Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 11/25/17

Given the huge number of headlines over the past twenty years involving cases of priest pedophilia and subsequent cover-up by the hierarchy, it would have been reasonable to expect that warnings should have gone off like skyrockets when the plans for this controversial statue (photo above) installed at a Catholic school in Australia were first submitted. Spiritual forces are at work.

It’s initially encouraging to read about souls in China converting from Catholicism to “Protestantism,” however many of the new churches springing up in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are a part of the “name it and claim it,” prosperity false gospel movement with its “jackpot jesus.”

Conservative and traditionalist Catholics are looking forward to the end of Francis’ tenure and hope their next pope isn’t a heretic.

More trouble for the Duggars. The message is clear: If you’re not on board with the LGBTQ agenda, you’re a persona non grata.

A lot of jostling goes on behind-the-scenes in Catholicism’s complicated process of selecting people for sainthood. It usually takes a lot of money and effort for a group (religious order, diocese, devotees, etc.) to get their candidate considered and see him or her to the finish line. Catholics in the Michigan area and Casey’s Capuchin order will be celebrating with great pride when he is eventually canonized. John Paul I was a pope for only 33 days in August-September, 1978, so I imagine this formality of granting him “venerable” status will be as far as it goes. In contrast to all of this, Scripture says all those who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior are saints.

It’s telling that the Vatican has released a stamp commemorating two of the Reformers, Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, and a stamp honoring notorious counter-Reformer, Francis de Sales, at the same time.

Catholics have written to this blog in the past objecting to my repeated assertion that relatively few of them read the Bible. Well, THEY read the Bible, they protest, so therefore my claim is incorrect. Argh. But what do they say when Dave Armstrong, one of Catholicism’s most sectarian apologists bemoans the exact same condition, which is regularly confirmed by independent surveys? I would love it if every Catholic bought a Bible and read it. Many would have a crisis of faith regarding their church as they confronted the stark differences between Catholic teaching and God’s Word.

Rarely does the Christian Post publish an article critical of Catholicism, so it was encouraging to see this one. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory and indulgences is a man-made house of cards that insults the power of Jesus Christ to save to the uttermost all those who place their trust in Him.

Holy water is a superstitious amulet of pagan origin. For more of my thoughts on the sheer ridiculousness of holy water, see here.

11 thoughts on “Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 11/25/17

  1. Do you think a Catholic contestant would agree to take this challenge?
    I say, not even the Pope would.

    Dear Catholic Crusader,

    The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Council of Trent was infallible. However, if it can be shown that they made even one factual error, the claim for infallibility falls to the ground and all Catholic doctrines fall right along with it. The Catechism says,

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

    No, he did not say any such thing.
    Let’s unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not “SAY” that he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone that the bread was “TRULY” his body.
    Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of telling us Jesus said something, when he didn’t. What they did do is tell us what they THINK he meant and then quote him as if he had said so! This is dishonest. Such behavior would not be tolerated in any school of journalism, let alone are we to tolerate it coming from a self-proclaimed “infallible” church council. The second offense was alleging that Jesus was offering himself in sacrifice right there at the table, when the Text indicates no such thing. Trent teaches, “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…”
    Reader, that is a bold-faced lie. Jesus offered up His body “on the tree”, per 1 Peter 2:24…i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later; and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today. Awake! Jesus said he desired to eat the Passover “before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). That being so, he did not suffer and offer himself in sacrifice to God the Father at the dinner table before he went to the cross! Neither did the cup contain his actual blood. When we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13) we notice that the “cup of the Lord” is compared to the “cup of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). Since demons lack actual blood, both cups must be symbolic. Therefore, the actual blood of Christ was no more in the cup than there is actual blood in the cup of demons. Christ was speaking metaphorically and Transubstantiation is a lie.
    Their third offense was stealing the word “truly” from John 6:53 (“Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…”) but irresponsibly transporting the word “truly” over to the Last Supper account, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all. Trent was responding to the opposite point of view held by the Reformers, and classified any opposing viewpoint as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. In their decree on the Eucharist, they maintained they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, but in their zeal to counter-attack the Reformers, they proved they were being guided only by their emotions. No Bible on Earth records Jesus saying the bread was “truly” his body, and so Trent erred greatly. The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here.

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

    ANSWER: Neither Trent, nor any of the three popes who presided over the long-run of that council, nor any of the modern Popes, let alone the current catechism, make any distinction whatsoever between the supposedly infallible and non-infallible portions of a council’s decree. Instead, Trent made itself perfectly clear that everything contained in their decree is to be “preserved until the end of time”.

    A. By definition, a “decree” is an official order issued by a higher authority that is unbreakable. Trent’s document is entitled, “Decree Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, and the introduction and chapters which follow are naturally a part of that decree which cannot be broken.
    B. Code of Canon Law says, “All Christ’s faithful are obligated to observe the constitutions and decrees…(#754). The catechism confirms these decrees (CCC 9).
    C. “A council’s decrees approved by the Pope are infallible” (on-line, New Advent article, “General Councils”).
    D. “The infallible sacred magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of…ecumenical councils traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees” (on-line, Wiki article, “Infallibility of the Church”). Pope John XXIII confirms, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent” .
    E. A second Pope, quoting Trent from chapter 4 (and not a “canon” with an anathema attached) says: “This sets forth once more the perennially [permanently!] valid teaching of the Council of Trent [which the] Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called…transubstantiation” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia: 15)

    Thus, Trent was unambiguous, intending all their instructions to be preserved till kingdom come. They, “forbid all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree”.

    Lest you forget, your objection is further dismissed by the fact that Trent professed to be guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their introduction, and not in a “canon with an attached anathema.” According to your logic, we should conclude that whenever a council claims infallible guidance outside of a “canon”, it may not be necessarily true after all. While that would be fine with us, we doubt the Pope would agree. He actually prefaces the error-filled paragraph 1376, by telling us, “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith [by saying]…”

    Instead of letting the Bible breathe on its own, Trent has quoted Jesus out of context. Even if Transubstantiation were true, we are quite sure the Lord would not take kindly to putting words in his mouth. Need it be said that David required only one stone to kill Goliath? In like manner, all it takes is just one stone of error to classify Catholicism as counterfeit Christianity which results from their false claim of infallibility. By putting the word “truly’ into the mouth of Christ while declaring to be guided by the Spirit, the council of antiquity contradicts the counsel of modern day Rome, where we read, “In him [Christ], he [God] has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65). Yet…Trent did indeed add a word, and it is by that single erroneous word that exposes Trent to have, “boasted of a false gift [and are] like clouds and wind with no rain” (Proverbs 25:14). That one, solitary, misapplied word is the Achilles heel of the magisterium with regards to their claim of infallibility. It is enough to bring down the entire Roman Catholic system, just like David’s single stone was enough to bring down Goliath. It is conclusive, therefore, that Jesus no more gave the gift of infallibility to the church at Rome than there is a man in the moon, and that being so, the entire Roman Catholic faith is to be rejected per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40. It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).

    Rome’s claim to infallibility has been a living nightmare foisted on her members without warrant. But now, a wake-up call is being issued to arise out of your spiritual coma and cast aside the noose around your neck known as Transubstantiation. With no other choice but to sweep Rome’s doctrine under the rug, we must conclude that Jesus was not speaking literally when he told us to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, but rather, metaphorically. The Lord was talking about the same thing in John 4 and 6. In both instances, he used the term “living.” Jesus offered the woman “living water” and offered the unbelieving Jews “living bread”. Neither example was referring to a physical reality, but to spiritual truth! Only he can provide the living (spiritual) water that is required for eternal life, which by definition, is the indwelling promise of the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-9) which guarantees we will be raised on the last day. The catechism denies this and contradicts the Bible when it asserts that there is no surer pledge than the Eucharist for the “antidote of death” (CCC 1405). And the Pope also contradicts the Bible when he says that, “in the Eucharist, we receive the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 18). On the contrary, it is not having ingested the Eucharist which confirms we shall be raised on the last day, but rather, the fact that we are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance” (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30-1; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). In other words, the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in pledge that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ and it is this power that will result in resurrection: “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you” (Romans 8:11).

    There is no escaping the fact that the word of God is making clear in chapters 4 and 6 that WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO INGEST THE PHYSICAL ANATOMY OF JESUS CHRIST. Rather, he is bread to our soul and the “fountain of living waters” — just as bread and water are to our physical body (Jeremiah 2:13). This occurs when we believe in him, period, end of story (John 6:29). The pattern that emerges cannot be denied: the Jews asked, but how can this man rebuild the temple in three days? Nicodemus likewise: but how can a man be born again when he is old? The woman at the well asked, but how was it possible to give her “living water” since he had nothing to draw it out with? And finally, the grumbling Jews wondered, but how can this man give us his flesh to eat? In all cases, it is the far too literal understanding of Jesus’ words that result in misunderstanding!
    If this wasn’t enough, another crude, misapprehension of his words are recorded for us three times (Matt 16, Mark 16, Luke 12). Jesus chided the disciples for being far too literal in their understanding of his warning about the leaven of the Pharisees. He was not speaking about literally eating bread, but about swallowing the doctrine of the Pharisees. “How is it that you don’t understand that I was not talking about [literal] bread?”
    We are quite certain he would say the same thing to Catholics today; “How is it that you don’t understand that I was not talking about eating my literal flesh under the appearance of bread?” In reality, he wishes us to “taste and see” the benefits of the promised Messiah (Psalm 34:8). Catholicism has fallen into the exact same error as those who preceded them.

    Essentially, “eating and drinking” are synonymous with “believing in Christ” because they both produce the same result: namely, eternal life! In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47, we read that believing in him results in everlasting life. When compared with verses 51 and 54, we learn that eating his flesh and drinking his blood also brings eternal life.

    Stated in plain language: “everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:40)
    Stated in figurative language: “whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).

    What Jesus states literally in vs. 40, He states metaphorically in vs. 54. The latter is the metaphorical way of referring to the former. Hence, these are merely two ways of saying the same thing, as in another example, “Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him out of sleep”. The disciples said not to bother, let him enjoy his rest. Jesus then said, “Lazarus is dead” (John 11:11).
    Jesus decorated his speech with ornaments indicating a double meaning, but in reality, having only one thought in mind. Lazarus was either asleep or he was dead, not both. Jesus wants us to either eat his flesh or to believe in him, not both. Nicodemas was commanded to crawl back into his mother’s womb or be born again spiritually, not both. Jesus wanted the Jews to either believe that he could rebuild the temple in three days, or to believe on him as the Messiah, not both. Likewise, he either offered the woman at the well a drink of physical water, or the living water of the indwelling Spirit, not both.

    While it is true Jesus repeated four times in a row that it was vital to consume his “physical anatomy” (6:51-56), this was because he had repeated four times it was imperative to believe in him! (vs. 29, 35, 40, 47). He is making the same point in all eight verses by merely intensifying the act of believing through metaphor via the use of stylistic variance. Making the same point in both plain and figurative language is an effective method to reinforce a bottom-line truth without being redundant. These are simply the earmarks of a good teacher.

    We challenge you to refute this argument. Write to me….Eucharistangel@aol.com. However, If you find yourself speechless, then the only sensible option is to, “Come OUT of her my people, lest you share in her sins” (Rev 18:4).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You don’t have to post my “challenge”. I was looking for your opinion to see if you thought my argument was air-tight, iron-clad and irrefutable. I saw no contact info tho. E-mail me and let me know if you think it’s ok. Am planning to blitz it out to RC e-mails soon.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. M.K., Thanks for the excellent analysis of the Roman misinterpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper passages! I have debated this topic with Catholics several times. But of course the misinterpretation puts the salvation of Catholic souls under the complete control of the bishops and priests, no accident. I pray the Lord blesses your efforts. As if physically eating a supposed transubstantiated Jesus wafer could obtain salvation! Pshaw! The inanity of it.


  3. I have never really thought about holy water that much which now after reading your link on it makes me realise how duped/naive still am abit re stuff like that. As a kid we had little bottles of holy water & always dipped our hand in the church font to make sign of cross. I do know or found out rather that the Catholic sign of the cross is back to front aka a satanic mocking. Can you enlighten us a wee bit more on that? A Orthodox priest told me this & i read some article on it but cannot recall all of it… I did spend hours practising doing the Orthodox sign of cross lol as felt freaked out bout it all. I digress!! If holy water is pagan rite does that mean church incense is also bad. I burn Orthodox incense in my home & pray throughout the rooms etc sometimes. NB I pray to God/Iosa/Holy Spirit to cleanse protect me and my home. Is incense devilish too? I mean they used it in the OT did they not. To conclude when I was about 10 years or so of age me and my sister were asked to put the priests garments out for Mass in the evening. Big honor to us Gael Catholics in those days! There was no-one at the church when we went there & i forget whose idea it was but just for kicks aka rebellion me & my sister both drank some holy water & munched on some little hosts. Now we were certain Hell was waiting for us! I knew it was a MORTAL sin like the worst sin you could do but felt immensely gleeful as well as terrified of God’s revenge. O and one last thing the Orthodox church throws blessed water on everyone in certain ceremonies and one time i was there they gave out bottles and bottles of blessed water. That’s all Am tripping out from the memories haha

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the comments, SMH. Incense was definitely used in the Levitical ceremonies and symbolized prayer going up to God. Of course we know from the New Testament that the Old Testament incense was a symbol of prayer but also a foreshadowing of the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ advocating for believers to the Father. Catholicism and other liturgical denominations carried these Old Testament practices forward (including an altar, priests, sacrifice, etc.) but Jesus fulfilled all of these foreshadowings.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s