Response to the Right Reverend H. Graham & His Followers

Not surprisingly, a zealous ex-Baptist has highly recommended an early 20th Century work by a Roman Catholic Apologist entitled, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

In his Preface to the first edition Graham writes, “AMID the general jubilation over the three hundredth anniversary of the appearance of King James's version of the Bible, I think it would be a pity if we did not make mention of that great Church to which, under God, we owe our possession of the sacred Scriptures—I mean of course, the Roman Catholic Church…….it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers this notable year that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the 'Word that endureth forever.'"

The unbiased reader should make note of several significant terms the Right Reverend has utilized for the purpose of proving the eminence of the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Roman

2. Catholic

3. ‘great’ Church

4. ‘Mother’ Church

In just a few short sentences this priest has acknowledged what Protestants have recognized and preached for centuries:

1. This church is called ‘Roman’ because her seat of authority is in Rome, the city of seven hills……the very city in which Mystery Babylon has her seat (Rev. 17:9….This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.)

2. This church is called ‘Catholic,’ meaning ‘universal,’…….the very description of Mystery Babylon’s worldwide reach and influence…for she sits upon many waters (Rev. 17:15….The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.)

3. This church is called ‘great’……the very description given Mystery Babylon the Great (Rev. 17:5).

4. This church is called ‘Mother’……..the very title given Mystery Babylon….the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev. 17:5).

To be continued……………

 

Roman Catholic Apologist, the Right Reverend Henry Grey Graham, proudly boasts, “…..it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers this notable year that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the 'Word that endureth forever.’”

What this priest neglects to mention is the essential truth that there exists a sin much worse than not acknowledging the Roman Church as the preserver of the Word of God. It is the sin of disobeying that which it claims to preserve.

Such was the sin of the Israelites who preserved the Old Testament, yet murdered the Messiah predicted in their Hebrew Scriptures.

And such is the sin of the Roman Catholic Church who claims preservation of the Bible, yet cannot preserve the innocence of its most vulnerable members…….children who had not yet known or experienced the depths of Satan…….whose knowledge and experience of unspeakable evil has been gained at the hands of a depraved pedophile priesthood for centuries.

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18:6, Douay-Rheims).

And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all (Rev. 18:21, Douay-Rheims).

To be continued…………….

 

Right Reverend Henry Graham, priest and apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, has declared it is his Church who is the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of God’s Word.

The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible acknowledges the words of Christ, as written in Matthew 12:30, are divine truth:

He that is not with me is against me.

This statement seems to be rather unambiguous, simple and straightforward.

Or does it?

The highest spiritual authority in the Roman Catholic Church is the Supreme Pontiff, also known as the Pope, Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, and Holy Father, to name a few of his ‘holy’ titles.

According to infallible Catholic doctrine, the Pope holds the primacy over all Christendom.

Therefore, common sense would dictate that if it is true the Roman Church is the defender of Holy Scripture the Pope must be the supreme defender of Christ and His teachings.

The Pope professes to be with Christ, for he claims to be His Vicar who comes in the name of Christ, blessed with the full authority of Christ.

Would it not be most shocking, dear reader, to discover the Pope to be, in reality, against Christ, though he vows, with utmost piety, his allegiance to Christ?

And what then should be the biblical title by which Christians should address this religious fraud once it is proved he is against Christ?

Easily verifiable evidence which proves the Pope is against Christ is found in the Roman Mass.



In Matthew 4:3 we read the tempter, Satan, came to Christ encouraging Him to miraculously change stones into bread.

Thus is born the satanic seed of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Roman Catholic miracle which changes bread into God.

Pope Francis claims this miracle-working power.

According to Catholic orthodoxy, the Pope and his priesthood have been granted the power to transubstantiate an unleavened wafer into the literal flesh, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, wherever they like and whenever they like.

Such miracle-working power would make the Pope and Roman priesthood Gods, for only a God can create humans from inanimate clay, bone or stones (Genesis 2:7, 22; Matthew 3:9).

But the Lord God declares, I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God (Isaiah 45:5).

By receiving the Eucharist, participants literally eat Christ.

The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches cannibalism, a curse which God placed on the Israelites who forsook Him for false gods (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53; 2 Kings 6:28-29).

Thus, those who partake of the Roman Catholic ritual called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not receiving God’s blessing as promised by the Pope. Rather they are receiving God’s curse.

More importantly, the Mass mocks the holy selfless perfect sacrifice of Christ, since it claims to be exactly the same sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on Calvary.

Yet God’s Word clearly states Christ’s sacrifice was made once for all (Hebrews 10:10), for He offered one sacrifice for sins forever (verse 12). His last words on the cross, It is finished, also testifies to these truths.

Not only is the doctrine of transubstantiation ludicrous on the grounds of common sense, it contradicts another significant Scriptural truth.

Every time a priest ‘celebrates’ Mass, Jesus is alleged to be present. Yet Christ declares, Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not (Matthew 24:23).

When Christ appears all the world will know and acknowledge it.

To further emphasize the divine nature of the transubstantiated wafer, the Pope encourages its worship.



The Bible has a term for such worship: idolatry.

Idolatry is condemned in the strongest terms. In fact, those who commit idolatry prove their hatred of the true God (Exodus 20:5).

Now I ask the unbiased reader, Is the Pope with Christ or against Christ?

If he is against Christ, what is the biblical designation for such a world renowned, revered and beloved Christ-professing leader?

To be continued………..

 

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).

The assertions by Roman Catholic priest, Right Reverend Graham, have consisted of alleging his Mother Church is the preserver, defender and transmitter of God’s Holy Word.

Having exposed the fallacious nature of claims attesting to ‘preserver and defender,’ let us now turn our attention to that of ‘transmitter.’

To ‘transmit’ is to cause to communicate something to others.

Thus, this priest and his Church would have us believe sharing knowledge of the Gospel and Holy Writ, whether preached or written, was among the many God-given privileges by which she was blessed and for which she should be highly honored.

But this assertion is patently false.

Rather than eagerly make Scriptures readily available to the common folk unable to read or understand Latin, the Roman Catholic authorities proscribed translations made into the common languages. Nor was preaching by the laity to be tolerated.

The Waldenses proved to be an ever painful thorn in the side of the Catholic hierarchy for their insistence in using vernacular translations by which to spread the Gospel, as well as the means to refute the false teachings of Romanism.

According to several hostile accounts which may be found in the numerous translations of Inquisitional documents by recognized experts, universally considered authorities on medieval ‘heresy,’ Waldes of Lyons, the founder of the Waldensian movement which bears his name, in 1170 commissioned two Catholic priests to translate and transcribe “many books of the Bible,” in addition to several writings of the early church fathers which he divided into topics.

According to Inquisitor Stephen of Bourbon:

“When this citizen [Waldes] had poured over these texts and learned them by heart, he resolved to devote himself to evangelical perfection, just as the apostles had pursued it. Selling all his possessions in contempt of the world he broadcast his money to the poor and presumptuously arrogated to himself the office of the apostles. Preaching in the streets and the broad ways the Gospels and those things he had learned by heart, he drew to himself many men and women that they might do the same, and he strengthened them in the Gospel. He also sent out persons even of the basest occupations to preach in the nearby villages. Men and women alike, stupid and uneducated, they wandered through the villages, entered homes, preached in the squares and even in the churches, and induced others to do likewise.

“Now when they had spread error and scandal everywhere as a result of their rashness and ignorance, they were summoned before the archbishop of Lyons, whose name was John, and were forbidden by him to concern themselves with expounding the Scriptures or with preaching. They, in turn, fell back on the reply made by the apostles. Their leader, assuming the role of Peter, replied with his words to the chief priests: ‘We ought to obey God, rather than men’ – the God who commanded the apostles to ‘Preach the gospel to every creature.’” (Wakefield & Evans, 1969. Heresies in the High Middle Ages, 209-210.)



Cambridge Professor Deansley relates,

“[T]here was no doubt that the right of the laity to draw inferences from a knowledge of the New Testament gained through translations was the foundation of the Waldensian position. The Waldensian lower classes, like the [Catholic] lower classes, could not read: but extraordinary stress was laid on memorizing parts of the New Testament…….As is often the case with those who have not been taught to read, their power of memory was very great, and all the Sunday gospels would often be learned by heart.” (Deansley, Margaret, 1920). The Lollard Bible, 28.)

Once sufficient proficiency in the vernacular gospels and epistles was mastered, refutation of the many unbiblical Catholic doctrines became commonplace when debating priests. Their opponents accused the Waldenses of arguing falsely from the Scriptures, since it was the Bible alone from which they proved the Catholic doctrines spurious.

“It was for this reason that vernacular bibles and vernacular scriptures were burned by inquisitors and prohibited by archbishops and provincial synods wherever Waldensianism spread: not because the translations were themselves regarded as false or heretical, as was the case with Reformation versions.” (ibid. 30-31.)

NEXT: Roman Catholic decrees prohibiting vernacular translations.

 

Part 5

In this post a few of the more ‘memorable’ Roman Catholic decrees forbidding the translation, reading and preaching of Scriptures by the laity will be cited. Such prohibitions span centuries, culminating in the Index of Forbidden Books which was in effect until 1966.

Cum ex injuncto:

This letter was penned in 1199 by Pope Innocent III. The proliferation of Waldensian doctrines and adherents had metastasized over such a large area that the Archbishop of Metz implored the Pope to address the situation.

“To all the faithful in Christ established both in the city of Metz and in its diocese. Laymen should not preach, nor organize secret assemblies, nor find fault with priests.”

[N.B. The Waldenses were not ignorant of the treatment given other so-called ‘heretics’ a century earlier. They preferred not to be burned, if possible. Therefore, it was necessary and prudent of them to disciple newcomers, hold Bible studies, preach to the brethren, and pray with each other in secret, while using vernacular translations of Scripture. As a result of their reading and/or hearing the Scripture in their native tongue, it was quite common that frequent disputes with the Catholic priesthood would take place. Inevitably, the anti-biblical doctrinal falsehoods, as well as the sinful lifestyles (read ‘faults’) of those entrusted with the ‘care of souls’ would be exposed.]

“Since, according to the duty of apostleship assigned to us, we have become, as the Apostle says, debtors ‘to the wise and to the unwise,’ we are required to be concerned for the salvation of everyone, so that we may both lead back evil men from their vices, and foster good men in their virtues. There is, then, need for greater discretion, when vices enter secretly under the guise of virtues, and the angel of Satan deceitfully transforms himself into an angel of the light.”

[N.B. A common complaint raised by the Catholic hierarchy centers on the outward piety and virtue of the Waldenses. This posed a perplexing problem. How could a people so obviously selfless, hardworking and kind to others be the spawn of Satan? The answer must lie in the fact that it is all a wicked deception of Satan, who has the power to appear virtuous and holy.]

“Truly our venerable brother the bishop of Metz has signified to us in his letter that both in the diocese and in the city of Metz the multitude of laymen and women, drawn in no small way by desire, have had the Scriptures, Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Psalter, the commentaries on Job and many other books translated for their own use into the French language, exerting themselves towards this kind of translation so willingly, but not so prudently, that in secret meetings the laymen and women dare to discuss such matters between themselves, and to preach to each other: they also reject their community, do not intermingle with similar people, and consider themselves separate from them, and do not align their ears and minds with them; when any of the parish priests wished to censure them concerning these matters, they stood firm before them, trying to argue from the Scriptures that they should not be prohibited in any way from doing these things. Some of them also scorned the simplicity of their priests; and when the Word of Salvation is shown to them by those priests, they grumble in secret that they understand the Word better in their little books and that they can explain it more prudently.”

[N.B. Re: ‘the simplicity of priests’: The Waldenses, as well as other so-called ‘heretics’ before and after them, castigated the lazy friars and priests who did not work, but rather through begging and mandatory tithes lived off others.]

The Council of Toulouse, 1229

“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or the New Testament; unless anyone from motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books” (Maitland, S. R., Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, 1832; 194).

Bull of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, 1369 (Per request and authority of Pope Urban V.)

"Wherefore since we have received trustworthy information that there are in Germany sermons, treatises and other books written in the vulgar tongue which are used by lay people or unlettered; and that these books are generally harmful, erroneous and infected with the leprosy of heresy; and that the lay people who read them do not understand them in a safe or good sense; and that they wish to know through their own understanding more than it befits them to know….wherefore we strictly enjoin and command all venerable archbishops, bishops, clerics regular and secular, and all dukes, princes, etc., and each and every man, on their obedience to the Holy Roman Empire that ye assist the said inquisitors and their deputies to demand and confiscate such books, treatises, sermons, pamphlets, leaves, bound books, etc. written in the vulgar tongue, from all men, whatsoever their rank…….it is not lawful, according to canon law, for lay people of either sex to read any books whatsoever of holy scripture written in the vulgar tongue……and ye shall lend your counsel and effectual help that the aforesaid books should be presented to the inquisitors to be burned" (Deansley, op. cit., 84.)

NEXT: The dangerous doctrines of the Waldenses.

 

Part 6

Renowned 12th century Roman Catholic theologian and teacher, Alan of Lille, makes the case against the laity preaching:

“There are certain heretics who pretend they are righteous, although they are wolves in sheep’s clothing…..They are called Waldenses after their heresiarch, who was named Waldes. He, by the prompting of his own spirit, not sent by God, invented a new sect in that, without authority from a prelate, without divine inspiration, without knowledge, without learning, he presumed to preach…..How will unlettered persons preach who do not understand the Scriptures? Will not their preaching result rather in the ruin of many than in their resurrection? Again, how may they be literate who have never learned their letters [i.e. Latin, Greek and Hebrew]? Now we see that persons, such as many Cistercians, holier than they and who know the Holy Scriptures, do not preach, indubitably because they were not sent. If it is a dangerous thing for wise and holy men to preach, it is most dangerous for the uneducated who do not know what should be preached; to whom, how, when and where there should be preaching” (Book 2, Chapter 1, Against the Waldenses, translated by Wakefield & Evans, 1969, Heresies in the High Middle Ages; 217, 219).

There is ‘danger’ in having a false Gospel exposed by those who have had access to vernacular Scriptures. There is ‘danger’ in having the multitudes hear divine truth, unfiltered, in the vernacular. For then the veil of fake piety is lifted and evil is seen for what it really is.

The ‘dangerous’ doctrines of the Waldenses resulted in their being placed on Pope Lucius III heretics list (Ad Abolendum, 1184) defined by “……all who have presumed to preach, either publicly or privately, either being forbidden, or not sent, or not having the authority of the Apostolic See, or of the bishop of the diocese; and also who presume to think, or to teach, concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, or of baptism, or of the remission of sins, or of matrimony, or of the other sacraments of the Church, otherwise than as the Holy Roman Church teaches and observes….” (Peters, Edward, 1980, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe; 171).

The following list of heresies is compiled from several different original Roman Catholic medieval sources translated by Evans & Wakefield, op.cit:

Durand of Huesca

· “ .…they say that they alone, as disciples of Christ, have the right to baptize. Whence they baptize the children of their believers and of those who shelter them whenever they can. Out of this practice the sect of Rebaptizers arose from them” (p.234).

· Taking an oath is a sin (ibid).

· Paying respects to the dead at cemeteries, sprinkling with ‘holy’ water, employing incense, saying Mass for the dead avail naught (p. 235).

· Rather than make an offering to a priest, it is more blessed to give it to a poor man (ibid).

[N.B. In conclusion, Durand feels the only way to exterminate this sect is by using deadly force of the secular arm.]

Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay (Describing ceremonial admittance into the Waldensian Church.)

“My friend, if you wish to become one of us you must renounce all belief in the tenets of the Roman Church….Do you renounce that cross which at baptism the priest made with oil and chrism on your breast, shoulders and [fore]head?.....Do you believe water effects your salvation?” (p. 241).

Inquisitor Bernard Gui

· Contempt of ecclesiastical authority is their principle heresy (p. 388).

· They are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, or other prelates of the Roman Church, therefore it is impossible for their sect to be excommunicated (ibid).

· Oaths are sinful (ibid).

· It is sin to sentence a man to death (p. 389).

· They ridicule indulgences, asserting they are of no value whatever (p. 390).

· Every holy person is a priest (ibid).

· They deny purgatory (p. 391).

· They censure and condemn Catholic clergy and prelates, calling them “blind leaders of the blind, who neither preserve Gospel truth nor practice apostolic poverty. In a bitter lie, they aver the Roman Church is a house of falsehood” (ibid).

· “Also, they say there are no real miracles performed in the Church by the merits and prayers of the saints, for none of the saints ever performed miracles. Also, they say and affirm in private that the saints in heaven hearken not to the prayers of the faithful, nor do they heed the acts of veneration whereby we on earth honor them. They say the saints do not pray for us, so it is useless for us to seek their help. Hence, they scorn the festivals which we celebrate in veneration of the saints…..” (ibid).

· They only pray the Lord’s Prayer and disdain praying the Hail Mary (p. 394).

· “In order to give their words greater weight among their listeners when they preach from the Gospels, the Epistles and sentences of the saints, they say by way of proof, ‘That is found in the Gospel, or in the Epistle of Peter, or of St. Paul, or of St. James;’ or they cite a given saint or given doctor. Moreover, they commonly possess the Gospels and the Epistles in the vernacular and in Latin as well, for some of them understand it. Some know how to read; at times they read from a book what they recite or preach. Sometimes they use no book, particularly in the case of those who cannot read but have learned the words by heart. Also, they preach in the homes of their believers, but at other times while traveling, or out in the open” (p. 396).

· Upon death souls pass immediately into paradise or hell. Therefore, prayers for the dead are useless, since those in paradise do not need them, while those in hell are beyond help (p. 397).

NEXT: How the Waldenses handled the doctrine of transubstantiation when interrogated, and much more……

 

Part 7

As non-conformity to the religious laws, doctrines and practices as commanded by the Roman Catholic Church grew among the citizens of Western Europe during the high middles ages, it soon became apparent heresy inevitably could be discovered by questioning how the non-conformist viewed the ‘holy’ Eucharist. Thus, one’s views became a test, determining orthodoxy or heresy.

In their seminal work, Heresy in the High Middle Ages, Wakefield & Evans have collated and translated many of the most significant treatises written by Roman Catholic prelates and inquisitors detailing the heresies of the numerous non-conformist sects proliferating in Western Europe at the time.

For example, in 1022 at Orleans, France, heretics were burned for holding, among other beliefs, a denial of the efficacy and power of the priest to consecrate bread to become Christ’s body and blood (p. 78).

The following list is a compilation of ‘heretical’ sects’ denials of transubstantiation gathered from Wakefield & Evans:

· In 1025, at Arras, France, certain men came into the city from Italy preaching and teaching, who “rejected the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ…..as being nothing more than that which the eyes of the flesh behold.” (p. 83).

· In the years 1112-14, at Utrecht, Netherlands, a rogue monk, Tanchelm, publicly proclaimed “the function of priests at the Lord’s table was worthless, fit rather to be called pollution than sacrament…warning the people against partaking of the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord…..denying that partaking of the body and blood of Christ would be of any use for the salvation of the communicants” (pp. 98-101). Tanchelm would later be murdered by a rival priest.

· In 1122, at Trier, Germany, “there were heretics who denied that the substance of the bread and wine which priests bless on the altar is really changed into the body and blood of Christ” (p. 105).

· In the years 1115-35, Henry of Le Mans was a force to be reckoned with. Among his many ‘heresies’ was his belief that “the body of Christ cannot be consecrated by an unworthy minister…..Christ’s body may be consecrated, provided anybody can be found worthy to do so.” (p. 116). By this statement his interrogators understood their doctrine of original and indwelling sin negated the possibility of anyone ever being worthy, who is without sin.

· In the years 1112-31, Peter of Bruys, while alive, caused havoc within the Roman Church. In 1133-34 his disciples disturbed the prelates of Gascony, causing them to rise to action against the Petrobussians. The fourth principle in their six principle beliefs “not only denies the verity of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and continually presented through the sacrament in the Church, but declares that it is nothing at all, and that it ought not be offered to God” (p. 121).

· In 1147, at Perigueux, France, heretics considered “the Mass worthless and assert that the sacrament should be understood as only a morsel of bread” (p. 139).

· In 1145, at Liege, Belgium, French heretics held “the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to be useless” (p. 141).

· In the years 1177-85, Hugo Speroni of Italy proved to be a major troublemaker when he wrote against the doctrine of transubstantiation. His heretical doctrines caused a renowned friend and Catholic professor of Roman law, Vacarius, to write a letter of rebuke and warning. “With much vanity and deceptiveness you [Speroni] are in error about the body and blood of Christ. For you pretend that some persons in the Church explain that Christ is sacrificed on the altar, mangled and chewed, suffers, and mystically dies, even though it is certain [according to Scripture] ‘Christ died once,’ and ‘death shall no more have dominion over Him,’ so that He cannot suffer, be broken or bruised with the teeth” (p. 155).

· In the years 1176-90, the Italian Cathars were excoriated by an ex-follower as having “not believed that any visible substance can by any means be changed into the body of Christ” (p.173).

· In 1182, the Patarines/Publicans humiliated the Roman Church by laughing at the doctrine of transubstantiation (p. 254).

· In 1235, the Albanenses viewed the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, making the communicant no better or no worse having received and eaten the bread, for they say, “The Lord Jesus Christ at the Last Supper took bread and broke it and gave to his disciples, saying, ‘Take ye and eat. This is my body’ and so on. He said, ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’” (p. 273).

· In 1240, a Franciscan friar enumerated several errors of the Italian Cathars. “They deny that the bread and wine consecrated on the altar by a priest are changed or transubstantiated into the body of Christ. They think it impossible that the substance of bread and wine can, through the ministry of any man, be changed by transubstantiation into flesh and blood, for this they cannot comprehend in terms of human reason. And so, they are unwilling to believe, nay more, they ridicule those who do…..They recount that the bread which Christ blessed and broke at the Last Supper was his body only in token, not by change; wherefore they explain the words, ‘This is my body’ as meaning ‘This signifies my body,’ in the same way that the words, ‘and the rock was Christ’ denoted not the actuality, but the token” (p. 304).

· The 13th century Waldenses “assert that God alone is to be adored [worshipped] with every kind of adoration [latria, dulia or hyper-dulia] and that persons who adore [worship] the Cross or [worship] that which we [Roman Catholics] believe to be the body of Christ, or [worship] the other saints of God, or [worship] their images, commit sin” (p. 349).

· In the 14th century, Inquisitor Bernard Gui listed a principle heresy of the Cathars as that of denying the sacrament of the holy Eucharist. “One by one, they tear down and disparage all the sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrament of the Eucharist, saying the body of Christ is not therein, for were it large as the greatest mountain, Christians would already have eaten all of it. Also, they say, the Host comes from straw and passes and passes through the tails of stallions and mares (referring to the flour’s being passed through the sieve); also, that it goes into the latrine of the stomach and is ejected through the basest part of the body, which could not happen, they insist, If God were present” (p. 384).

How the Waldenses Dealt with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation when Interrogated by Inquisitors

Inquisitor Bernard Gui testifies to the ingenuity of the ‘heretics’ when confronted with verbalizing their belief as to the nature of the sacramental body and blood of Christ:

“When asked if he believes that the bread and wine in the Mass are, at the words of the priest and by divine power, he replies, ‘In truth, should I not believe it?’ If, however, the examiner says to him, ‘I do not ask if you should believe, but if you do believe.’ [The Waldense] then answers, ‘I believe anything you and the other good doctors command me to believe.’”

[N.B. By this the Waldense means the ‘good doctors’ who are themselves ‘good men,’ i.e. fellow Waldenses. Thus, the heretic admits believing that which both the inquisitor and his fellow Waldenses concur in belief; the end result being unbelief if they differ, which they do.]

The heretic continues, “’I willingly believe you if you teach me something which is good for me.’ The inquisitor responds, ‘You consider it good for you if I instruct you as your other masters do. But answer simply whether you believe the body of the Lord Jesus Christ to be on the altar.’ To this the heretic replies promptly, ‘I believe,’ meaning that a body is there and all bodies belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. Then, being questioned more closely as to whether he believes the body there to be that of the Lord, that which was born of the Virgin, that which hung on the Cross, arose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, he responds, ‘And you, sir, do you so believe?’ I tell him, ‘I believe it unreservedly,’ and he answers, ‘And I believe likewise,’ meaning he believes that I so believe” (p. 398).

NEXT: The persecution against Bible-believing Lollards.

 

Part 8

For not less than 4 centuries the Holy Roman Empire and Church were under non-stop assault by non-conformists who dared protest against the unbiblical doctrines and practices being taught as divine truth. As such, they were the earliest ‘Protestants,’ centuries before the term was in common use as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

The indefatigable John Wycliffe spawned a movement which would earn him the moniker, ‘Morningstar of the Reformation.’ His English translation of the Bible was instrumental in stoking the fire of righteous indignation among the laity who soon began preaching against the greed, lusts and false gospel perpetrated by the clergy, monks and friars. Known as ‘Lollards,’ they began organizing disciples among key members in several English townships. Many of the early leaders were associates of Wycliffe at Oxford University. They were more than capable of exposing and explaining the inconsistencies of Rome’s exegesis of biblical texts. Among the Catholic doctrines Wycliffe especially attacked was that of transubstantiation.

An ardent predestinarian, Wycliffe understood the true Christian Church consisted of all those predestined to be saved, whom he called ‘the Elect.’ This Church was invisible, as opposed to the visible Roman Church whose members were clearly evident by their attending weekly Mass.

Rather than reinforce Romanist propaganda which claimed the high honor and distinction of ‘preserving, defending and transmitting God’s Word’ through the centuries, Wycliffe wrote against such false assertions in his treatise, Antichrist’s Labour to Destroy Holy Writ.

“As our Lord Jesus Christ ordained by the writing of the four evangelists to make his gospel surely known and maintained against heretics and men out of the faith; so the devil, even Satan, devises by antichrist and his worldly false clerks [clergy] to destroy holy writ and Christian men’s belief, by four accursed ways, or false reasons:

1. The [Roman] church is of more authority, and more to be believed than any gospel.

2. That Augustine said he would not believe the gospel if the church had not taught him so.

3. That no man alive knows which is the gospel, but by the approving of the [Roman] church.

4. If men say that they believe this is the gospel of Matthew or John, they [the Roman Church] ask, ‘Why believest thou this is the gospel?’ As though they would say, ‘There is no cause but that the church confirmeth and teacheth it.’

“These four evidences, and many more, the fiend [Satan] makes to blind men in their belief; that they should not know what is sin or what is virtue; which is truth and which is falsehood; which is good and which is evil; which are God’s commands and which are the fiend’s lies; thus to bring all men blindly to hell…………..”

As proof of the swiftness of penetration, along with the wide embrace of Wycliffe’s teachings among the common folk, Henry IV was compelled to enact the infamous decree, De Haeretico Comburendo [Regarding the Burning of Heretics], a mere 17 years after Wycliffe’s death.

This Statute of the Realm targeted the Lollards, who were described as ‘divers false and perverse people of a certain new sect,’ who held views contrary to the Roman Catholic faith of the sacraments, and its authority. In addition, by ‘usurping the office of preaching’ they preach and teach ‘wicked heretical and erroneous opinions contrary to the same faith and blessed determinations of the Holy Church……’ If such persons be found guilty of Lollardy, yet either refuse to abjure or relapse after abjuration, they are to be delivered to the secular arm where they are to be set ‘before the people in a high place cause to be burnt that such punishment into the minds of others….’

One would think such a blood-curdling proclamation would render even the most outspoken and bold saint to think twice before preaching the truth of Jesus, but such was not the case with the Lollards.

Compelled once again to deal with the unrelenting assaults against the Roman Church, in 1407, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, “went to Oxford and summoned a synod of clergy to settle particularly the question of English Bibles and English [Lollard] propagandist tracts” (Deansley, The Lollard Bible, p.295).

Thirteen constitutions were drawn up against the Lollards.

The first constitution forbade unauthorized preaching anywhere. Two-time offenders were to be excommunicated and denied any fellowship with Christian people [i.e. they are to be shunned]. If convicted by trial they are to be declared heretics, their goods confiscated and the applicable punishment [burning] to be carried out.

The fourth constitution declares it illegal to preach or teach, either publicly or privately, that which is contrary to the sound doctrine of the Roman Church, including the sacraments and articles of faith. Unless recanted, the punishment is that which is outlined in # 1.

The sixth constitution bans all books and writings of John Wycliffe and his associates.

The seventh constitution mandates “that no one henceforth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or any other by way of book, pamphlet, or treatise.” Such translations are deemed ‘dangerous.’

The ninth constitution declares it illegal to question as unbiblical “the adoration of the glorious cross, the veneration of the images of saints, or pilgrimages to their places and relics; or against making oaths in the usual cases and manner in both courts, viz., ecclesiastical and temporal.”

The Prologue to the Wycliffite English Bible, chapter 15, contains several reasons why the Lollards have translated the Latin Scriptures into English, including the lack of sound preaching and teaching by the Roman clergy.

“For, though covetous priests are made crazed by their simony, heresy and many other sins, they despise Holy Writ to such an extent that they stop its dissemination as much as they possibly can. Yet the common people cry out to have knowledge of Holy Writ, and so they keep the Scriptures secreted in hiding places at great cost and peril of their lives” (Hudson, Anne, Selections From English Wycliffite Writings, 1997; p. 67). [Translation into modern English by this present writer.]

Oxford Professor Hudson cites a 15th century Lollard treatise on biblical translation which reads in part, “Since the truth of God stands not in one language more than any other, but rather whose lives and teachings are most pleasing to God, no matter the language. Therefore, the law of God [i.e. the Scriptures] written and taught in English may edify the common people, as it does the Roman clergy in Latin, since it is sustenance to the soul that should be saved. And Christ commanded the Gospel be preached, and that people should learn it, understand it, and live out its principles daily. Then why may we not write the Gospel and all Holy Scripture in English for the edification of Christian souls? For by it the preacher can show the people the basis of truth which he is preaching. For, if it should not be written, it should not be preached. However, this heresy and blasphemy should never enter into the heart of a Christian, for its origin is from the Fiend [Satan], the father of lies” (ibid. p. 107). [Translation by this present writer.]

A classic Lollard text, The Lantern of Light, notes ‘The Five Assaults of Antichrist By Which He May Be Identified.’ “The third assault of antichrist,” it states, “is inquisition, as the prophet saith, antichrist inquires, searches, and hearkens where he may find any man or woman who writes, reads, learns, or studies God’s law in their mother tongue, in order to lead their life after the pleasing will of God. But soon antichrist catches them in his censures, and afterwards smites as he may, to most grievously hurt them” (Writings and Examinations of Brute, Thorpe, Cobham, Hilton, Pecock, Bilney, and Others; With The Lantern of Light, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842).

NEXT: Lollard responses to interrogations.