, therefore, from all doubt, and put on faith, because it is strong, and trust God that you will obtain from Him all that you ask. And if at any time, after you have asked of the Lord, you are slower in obtaining your request [than you expected], do not doubt because you have not soon obtained the request of your soul; for invariably it is on account of some temptation or some sin of which you are ignorant that you are slower in obtaining your request. Wherefore do not cease to make the request of your soul, and you will obtain it. But if you grow weary and waver in your request, blame yourself, and not Him who does not give to you. Consider this doubting state of mind, for it is wicked and senseless, and turns many away entirely from the faith, even though they be very strong. For this doubting is the daughter of the devil, and acts exceedingly wickedly to the servants of God. Despise, then, doubting, and gain the mastery over it in everything; clothing yourself with faith, which is strong and powerful. For faith promises all things, perfects all things; but doubt having no thorough faith in itself, fails in every work which it undertakes. You see, then, says he, that, faith is from above— from the Lord — and has great power; but doubt is an earthly spirit, coming from the devil, and has no power. Serve, then, that which has power, namely faith, and keep away from doubt, which has no power, and you will live to God. And all will live to God whose minds have been set on these things.”

    from: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02012.htm

  25. “Irked” cited my words about material sufficiency in one of my papers:

    “It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed… A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can’t be proved from the text alone.” He added, “That’s pretty clearly not what Cyril says.”

    Barry Baritone wrote:

    “There could be no clearer statement of the principle of S.S. than what we read in Cyril. He says that all he teaches must be verified by S and nothing is to be accepted without it. . . . WHO CARES if Mr. C believed in the Mass! S.S. most certainly does NOT fail by Mr. C’s example because he was attempting to derive his doctrine from Scripture, PERIOD. ”

    As we have been saying, a given Church father’s views have to be determined by his entire body of teaching, not isolated prooftexts. Cyril clearly held to a very strong version of material sufficiency (Catholics also accept material sufficiency of Scripture, but deny formal sufficiency; i.e., sola Scriptura), but he did NOT hold to sola Scriptura. How do we know that? We know by the passages from his writings that I have already produced: that have been mostly ignored or rationalized away.

    In my book, “100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura,” I cited the most zealous defenders of sola Scriptura in my Introduction, in order to define it as these defenders do. Norman Geisler stated that “the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals” and “the sufficient and final written authority of God.” He explains that “the Fathers and early councils . . . Christian tradition” have their “usefulness” but that they are “of secondary importance.”

    Keith A. Mathison teaches that only Scripture is “inherently infallible” and “the supreme normative standard” and the “final standard” and “only final authoritative norm.” Any other “authorities” are “subordinate and derivative in nature.”

    I cite James White for almost a page. He contends for the same notions. Scripture contains “all God intends for us to have that is infallible, binding, and authoritative.” Neither Church nor tradition possess this authority. Hence, any tradition “must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.” So White concludes that “the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the ‘regulafidei’, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.”

    THAT is the definition of sola Scriptura, and it *precludes* by inescapable logic, these propositions:

    1) The Church is infallible and has binding authority.

    2) Sacred / apostolic tradition / apostolic succession are infallible and has binding authority.

    Therefore, if a Church father asserts #1 or #2 he does NOT teach sola Scriptura. It’s as simple as that. I’ve already [proven this in my two papers about St. Cyril, but I will offer more here. In Catechetical Lecture 18:23, Cyril informs us that the Catholic Church has a sublime (infallible) teaching authority: “it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly.” He also wrote about this Church in 18:25:

    “the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, ‘And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ [Matthew 16:18] . . . Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’ [1 Timothy 3:15].”

    I wrote a post in which I gave three biblical arguments for an infallible, authoritative Church.Two of them are above (and I hadn’t read the above before I wrote my post). The third is the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

    In 18:26 he decries “the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest,” and provides the solution to falling into their errors: “for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.” He makes the Church necessary for salvation in 18:28: “In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord.” He refers to sacred tradition and apostolic succession in 18:32 (“the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess”).

    He also mentions the centrality of Scriptures in determining doctrine (e.g., 18:30, 18:33), but not in a way that *precludes* Church and tradition. This is what is not understood by those who claim that Cyril is teaching sola Scriptura. He does not. He teaches precisely what Catholics believe today, as the rule of faith: the “three-legged stool” of “Bible-Church-Tradition.”

    The sola Scritpura advocate cold never say the things that Cyril said above about both Church and tradition, because he denies that they are infallible, and that they are a final authority alongside Scripture. Thus, Luther at the Diet of Worms specifically places Scripture *higher* than the Church and tradition by saying, “councils and can and do err. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, here I stand, I can do not other, etc.” He couldn’t and didn’t argue like Cyril does above because that is the Catholic Mind and Rule of Faith, which he was rejecting, by introducing the unscriptural novelty of sola Scriptura.

    Cyril talks about the inspired authority of Scripture, as he should, and as we do, but he places it within the authoritative interpretation of Holy Mother Church. Hence, he wrote:

    “But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. . . . So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you.” (Catechetical Lectures 5:12-13).

    He refers to “the tradition of the Church’s interpreters” (Catechetical Lectures 15:13)

    When Cyril refers to “proof” and “demonstration” from the Scriptures in 4:17, it depends what he means. If he means by that, “all doctrines to be believed are harmonious with Scripture, and must not contradict it,” this is simply material sufficiency and exactly what Catholics believe. If he means, “all doctrines to be believed must be explicitly explained and taught by Scripture and not derived primarily or in a binding fashion from the Church or tradition” then he would be espousing sola Scriptura. But it’s not at all established that this is what he meant. It is established that he accepted the binding authority of Church, tradition, and apostolic succession (“that apostolic and evangelic faith, which our fathers ever preserved and handed down to us as a pearl of great price”: To Celestine, Epistle 9).

    The notion that all doctrines must be *explicit* in Scripture in order to be believed (and only binding if so), is simply not taught in the Bible; i.e., sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. An authoritative, binding Church and tradition certainly are taught in Scripture, and those two things expressly contradict sola Scriptura.

    Conclusion: neither the Bible nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem teach sola Scriptura.

    1. Thanks for the comment, Dave.

      Such lessons as you provide (…as does Joe, of course) are why we Catholics frequent this blog. Little by little, month by month, we learn more and more about Christ’s holy faith. I hope you continue to comment here occasionally, as Joe continues to add new topics. Again, such debate and theological interaction is a great way for everyone to deepen his Christian faith life. And in this sense, and as you alluded to in one of your comments…we are fortunate to have Irked and Barry here to provoke us to study and research ( as opposed to them just shutting up and going away). We, therein, are then impelled to research some of the precious treasures found in ‘the deposit of faith’ (Scripture and the examples and teachings of the Saints and Fathers), so as to use it use it in our comments, just as you do with St. Cyril. With such study, twe are drawn close to those sacred lessons, and come to know the Christ’s Holy Church much better than if we didn’t have such an impetus (… the arguments of our Protestant friends) to provoke us to study. So, apologetics is a great way to deepen our understanding the holy faith that the Christ came to teach us.

      Best to you, and keep up the excellent arguments, apologetics and catechetical lessons. There are surely a lot of people who greatly benefit by them.

      1. You are again very kind; thanks. I’m just doing what I love and what God called me to. We used to say as evangelicals, about the gospel and salvation, “I’m just one beggar passing along to other beggars what I have found.” The same is true of the fullness of Catholic teaching. It’s fairly easy to defend because it’s true. What’s difficult is to defend what is untrue.

        I like to go where there is discussion, and there is currently a lot here. I found out about this thread by my name being mentioned. But I do prefer (almost exclusively) amiable and respectful discussion, and some folks here aren’t much into that, are they? 🙂 It was either Plato or Socrates who said that a true dialogue is only possible with one who has at least a minimal amount of respect for one’s position, and preferably with a friend. Otherwise, it’s just ships passing in the night or “mutual monologue.”

        But it IS worthwhile to clarify Catholic teaching or some point of scriptural or patristic teaching. I’ve done that and so have others, and our points (because they are based on simple, documented historical facts) have NOT been overcome.

          1. D.A. foxes flee to another more agreeable county [when they can’t answer a question].

            B: Oh stop it Dave. I asked you ever so kindly, with a rose in between my teeth, “Where pray tell may I find Christ… “saying”…. that the bread was… “truly”… his body that he was… “offering”… [to God in sacrifice at the Last Super before he went to the cross?” per CCC 1376?

            The only reply I recall was, “Zzzzz”.

          2. B: Oh stop it Dave. I asked you ever so kindly, with a rose in between my teeth, “Where pray tell may I find Christ… “saying”…. that the bread was… “truly”… his body that he was… “offering”… [to God in sacrifice at the Last Super before he went to the cross?” per CCC 1376?

            I answered you on 4 November at 10:26 PM and again on 6 November at 6:46 AM. You just doubled down on your error.

          3. AK: I answered you on 4 November at 10:26

            B: Your answer was unacceptable and would be thrown out of court if brought before a judge, as it will be on that final day.
            Giving me the definition of the word “truly” does not detract from my complaint…IN THE LEAST. Here we go again on the merry-go-round of RC apologetics; namely, telling me what Trent REALLY meant to say, ….and what the Bible REALLY means, and what the magisterium is REALLY trying to spit out because God and Trent and the magisterium are always speaking with cottonballs in their mouth. Sheesh!

            So save your breath about telling me what they REALLY meant. Were you there?
            Claiming guidance from on high “day by day”, they

            1) MISQUOTED JESUS CHRIST by telling us he said it was “TRULY” his body, when he did not say any such thing.
            2) told us that he was ***offering*** something, when there is no indication he was “offering” anything, let alone HIMSELF disguised as bread.
            3) and concludes various other things from the Text which are anachronistically read back into it to support their ludicrous assertions such as, “He never obligated anyone to take of both bread and wine because (comically) there is a place in chapter 6 where he only uses bread and not wine, and so we are to conclude only bread is necessary.”
            Nonsense! (See my 11:04).

            AK: Definition of truly…in all sincerity :sincerely

            B: Which was my very point. Christ used those words numerous times for emphasis but he did NOT use them at the Last Supper.

            You are refuted.

          4. As usual, again, and again and again…Jesus said “truly, truly” at John 6:53….how many times does Calvin say Jesus has to say something before the good heretic’s field hands and sock puppets will believe it?

          5. AK: As usual, again, and again and again…Jesus said “truly, truly” at John 6:53…

            B: I can only LOL. And as usual, again and again, I keep reminding you that I already KNOW what 6:53 says and that in fact, 6:53 is the quintessential point! Trent STOLE THAT WORD FROM 6:53 and transported them over to the L.S. where they do not belong!

            You have obviously been ordained to delusion, and so I certainly cannot hope to fight against the decree of Divine Providence, but instead, can only offer my sympathy.

        1. D.A. I’m just one beggar passing along to other beggars what I have found.”

          B: Yes. And Mr. Luther said the same thing:

          “Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles…“We are beggars. That is true.” – Martin Luther

          D.A. the fullness of Catholic teaching [is] fairly easy to defend because it’s true.

          B: On the contrary, Catholicism is a pack of lies, equivalent to brittle egg shells just begging to be stomped on.
          Considering, for example, that up to 70% of Catholics don’t know WHAT the helicopter is going on in the Eucharist, I’d say the RCC is frankly, doing a miserable job when it comes to…”defending”.

          http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/seventy-percent-of-roman-catholics-do.html

          1. I didn’t join this thread to argue about eucharistic theology. My name was mentioned when someone found my paper about St. Cyril and sola Scriptura. I’ve stayed on that topic the whole time.I’m a big believer in staying on topic and in not switching topics when one finds it difficult to answer.

            My “ZZZZzzzzz” (since you haven’t yet figured it out) was primarily in response to your insinuation that I was a coward because I deleted your comments on my page. You were replying to my comments on . . . Cyril of Jerusalem and SS . . . , but switched it over to the eucharistic discussion (which I haven’t commented on at all) and my moderation policy on my pages.

            The “70% of Catholics deny the Real Presence” canard is exaggerated, as I have written about:

            https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/1568247419876904

            Surely there is still a lot of ignorance and nominalism and theological liberalism in our ranks, but not as bad as our biggest critics make out.

      2. AWL: Barry [usually] just [shuts] up and [goes] away.

        B: In light of the fact that I have answered as much as is humanly possible for me to do, and in light of the fact that I have a larger word count than anyone on this board, all must conclude that you are nothing but damn liar.
        In an effort to make your opponent look bad, you grossly over-exaggerate and descend into the depths of dishonesty. This is precisely what happened at Trent when they misquoted the Lord in CCC 1376 (and you had better believe I intend to mention that as often as I can). Trent was so furious at the opposing view, that in their mad dash for victory , they exhibited the typical human tendency to overstate their case, (which is what you do here) and which of course can only be indicative of men who were NOT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, all Roman claims….every single last one of them….. are to be rejected, according to the Lord himself per Deut 18:21 and Jeremiah 23:30-40.

    2. D.A. As we have been saying, a given Church father’s views have to be determined by his entire body of teaching, not isolated prooftexts.

      B: That is true to a POINT, but not to the exclusion of the similar truth that isolated texts may very WELL, and often do, stand on their own (e.g., being told, “thou shalt not steal” is clear enough). The fact that Cyril said not even to believe HIM, but to check things out with Holy Writ, WE SAY, can stand on its own. I have read your quotes which supposedly prove the contrary and I am not convinced.

      Now to everything else in you said in your post here, there is a reply that can stand head and shoulders over your assertions. I had to decide if it was worthwhile to go through all your dicta in light of the fact that your foundation is cracked at the get-go. I decided it was NOT worth the time, because if your foundation is cracked, then it follows that everything else you submit has splinters also. Here’s your crack…

      D.A. Catholics also accept material sufficiency of Scripture, but deny formal sufficiency; i.e., sola Scriptura.

      B: To get our terms straight: The material sufficiency of S is basically saying that everything one needs for salvation is contained therein. So does the Bible! We read that S is able to make us “wise unto salvation”, period, end of story. The RCC does NOT agree with this this and you darn well know it, especially since you claim to have read Webster & King’s monumental opus.
      Essentially, what the RCC DOES say is, “You need the church to tell you what the Text “formally” means so it is therefore not “formally” sufficient. We say this distinction would be laughed at by Jesus Christ himself and amounts to a crock of bull-ONEY. While we do not dismiss the office of a teacher, ultimately, it is God’s job to open up our eyes! “Then opened he their eyes to understand the Scriptures”. Case closed.
      The yada yada yada claim that the church has to do this that and the other thing to make things “CLEAR” is perfectly ridiculous and is simply another trick to make people think they are dumber than they are. The fact of the matter is all the early luminaries said OVER AND OVER AGAIN to the point of nausea that the Scriptures were….(watch it now!)…”CLEAR”. But let me guess…. you don’t want to adhere to THAT tradition, do you? Read it and weep….

      http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-fifth.html

      Now, you are simply being dishonest when you say the RCC denies the F.S. of Scripture. Where, pray tell, has the RCC “officially” rendered a verdict on this may I ask?
      Answer?
      NOWHERE.
      So we must use common sense and history to easily refute your opinion, for that is exactly what it is, nothing but your opinion to make sure that such satanic lies as as papal subordination and the marian dogmas be taught as “necessary for salvation”.
      Moving right along, what you omit to say is the fact that the RCC has typically denied BOTH the material AND the formal. Let’s say it again….They have…TRADITIONALLY….denied BOTH, rendering your thesis null and void.
      So where’s the beef? The beef, sir, resides in going back to your lovely canonized saint Mr. Bellarmine…

      “We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is NOT contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God”…. [Scripture] is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into TWO partial rules, Scripture and tradition.”

      And right up to your retired Pope Benedict…”No one is seriously able to maintain that there is proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine” (from his,”The Transmission of Divine Revelation”, contained in, “Commentary on the Documents of V-2”, vol 3, p. 195, by H. Vorgrimler). Consequently, these two quotes alone are enough to prove the absolute DENIAL of the material sufficiency of S which you wish us to believe the RCC holds to! So while the RCC demands BOTH, the Bible says the Scriptures are ENOUGH to know what it takes to get to heaven.
      This is why I am dismissing the rest of your post…(not that I would ignore anything else you might say elsewhere).

      1. Yeah, I check everything with Scripture, too (as does the Catholic Church). It’s my specialty: my website is called “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”. So what? That determines nothing one way or another with regard to sola Scriptura. The sooner you figure that out, the better for the logic of your analyses.I think you understand the definition of sola Scriptura (but maybe not); so you must not understand the logic of the various propositions being discussed and how they relate to each other.

        “I had to decide if it was worthwhile to go through all your dicta in light of the fact that your foundation is cracked at the get-go. I decided it was NOT worth the time, . . .”

        Yes, of course! This is what folks always do when faced with matters of verifiable historical fact that don’t go along with their preconceived notions, for which they want to special plead: play logical games, rationalize why the relevant data ought not be reckoned with and refuted (if indeed that is able to be done).

        You have written enough words in this combox to make “War and Peace” look like a comic strip on a bubble gum wrapper, yet you can’t bring yourself to refute a few passages from St. Cyril that demolish your pretentious claims about him.

        It’s classic anti-Catholicism. I’ve encountered it again and again in the current crop of anti-Catholic polemicists (White, Webster, Engwer, King, Ken Temple, Turretinfan, James Swan, Eric Svendsen, Steve Hays) and in the historic ones as well (Whitaker, Goode, Chemnitz, Luther, Calvin).

        However you try to distract unsuspecting readers, the fact remains, and has been demonstrated, that St. Cyril of Jerusalem could not possibly have believed in sola Scriptura, as defined by the most able Protestants of the past (Whitaker and Goode: against whom I wrote an entire book) or present (Geisler, Mathison, White).

        I’m not gonna play your sophistical games and ring-around-the-rosey. You may think that impresses people. I don’t think it’s impressive at all. It’s merely a subterfuge and sophistry to avoid the point at hand (and the only one I am addressing):

        +++++ Did St. Cyril of Jerusalem espouse sola Scriptura? +++++

        He did not, and I proved that. You obviously haven’t disproven my contentions because by your own words you have chosen not to engage them at all. You make a bald denial (“I am not convinced”), which is, of course, no rational argument. Then you “decided it was NOT worth the time” to address my actual arguments (which are simply citations of Cyril and drawing the rather obvious conclusions from them), and that you would be “dismissing the rest of [my] post.”

        Having done that, you attempt to move the discussion to the finer points of material and formal sufficiency. Nice try, but that’s not the topic at hand, and you fool no one by cynically switching horses in mid-stream.

        Again, I don’t play those games, and I’m interested in true dialogue and debate and arriving at the fullness of truth and the historical facts (the present discussion being of the nature of historical determination of what a certain person believed in theology), as can best be ascertained.

        If your case is indeed so superior, you would dismantle my claims and prove them wrong. It would and should be easy. But since you can’t do that, you chose sophistry, obfuscation, obscurantism, and evasion, instead.

        At least you give some sort of reply (though it’s pitiful). Webster and King never do so. I refuted Webster at length twice, regarding development of doctrine and tradition (in 2000 and 2003), informed him of it, and never heard a word back. He is massively ignorant of both things.

        David T. King claimed (loudly and condescendingly, on Eric Svendsen’s old discussion forum) that Cardinal Newman was a modernist, and that Pope St. Pius X thought so, too. He mocked people who started disagreeing with him. I proved from from a personal letter of that pope that this was the exact opposite of the truth. That was in March 2002. King then shut up and has never attempted to interact with an argument of mine ever since (now 15 1/2 years, with no end in sight): though he has called me lots and lots of names.And I have refuted contentions of his several times since. He never replies.

        So you keep up the same pattern, with which I am quite (and sadly) familiar. It’s pathetic. I don’t know how you can look yourself (“intellectually”) in the mirror.

        1. D.A. I check everything with Scripture, too (as does the Catholic Church).

          B: You left my post at 4:06 unanswered, so let’s repeat the supposed RC protocol to …”check everything with S”. We read:

          “Still, fundamentalists ask, “where is the proof [for the Assumption] from Scripture?
          Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commisioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that is true (Keating, in C& A, p. 275).

          “We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is NOT contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God”…. [Scripture] is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into TWO partial rules, Scripture and tradition.” (St. Rob Bell).

          ”No one is seriously able to maintain that there is proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine” (Pope Benedict, in his,”The Transmission of Divine Revelation”).

          You are refuted.

          D.A. .I think you understand the definition of sola Scriptura (but maybe not);

          B: I proved YOU did not understand the RC ethic when it comes to the material and formal sufficiency of S, as shown above by quotes you had never wished happened. Your comment that the RCC denies the F.S. of Scripture (because the church is supposedly needed to make everything officially “clear”) is A-historical and unbiblical. The VERY LONG article I provided with one witness after another (ad nauseum) proving S is clear ENOUGH, makes burnt toast out of your erroneous assertion that it is not. All you do is ignore it and say I’m playing games, or I’m “sticking my chest out too far”… yada yada yada…all of which I’m completely unintimidated by.

          D.A. the fact remains, and has been demonstrated, that St. Cyril of Jerusalem could not possibly have believed in sola Scriptura

          B: You yourself said that a given Church father’s views have to be determined by his ENTIRE body of teaching, not isolated prooftexts. Now the reason your quotes don’t have to be analyzed is because your thesis fails at the get-go. First, because it is ultimately irrelevant, as we are more interested in what God has to say about Scripture rather than what someone says 300 years later. Second, Cyril did not accept the Apocrypha, so what are you doing petting him on the head for what he has to say about anything else? Moreover, Cyril doesn’t even mention papal primacy or that Holy Writ was to be put under the care of the “Mother Church” in Rome. Third, is it not true that the entire purpose of Cyril’s work ,was to teach new Christians the most important points of the faith? Well? He apparently left out a couple of vital components that identifies the modern Catholic persona. That being so, Cyril is not able to bear the weight of importance you ask him to carry to the court of public opinion. We will be happy to let him speak and then we will be happy to take his own advice and check things out with the Word, exactly as the Berean’s did in Acts. Fourth, since you are so desperate for me to say something directly about Mr. C’s writings, I will simply refer to his… “the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures”. He believes in the material sufficiency of S and says SALVATION depends on it. He does not refer to salvation being dependent on any traditions and so we see once again the man is at loggerheads with the Roman rubric which says that the church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from S alone” (CCC 82). Cyril would rejects this view.
          Kindly note that I am saying all this in perfect harmony with your own advice to take the “whole” of a person’s writing into consideration.
          Finally, if what Protestants have derived from reading Mr. C is so wrong, how do you explain this RC scholar writing a book on Mr. C and saying,

          “Cyril subscribed to a form of sola scriptura doctrine, stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures” (Edward Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 56).

          https://books.google.com/books?id=qdeFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=“Cyril+subscribed+to+a+form+of+sola+scriptura+doctrine,+stating+categorically+that+every+doctrinal+statement+must+be+based+on+the&source=bl&ots=DNyGUqohKS&sig=xjwWOQQP8k_xkd8AcV8LBcnjwKo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYlsWMl7PXAhWG8YMKHSM6BuIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=“Cyril%20subscribed%20to%20a%20form%20of%20sola%20scriptura%20doctrine%2C%20stating%20categorically%20that%20every%20doctrinal%20statement%20must%20be%20based%20on%20the&f=false

          Previously I said:
          “I had to decide if it was worthwhile to go through all your dicta in light of the fact that your foundation is cracked at the get-go. I decided it was NOT worth the time, . . .”

          D.A. Yes, of course! This is what folks always do when faced with matters of verifiable historical fact that don’t go along with their preconceived notions

          B: Yes, and each and every person on this thread including you has run away from Trent taking Jesus out of context. Tell me about it Dave, and set it to music while you’re at it.

          D.A. Did St. Cyril of Jerusalem espouse sola Scriptura? He did not, and I proved that.

          B: You did not.

          D.A. You obviously haven’t disproven my contentions because by your own words you have chosen not to engage them at all.

          B: I have retracted those words somewhat and state my case above and will certainly not spend any more time on it. I have provided enough to cast a black cloud over your theory and it is time to let this topic go.

          D.A. If your case is indeed so superior, you would dismantle my claims and prove them wrong. It would and should be easy.

          B: It was.

          1. You’re allover the map as usual.You have not addressed the in-context quotes Dave referenced…just other unrelated material and covered it with a veneer of bluster, which you *always * do.

            You’re doing a fine job making our case for us.

          2. AK: You’re allover the map as usual.

            B: Everything I said at 1:47 STANDS.

            AK: You [submit] unrelated material and covered it with a veneer of bluster

            B: You are a foolish blind guide leading the blind in your RCIA class. Everything I said at 1:47 is SPOT ON to the issue at hand and it is only YOUR worthless comments that may be considered “bluster”.

            AK: You have not addressed the in-context quotes Dave referenced…

            B: What I said was enough. Furthermore, you have not addressed Trent taking Jesus OUT of context because there izzzzz no explanation. They were wrong.
            BTW, we have no problem with Cyril referring to the church as “catholic” since you know darn well what the word means. He does NOT hold to the catechism’s bogus claim in 834 that all churches from the BEGINNING have recognized Rome to be the light of the world! What a truckload of rotten bananas!

            You’re doing a fine job making our case for us.