Thankyou for providing all the evidence needed to prove that the apostasy of the church began so early, and proof that the supporters of the Roman apostasy so early demanded obedience, not to Christ, but to the bishop of Rome who already had taken on the role of Antichrist.
Books Outside the Bible
- Thread starter Mayflower
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
less falsehood.. more Bible please.
For example - heresy following Paul's "departure" from "within" ...
17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,
“You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time..29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears."
And your "solution" is to go to the THIRD CENTURY for "pure doctrine"??
The rest of us prefer the actual Word of God. Surely you would have noticed this by now.
Certainly it is true that the RCC and EO were falling all over themselves trying to excommunicate each other at one time.
Not very unlike the RCC popes themselves calling each other "antichrist" at the time of Luther.
Starts to become more and more understandable as to why Pope Clement XIV forever abolished the Jesuit order "by all the fullness of Apostolic power" that he had "as Pope".
How the Satanic Black Mass Proves the Truth of Catholicism
There have been a number of stories in the news lately of small Satanic groups publicly performing so-called “Black Masses.”
These rituals are based on the Catholic mass but are inverted toward Satan and often involve the desecration of a Eucharistic host.
This sort of thing is evil and should not be taken lightly. It’s also occurred to me, though, how these Black Masses offer a powerful argument for the truth of Catholicism.
The Eucharist is either Jesus or mere bread and wine.
If the Eucharist is Jesus, everyone should be at Mass, worshipping Our Lord. If the Eucharist is Jesus, there should be no such thing as Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, atheism, etc. But if the Eucharist isn’t Jesus, then for two thousand years, the would-be followers of Jesus Christ were actually idolaters. If that’s the case, nobody should be Catholic.
So those are the stakes. Everyone who encountered Jesus of Nazareth was faced with a crucial question: is this God, in some mysterious guise, or not? The early Christians called this the “aut Deus aut malus homo” (“either God or a bad man”). Everyone encountering the Eucharist is faced with the same question: either God or idolatry.
And of course, if the Eucharist is pagan idolatry, it’s demonic. As 1 Corinthians 10:20 says, “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.”
The whole world hangs on this point: is the Eucharist Jesus or an idol? Is the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered to God, or to demons?
Satan Hates the Eucharist
The satanic Black Mass is a ritual inversion (and mockery) of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed by Satanists. Now, there are two types of Satanists: “LaVey Satanists,” and “theological Satanists.” LaVey Satanists atheists who don’t believe in Satan, and use “Satanism” as a tool to harass and provoke Christians (unlike“theological Satanists,” who believe in Satan and worship him). But whether the practitioners are playing at the occult, or serious, there’s no question that they’re tapping into some seriously dark spiritual forces. Satan is at work here.
And it worth pointing out that when Satanists (of both kind) want to mock a religious ritual, you can bet that it’s going to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they target. How often do you hear about Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (or even Protestant) services being subjected to such intense Satanic mockery?
Nor is this Satanic targeting of the Mass anything new. As far back as the fourth century, St. Epiphanius of Salamis described a sect of Gnosticism performing a perverted mockery of Mass. I won’t go into the details, but it was graphic enough that the members of this sect became known as “Borborians” (“filthy ones”).
Satan Doesn’t Drive Out Satan
So the Eucharist is either Jesus or evil (since if it’s not Jesus, it’s idolatry) and since the devil hates the Eucharist, we can cross “evil” off the list.
For some additional Biblical support, consider Matthew 12.22-28:
“Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”
“Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Be-el′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
This passage is important: it shows, for example, that Catholic exorcists are operating by the Spirit of God when they drive out demons. But it also means that if Satan hates the Mass, we can be sure that the Mass isn’t evil.
Of course, if the Mass isn’t demonic, if it isn’t idolatry, that really only leaves one option: that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is presenting Jesus to the Father. This (and as far as I can tell, this alone), accounts for the Satanic mockery.
The Target of Satan
Even if the only thing you knew about Catholicism was that its central form of worship, the Mass, was the target of Satanic ire, you would already have good reason to believe that Catholicism was the true religion.
But taken with all of the other evidence for the truth that the Eucharist is Jesus, that the Mass is a Sacrifice instituted by God, and that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, Satan is just one more (unwitting) witness for the truth of Jesus Christ and His Church.
How the Satanic Black Mass Proves the Truth of Catholicism | ChurchPOP
Last edited:
No. All it means is that Satan is covering both bases with the same counterfeit. Tell me. If the 'eucharist' is a desecration in the black mass, does that mean the Satanist priests have the power to change the bread into the body of Christ as well as Catholic priests? And once changed, they then 'desecrate' the host? So God approved of this by allowing the host to become himself during the black mass? If it isn't an actual eucharist, then it isn't a desecration is it. Is just the same as the Catholic wafer...a piece of bread.
Paul is talking about Gnostic heretics, not bishops. "fierce wolves will come in among you" means they were not internal, they came in from outside.
Paul, John, Ignatius wrote in opposition to these people.
Your understanding of "doctrine" has undergone many changes over the last century. You mean something all together different.
What Is Doctrine?
The term "doctrine" comes from the Latin word doctrina, which simply means "teaching."
As used today, though, the word means a bit more than that. Ideas developed by a faithful Catholic theologian may represent Catholic theology but that do not make them Catholic doctrine.
For that the intervention of the Magisterium is needed, so a basic definition of the term is that a doctrine is a proposition (or set of propositions) taught by the Magisterium of the Church. (the Seat of Moses is the pre-Christian Jewish Magisterium, the moderators here are a type magisterium so don't let that word give you fits)
In some cases the term "doctrine" may be used to refer to things that have been infallibly taught by the Magisterium. It may even be used as a synonym for "dogma," but it is easy to show that this is not always the case.
For example, the Code of Canon Law provides that:
Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
All dogmas are infallibly defined, as we will see, so this reveals that there can be doctrines that are not infallible and thus that are not dogmas.
What Are Dogma, Doctrine, and Theology?
Last edited:
That is called junk history. Lies by omission, and plain lies.
"...So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations...
...It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church...
...When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
Tyndale's Heresy | Catholic Answers
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Everyone's account of history but the Catholic Church's whitewashed version is "junk history." Yeah, right.
Epo, you have too many arrows in that graphic showing the Bible off to the side. That's the problem--not giving God's written Word the place of prominence it deserves.
Epo, you have too many arrows in that graphic showing the Bible off to the side. That's the problem--not giving God's written Word the place of prominence it deserves.
@Marymog recently put the Catholic view of scripture in perfect perspective, perhaps unwittingly, but succinctly nevertheless. In referring to herself and her fellow Catholics, she said, quote, us non Bible believing Christians.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Ouch! She was probably being sarcastic, but I will keep praying for her, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way.
Last edited:
I reference Protestant historians all the time, which you reject anyway. What you cannot prove, using "Bible alone", is that Tradition and the Magisterium are not necessary. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is the biblical rule of faith, all working together, all in harmony. .One is not "over" the other, contrary to anti-Catholic myth. That's why you are forced to change the meaning of words.
The little paragraph under the heading "Sacred Tradition" doesn't fit your preconceptions, so you harm the integrity of the written Word by ignoring the spoken Word. They are inter-related, they cannot contradict. They are different modes of transmission and one is not inferior to the other. God is not limited to just one mode (which is not in the Bible in the first place).
I'm still waiting for a verse that uses "Word of God" to mean the written word alone.
2 Timothy 3
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures
The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures
The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
- Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
- Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
- Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
- Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!
Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
This passage doesn't teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and the Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn't there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy, let's examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11-15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
Library : A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
This passage doesn't teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and the Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn't there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy, let's examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11-15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
Library : A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
A picture is worth a thousand words, eh? I’ll take my thousand words from the Bible!
I assure you, Epo, the Catholic Church is not necessary for me to live the way God directs me to live and know what He wants me to know.... I truly wish I could help you understand that.
I assure you, Epo, the Catholic Church is not necessary for me to live the way God directs me to live and know what He wants me to know.... I truly wish I could help you understand that.
Last edited:
You know there are a lot of posts where we differ - but I have to admit that this portion of your post is one that almost everyone here can agree with 100%.
Where you may be "losing it" is that we all know that if I make up a crude flag with the words "Jesus is LORD" and "Praise God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" on it. And I add some flowers and a nice picture... and then an atheist comes along steals the flag out of my house and drags it through the mud. they are only desecrating something that I myself made up - a flag.. but because I put God's name on it - they are at some level insulting God.
Has nothing to do with whatever claims I may have made about that flag being "super special" or a false claim that God will be very careful to hear the prayer of anyone holding that flag... it would still be disrespecting God to drag it through the mud.
Bob
Turns out that nothing in Ephesians 4 cancel 2 Tim 3:16, or Acts 17:11 or Mark 7:6-13. Your idea of canceling scriptures that you don't prefer with something in Ephesians 4 is not compelling.
You have just exposed the flaw in your own argument.
The "Sola Scriptura" doctrine that all teaching and tradition must be tested by the Word of God to "see IF it is so" - if it is approved.. or to see that it contradicts God's Word... is not the same thing as the doctrine "tradition does not exist" which you appear to have imagined for us - just then.
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,462
- 1,704
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Hi bob,
I thought we were talking about the 12th and 13th centuries? You know that the dark ages were from roughly the 5th to 11th century?
Dark Ages - New World Encyclopedia
Migration period | European history
It appears you don't know your own Christian history. I refer you to @BreadOfLife post #825 as a starting point.
There is no excuse for what any Christian church leader did no matter if they were Protestant or Catholic.
You don't seem "very curious" to me since you only want to point out what the CC did and not acknowledge what the Protestant churches did which were the SAME THING!!
Historical Mary
Similar threads
