The Council of Trent and its support of paganism.

  • 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!

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Chick Publications? More lies and false histories. It would take a book to refute them all. They don't hold up to scrutiny; they fail the 4 logical test questions in post #36. Here it is again:
Is Catholicism Pagan?
I will not waste my time with a revisionist that denies the Trinity and references anti-Catholic bigots like Richard Bennett and Jack Chick. You disqualify yourself.
You don't do yourself any favours by discrediting your opponents and calling them liars without proving by substantive evidence that they are, in effect lying.

Read the New Testament and compare Roman Catholic doctrine and practice with it. If it ain't in the New Testament then it is decidedly false.

And the pictures of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles with spare tyres (halos) around their head are just like pictures depicting occult auras around people. And I don't read of Peter, supposedly the first "pope" wearing a triple crown, or a mitre on his head, or any other wacky headgear.

Also, the altar of Jewish sacrifice did not carry over to early church worship, but it was re-introduced in Catholic churches as the altar to hold the Eucharist sacrifice of what is pretended to be the actual blood of body of the Lord. Or was it because of the Roman pagan temples being taken over by Christian churches and the altar of pagan sacrifice not removed but recycled as the Eucharist sacrifice altar.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
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.

[See also: Why Satan Is So Scared of St. John Paul II, According to Rome’s Chief Exorcist]

[See also: A Priest’s Warning Against the Devil’s 10 Deadliest Tricks]

The Eucharist is either Jesus or Evil
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.
The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual that replaced that of the type of sacrifice that was performed in the pagan temples. The word doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament. Paul called it the Lord's Supper, as a memorial of the finished work of Christ on Calvary. It was not a ritualised sacrificial ceremony performed by a "priest" at an altar. It was a fellowship meal rather than a bit of wafer and a sip of wine. The fact that Paul said that insensitive members made gluttons of themselves and got drunk on the wine, and others less fortunate went hungry, showed that it actually was a fellowship meal, instead of a ritualised Lord's "small snack". People gathered around the table on which the food and wine was placed, and that is why it is also called "The Lord's Table".
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual that replaced that of the type of sacrifice that was performed in the pagan temples. The word doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament. Paul called it the Lord's Supper, as a memorial of the finished work of Christ on Calvary. It was not a ritualised sacrificial ceremony performed by a "priest" at an altar. It was a fellowship meal rather than a bit of wafer and a sip of wine. The fact that Paul said that insensitive members made gluttons of themselves and got drunk on the wine, and others less fortunate went hungry, showed that it actually was a fellowship meal, instead of a ritualised Lord's "small snack". People gathered around the table on which the food and wine was placed, and that is why it is also called "The Lord's Table".
Do you mean "The Lord's Table" the reformers unbiblically replaced with a podium? If "The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual, how does that explain why Satan hates the Eucharist so much?

The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions “religio-historical parallels”, corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not unfrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
Eucharist

Strong's Concordance
2169. eucharistia
eucharistia: thankfulness, giving of thanks
Original Word: εὐχαριστία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: eucharistia
Phonetic Spelling: (yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah)
Definition: thankfulness, giving of thanks
Usage: thankfulness, gratitude; giving of thanks, thanksgiving.
 
Last edited:

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,247
3,444
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Speaking as a non-Catholic person who doesn't beive the Lord's Supper is literally blood & flesh--
I don't remotely find the Catholic position to be idolatry and find such a suggestion very offensive on behalf of Catholics. I do believe that Catholics are mistaken in their interpretation, but it's not remotely idolatry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You don't do yourself any favours by discrediting your opponents and calling them liars without proving by substantive evidence that they are, in effect lying.
Because its a waste of time. Were Chick Publications required reading when you got your M of D?? Hobie doesn't accept the Trinity, so where does he get his "history"?? From anti-Catholic hate sites; there are billions to choose from.
Read the New Testament and compare Roman Catholic doctrine and practice with it. If it ain't in the New Testament then it is decidedly false.
Catholic doctrine and practice is primarily sourced from Scripture, directly or indirectly. Your dogmatic statement is decidedly false. Sola scriptura, the pillar and ground of Protestantism, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.
And the pictures of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles with spare tyres (halos) around their head are just like pictures depicting occult auras around people. And I don't read of Peter, supposedly the first "pope" wearing a triple crown, or a mitre on his head, or any other wacky headgear.
It's no less wacky than the head gear of the Old Testament high priest.
Also, the altar of Jewish sacrifice did not carry over to early church worship, but it was re-introduced in Catholic churches as the altar to hold the Eucharist sacrifice of what is pretended to be the actual blood of body of the Lord. Or was it because of the Roman pagan temples being taken over by Christian churches and the altar of pagan sacrifice not removed but recycled as the Eucharist sacrifice altar.
More false history and denial of what the Jewish sacrifice foreshadowed. No primary or secondary documentation, just lame assertions. Catholicism is the fulfilment of Judaism. You can't make that claim so you make up a bunch of nonsense about pagan origins. You skipped over post #60 and that is rather telling.

Gen. 14:18 – this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 – Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 – this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 – this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 – God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 – this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 – only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Do you mean "The Lord's Table" the reformers unbiblically replaced with a podium? If "The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual, how does that explain why Satan hates the Eucharist so much?

The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions “religio-historical parallels”, corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not unfrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
Eucharist

Strong's Concordance
2169. eucharistia
eucharistia: thankfulness, giving of thanks
Original Word: εὐχαριστία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: eucharistia
Phonetic Spelling: (yoo-khar-is-tee'-ah)
Definition: thankfulness, giving of thanks
Usage: thankfulness, gratitude; giving of thanks, thanksgiving.
What the RCC has done is to turn a fellowship meal to commemorate the finished work of Jesus on the cross to a paganised ritual that is devoid of much of the original meaning.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Because its a waste of time. Were Chick Publications required reading when you got your M of D?? Hobie doesn't accept the Trinity, so where does he get his "history"?? From anti-Catholic hate sites; there are billions to choose from. Catholic doctrine and practice is primarily sourced from Scripture, directly or indirectly. Your dogmatic statement is decidedly false. Sola scriptura, the pillar and ground of Protestantism, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.
It's no less wacky than the head gear of the Old Testament high priest.
More false history and denial of what the Jewish sacrifice foreshadowed. No primary or secondary documentation, just lame assertions. Catholicism is the fulfilment of Judaism. You can't make that claim so you make up a bunch of nonsense about pagan origins. You skipped over post #60 and that is rather telling.

Gen. 14:18 – this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 – Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 – this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 – this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 – God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 – this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 – only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic
Actually I got a lot of information from a two hour video documentary made by a group of Vatican insiders showing the extent of corruption in the Vatican that is revealing how much of a cult the RCC really is.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Because its a waste of time. Were Chick Publications required reading when you got your M of D?? Hobie doesn't accept the Trinity, so where does he get his "history"?? From anti-Catholic hate sites; there are billions to choose from. Catholic doctrine and practice is primarily sourced from Scripture, directly or indirectly. Your dogmatic statement is decidedly false. Sola scriptura, the pillar and ground of Protestantism, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.
I have no problem with the Catholic doctrine that originated from Scripture. But there are many doctrines that are formulated by successful popes from "the Chair of Peter" that are extra-Biblical "new" revelation. Many of these doctrines were introduced by popes who were fornicators, adulterers, who sired illegitimate children, and some at a time of church history when there were two popes in competition with each other! And other times when a pope was kicked out and replaced by someone chosen by an opposing faction in the church. Sort of destroys the "Apostolic Succession" idea.
It's no less wacky than the head gear of the Old Testament high priest.
The Old Testament priesthood was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. The RCC priesthood has nothing to do with the OT priesthood. It emulates the pagan priesthood of the First Century.
More false history and denial of what the Jewish sacrifice foreshadowed. No primary or secondary documentation, just lame assertions. Catholicism is the fulfilment of Judaism. You can't make that claim so you make up a bunch of nonsense about pagan origins. You skipped over post #60 and that is rather telling.
The Christian church may be the fulfilment of Judaism, but does not copy it. It is a fact of secular history where the historians had no theological or religious bias, that Constantine kept his pagan beliefs and introduced them into the Christian church.

Gen. 14:18 – this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 – Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 – this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.
The priesthood of Melchizedek foreshadowed the high priesthood of Christ, as set out in the book of Hebrews. The idea that it was fulfilled by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the RCC is a nonsense twist of the Scripture, by some adulterous pope who thought he could do that from the nonsensical "Chair" of Peter.

Malachi 1:11 – this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.
Malachi isn't a false prophet. It is a Messianic prophecy centred around Christ and not a sacrifice on a neo-pagan altar.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.
The Passover lamb is a foreshadow of the lamb of God who was sacrificed once and for all on the cross. It was fulfilled at the crucifixion of Christ.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.
Jesus offered Himself by dying on the cross to take the penalty of sin away from those who accept Him as Saviour. Hebrews is quite clear that this offering is "once and for all". Jesus went and offered His blood in the presence of the Father in the heavenly Holy of Holies. Therefore the continual offering of Christ's blood in the pagan Eucharist ritual is a falsehood totally contrary to what is clearly stated in the Book of Hebrews.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 – God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 – this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 – only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic
The Old Testament priesthood is no longer active. It was abolish when the Temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom. The RCC is not following the Levitical priesthood at all. It is an adaption of the pagan priesthood of the Roman empire in the first two centuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietthinker

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual that replaced that of the type of sacrifice that was performed in the pagan temples

Wrong again...

9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}


Didache circa AD 70

Peace!
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Wrong again...

9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}


Didache circa AD 70

Peace!
All that proves is that he is describing the Lord's Supper observed during the First Century, long before it was changed to the paganised version of the RCC.
 

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
All that proves is that he is describing the Lord's Supper observed during the First Century, long before it was changed to the paganised version of the RCC.

It proves rather that the term Eucharist was being used in reference to the Table of the Lord while the apostles were still alive.
Thus demonstrating that this:
The term "Eucharist" was coined to describe the paganistic sacrifice ritual that replaced that of the type of sacrifice that was performed in the pagan temples.

was false.

Further the Didache also demonstrates that the Eucharist is the Christian sacrifice:

14:1 And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;
14:4 {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;
14:5 for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations.}


Peace!
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I have no problem with the Catholic doctrine that originated from Scripture. But there are many doctrines that are formulated by successful popes from "the Chair of Peter" that are extra-Biblical "new" revelation. Many of these doctrines were introduced by popes who were fornicators, adulterers, who sired illegitimate children, and some at a time of church history when there were two popes in competition with each other! And other times when a pope was kicked out and replaced by someone chosen by an opposing faction in the church. Sort of destroys the "Apostolic Succession" idea.
Name one doctrine proclaimed by any bad pope or anti-pope. You can't because there aren't any. You make assertions with no primary or secondary sources, just like Hobie does with his Mithra obsession.

The Old Testament priesthood was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. The RCC priesthood has nothing to do with the OT priesthood. It emulates the pagan priesthood of the First Century.
A Modernist invention. Was the Washing of the Feet a pagan ritual?
In John 13 we find evidence that real ontological transformation is in view. But transformation into what? Into priests, as in John 13 we also find parallels to Leviticus 16, which concerns the priestly Day of Atonement ritual:

Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (Lev. 16:23-24)

Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. It’s the same pattern found in John 13: Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples’ feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must wash them—that is, ordain them as priests—lest they have “no part” in his own priesthood.

Indeed, washing is part of priestly ordination elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the midst of the “consecration” of Aaron and his sons, Moses “washed them with water” (Lev. 8:6-10). We also see Aaron and his sons being washed in Exodus 40:

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water. (v. 12) […] And he set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet; when they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Ex. 40:30-32)

Furthermore, the mention of having a “part” (meros) in John 13:8 recalls the priestly Levites having their portion (meris) in the LORD (Num. 18:20 and Deut. 10:9, LXX).

In short, in John 13 we have the disciples receiving a new status, the status of priests, as made clear by the substantial parallels to passages about priesthood in the Old Testament. If modern men and women wonder why Catholics have an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist in churches that resemble temples, it’s because the Old Testament had an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers sacrifices in the tabernacle and temples.
The Christian church may be the fulfilment of Judaism, but does not copy it. It is a fact of secular history where the historians had no theological or religious bias, that Constantine kept his pagan beliefs and introduced them into the Christian church.
Another lame assertion with no primary or secondary documentation. You can find all kinds of "facts of secular history" written after the Enlightenment era, but you would be hard pressed to find a Ph.D. historian of the last 50 years. They are not about to jeopardize their credentials by supporting reformist propaganda. Chick Publications is not reliable history, and neither are Modernist higher critics that deny inspiration of half the Bible. Again, provide primary or secondary documentation to support your false charge.
The priesthood of Melchizedek foreshadowed the high priesthood of Christ, as set out in the book of Hebrews. The idea that it was fulfilled by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the RCC is a nonsense twist of the Scripture, by some adulterous pope who thought he could do that from the nonsensical "Chair" of Peter.
The Eucharistic sacrifice is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, and the title "Chair of Peter" was a later development. Both of these concepts escapes you.
Malachi isn't a false prophet. It is a Messianic prophecy centred around Christ and not a sacrifice on a neo-pagan altar.
The ancient Jews didn't use pagan altars. The Table of the Lord, or altar, was not pagan, but abolished by the reformers and replace with a podium. Who also unbiblically abolished the New Testament Priesthood, just as you do.
continued...
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Passover lamb is a foreshadow of the lamb of God who was sacrificed once and for all on the cross. It was fulfilled at the crucifixion of Christ.

Jesus offered Himself by dying on the cross to take the penalty of sin away from those who accept Him as Saviour. Hebrews is quite clear that this offering is "once and for all". Jesus went and offered His blood in the presence of the Father in the heavenly Holy of Holies. Therefore the continual offering of Christ's blood in the pagan Eucharist ritual is a falsehood totally contrary to what is clearly stated in the Book of Hebrews.
Heb. 13:15 – “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.
Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 – the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Jer. 33:18 and the levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time. "never" and "for all time"; Jer. 33:18 did not expire in 1517. What was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT.

Heb. 13:15 – this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 – Jesus is repeatedly described as “High Priest.” But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 2:18 – although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 – these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Heb. 8:2 – Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.

Heb. 8:3 – as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.

Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 – the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).

Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Heb. 9:14 – the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ’s offering is ongoing.

Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus’ blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.

Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).

Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.

Heb. 10:19 – we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.

Heb. 10:22 – our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus’ perpetual priesthood in heaven.

Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.
Hebrews clearly refutes your Modernist falsehood.
The Old Testament priesthood is no longer active. It was abolish when the Temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom. The RCC is not following the Levitical priesthood at all. It is an adaption of the pagan priesthood of the Roman empire in the first two centuries.
http://jimmyakin.com/library/the-office-of-new-testament-priest
Again, a lame assertion with no primary or secondary documentation. The pagan priesthood of the Roman empire used priestesses as prostitutes and practiced infanticide; it was totally abhorrent to the early Church. Your false charge is as insulting as it is stupid.
A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. A secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source.{wiki) So you end up accusing the ante-Nicene Fathers of paganism without a shred of evidence, and re-write history to make it fit your hostile preconceptions.
 
Last edited:

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Dave Hunt wrote his book "The Woman Who Rides The Beast" which is an evaluation of the Roman Catholic Church based on what Catholic popes and theologians themselves have written and instructed how Protestants and Reformers should be treated. He concludes that the RCC is a total fraud and is deceiving millions of people. It is a very enlightening book and every believer who wants to know the truth should read it and form his own conclusions about it.
The Lies of Dave Hunt Exposed
Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

#1: Seven Hills

Hunt argues that the Whore “is a city built on seven hills,” which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered “hill” by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as “mountain” or “mount.” Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on “seven mountains,” it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

#2: “Babylon”—What’s in a Name?

Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city “known as Babylon.” This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is “Babylon the Great.”

The phrase “Babylon the great” (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

“The great city” is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.”

Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one “great city” (“the great city”), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as “Babylon,” but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

#3: Commits Fornication

Hunt tells us, “The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome.”

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with “the kings of the earth” (those nations it conquered).

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged “unholy alliances” forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are “unholy.”

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had “unholy alliances” with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red

Hunt states, “She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints;” 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).
continued...
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
#5: Possesses Great Wealth

Hunt states, “[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4].” The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.

#6: A Golden Cup

Hunt states that the Whore “has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’” This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the “Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world.”

To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word “chalice” in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated “cup.”

He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

#7: The Mother of Harlots

Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: “John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy,” which has “made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit.”

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, “The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ.”

Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.

If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as “whore” whenever it refers to the mother, but as “harlot” when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the “great harlot” (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is “the mother of harlots” (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!

#8: Sheds the Blood of Saints

Hunt states, “John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6].” He then advances charges of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!

This section of the book abounds with historical errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so. It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).

But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.

#9: Reigns over Kings

For his last argument, Hunt states, “Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City.”

This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism.

Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.

Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I have no problem with the Catholic doctrine that originated from Scripture. But there are many doctrines that are formulated by successful popes from "the Chair of Peter" that are extra-Biblical "new" revelation. Many of these doctrines were introduced by popes who were fornicators, adulterers, who sired illegitimate children, and some at a time of church history when there were two popes in competition with each other! And other times when a pope was kicked out and replaced by someone chosen by an opposing faction in the church. Sort of destroys the "Apostolic Succession" idea.
Name one doctrine proclaimed by any bad pope or anti-pope. You can't because there aren't any. You make assertions with no primary or secondary sources, just like Hobie does with his Mithra obsession.

The Old Testament priesthood was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. The RCC priesthood has nothing to do with the OT priesthood. It emulates the pagan priesthood of the First Century.
A Modernist invention. Was the Washing of the Feet a pagan ritual?
In John 13 we find evidence that real ontological transformation is in view. But transformation into what? Into priests, as in John 13 we also find parallels to Leviticus 16, which concerns the priestly Day of Atonement ritual:

Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (Lev. 16:23-24)

Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. It’s the same pattern found in John 13: Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples’ feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must wash them—that is, ordain them as priests—lest they have “no part” in his own priesthood.

Indeed, washing is part of priestly ordination elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the midst of the “consecration” of Aaron and his sons, Moses “washed them with water” (Lev. 8:6-10). We also see Aaron and his sons being washed in Exodus 40:

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water. (v. 12) […] And he set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet; when they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Ex. 40:30-32)

Furthermore, the mention of having a “part” (meros) in John 13:8 recalls the priestly Levites having their portion (meris) in the LORD (Num. 18:20 and Deut. 10:9, LXX).

In short, in John 13 we have the disciples receiving a new status, the status of priests, as made clear by the substantial parallels to passages about priesthood in the Old Testament. If modern men and women wonder why Catholics have an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist in churches that resemble temples, it’s because the Old Testament had an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers sacrifices in the tabernacle and temples.
The Christian church may be the fulfilment of Judaism, but does not copy it. It is a fact of secular history where the historians had no theological or religious bias, that Constantine kept his pagan beliefs and introduced them into the Christian church.
Another lame assertion with no primary or secondary documentation. You can find all kinds of "facts of secular history" written after the Enlightenment era, but you would be hard pressed to find a Ph.D. historian of the last 50 years. They are not about to jeopardize their credentials by supporting reformist propaganda. Chick Publications is not reliable history, and neither are Modernist higher critics that deny inspiration of half the Bible. Again, provide primary or secondary documentation to support your false charge.
The priesthood of Melchizedek foreshadowed the high priesthood of Christ, as set out in the book of Hebrews. The idea that it was fulfilled by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the RCC is a nonsense twist of the Scripture, by some adulterous pope who thought he could do that from the nonsensical "Chair" of Peter.
The Eucharistic sacrifice is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, and the title "Chair of Peter" was a later development. Both of these concepts escapes you.
Malachi isn't a false prophet. It is a Messianic prophecy centred around Christ and not a sacrifice on a neo-pagan altar.
In no way does Protestantism fulfil Malachi 1:11 since it offers no pure sacrifice. The ancient Jews didn't use pagan altars. The Table of the Lord, or altar, was not pagan, but abolished by the reformers and replace with a podium. Who also unbiblically abolished the new Testament priesthood, just as you do.
 
Last edited:

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Name one doctrine proclaimed by any bad pope or anti-pope. You can't because there aren't any. You make assertions with no primary or secondary sources, just like Hobie does with his Mithra obsession.

A Modernist invention. Was the Washing of the Feet a pagan ritual?
In John 13 we find evidence that real ontological transformation is in view. But transformation into what? Into priests, as in John 13 we also find parallels to Leviticus 16, which concerns the priestly Day of Atonement ritual:

Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (Lev. 16:23-24)

Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. It’s the same pattern found in John 13: Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples’ feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must wash them—that is, ordain them as priests—lest they have “no part” in his own priesthood.

Indeed, washing is part of priestly ordination elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the midst of the “consecration” of Aaron and his sons, Moses “washed them with water” (Lev. 8:6-10). We also see Aaron and his sons being washed in Exodus 40:

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water. (v. 12) […] And he set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet; when they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Ex. 40:30-32)

Furthermore, the mention of having a “part” (meros) in John 13:8 recalls the priestly Levites having their portion (meris) in the LORD (Num. 18:20 and Deut. 10:9, LXX).

In short, in John 13 we have the disciples receiving a new status, the status of priests, as made clear by the substantial parallels to passages about priesthood in the Old Testament. If modern men and women wonder why Catholics have an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist in churches that resemble temples, it’s because the Old Testament had an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers sacrifices in the tabernacle and temples.
Another lame assertion with no primary or secondary documentation. You can find all kinds of "facts of secular history" written after the Enlightenment era, but you would be hard pressed to find a Ph.D. historian of the last 50 years. They are not about to jeopardize their credentials by supporting reformist propaganda. Chick Publications is not reliable history, and neither are Modernist higher critics that deny inspiration of half the Bible. Again, provide primary or secondary documentation to support your false charge.
The Eucharistic sacrifice is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, and the title "Chair of Peter" was a later development. Both of these concepts escapes you.
In no way does Protestantism fulfil Malachi 1:11 since it offers no pure sacrifice. The ancient Jews didn't use pagan altars. The Table of the Lord, or altar, was not pagan, but abolished by the reformers and replace with a podium. Who also unbiblically abolished the new Testament priesthood, just as you do.
None of this would convince any non-Roman Catholic believer to change their doctrinal for faith view of where they stand with Christ. They will never believe that a man-designed religious organisation will ever replace Christ for them; neither would they accept that Roman Catholic tradition would ever supercede what is clearly written in the Bible.

I think your very long posts will largely go unread other than by Roman Catholics, and perhaps they would have been better placed in the blog section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
None of this would convince any non-Roman Catholic believer to change their doctrinal for faith view of where they stand with Christ. They will never believe that a man-designed religious organisation will ever replace Christ for them; neither would they accept that Roman Catholic tradition would ever supercede what is clearly written in the Bible.

I think your very long posts will largely go unread other than by Roman Catholics, and perhaps they would have been better placed in the blog section.
The very long 3 post OP will largely go unread, except for ignorant anti-Catholics causing them to salivate. It's offensive and uncharitable. To Hobie, "paganism" means anything that disagrees with his made-in-America doctrines.

"...I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent’s Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the “faith alone” formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”​

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon. Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term “faith” in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”​

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term “faith” had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula “faith alone” had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean “intellectual assent alone”.

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than other confusing formulas. While this formula can be given a perfectly orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

. . . The historic meaning of the terms “believe” and “faith,” which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren’t paying attention, and antinomianism results.

. . . I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants . . .

. . . The phrase “faith alone” (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)”​

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, (what the OP does), the phrase “faith alone” is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase “faith alone” to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

This understanding is not some innovation of Vatican II, nor is it any reversal. It is a development. One need only look at how St. Thomas Aquinas viewed the matter of “salvation ‘outside’ the Church.” St. Robert Bellarmine (mentioned in the excerpt from Ludwig Ott above) is 16th century, and Aquinas is 13th century. This is nothing new, it has only been more developed. Ecumenism has undergone rapid development in the 20th century, especially since World War II and Vatican II. But it is not a contradiction of older teaching (only of emphases and style, one might say).

Ecumenism is a solid aspect of Catholic theology. It was less developed in the past than it is now. But ecumenism is both biblical (e.g., the Roman centurion and passages such as Romans 2:12-16) and patristic (e.g., St. Augustine’s opinion that Donatist baptism was valid).

The Tridentine anathemas are still true and binding from a Catholic perspective. But in some cases what they condemned were not orthodox (confessional) Lutheran or Calvinist beliefs.
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation
 
Last edited:

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
The very long 3 post OP will largely go unread, except for ignorant anti-Catholics causing them to salivate. It's offensive and uncharitable. To Hobie, "paganism" means anything that disagrees with his made-in-America doctrines.

"...I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent’s Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the “faith alone” formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”​

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon. Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term “faith” in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”​

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term “faith” had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula “faith alone” had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean “intellectual assent alone”.

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than other confusing formulas. While this formula can be given a perfectly orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

. . . The historic meaning of the terms “believe” and “faith,” which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren’t paying attention, and antinomianism results.

. . . I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants . . .

. . . The phrase “faith alone” (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)”​

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, (what the OP does), the phrase “faith alone” is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase “faith alone” to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

This understanding is not some innovation of Vatican II, nor is it any reversal. It is a development. One need only look at how St. Thomas Aquinas viewed the matter of “salvation ‘outside’ the Church.” St. Robert Bellarmine (mentioned in the excerpt from Ludwig Ott above) is 16th century, and Aquinas is 13th century. This is nothing new, it has only been more developed. Ecumenism has undergone rapid development in the 20th century, especially since World War II and Vatican II. But it is not a contradiction of older teaching (only of emphases and style, one might say).

Ecumenism is a solid aspect of Catholic theology. It was less developed in the past than it is now. But ecumenism is both biblical (e.g., the Roman centurion and passages such as Romans 2:12-16) and patristic (e.g., St. Augustine’s opinion that Donatist baptism was valid).

The Tridentine anathemas are still true and binding from a Catholic perspective. But in some cases what they condemned were not orthodox (confessional) Lutheran or Calvinist beliefs.
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation
The Council of Nicea was made up of godly bishops of the church who settled the principal doctrines of the gospel of Christ according to Scripture.

The Council of Trent was made up of godless, adulterous, fornicating bishops, led by an antiChrist pope and was convened to oppose the Scriptural doctrines put forward by Martin Luther. Luther called the then pope the AntiChrist, and after his visit to the Vatican and seeing the total corruption there, and the burning at the stake of people whose crime was just to translate the Bible into their own languages, one can fully understand his view.
 

mailmandan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2020
4,511
4,784
113
The Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I recently watched an interesting video on the origin of the Roman Catholic church, which explains how pagan customs flowed into the church.