Christmas Hypocrites

Thank you SheEagle. And may the joy and blessing of the Lord be your part and parcel this coming Christmas.

Ahhhhh, DHK!!!

I can always count upon you for some fun, can't I?

Your link is bogus, the man claims he is a "Deist," and is somewhat of an atheist trying to prove that Christianity is bogus.

Oh, DHK, you are such fun!! Don't you realize that as an atheist he is an UNBIASED SOURCE to prove the point I made?

So What! I am not impressed by such futile attempts to thwart the puposes of God in the redemption of mankind--that which can never be thwarted.

That was not the point of posting this link. The point was to show that paganism came up with these ideas long before the Truth came and put the reality of them in Flesh.

Here is a quoted from your beloved site:

Hahaaaaaaahahahahaha!!! Not a beloved site at all. I just typed in the words crucified saviors and came up with this. I just want to show you some proof from another source.

Let's get this straight. Christianity does not come from paganism. It never did. It comes from the direct revelation of God Almighty.

Did I say it did? I said nothing of the sort. I said that the truth was out there, but since the pagans did not have a full and complete revelation, they were groping in the dark and stumbled upon some things in their darkness which just happened to be the truth. They couldn't even put a proper name to it (i.e., the Blessed Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), but their definition was correct.

Satan has its counterfeits and always will.

Well sure. That is why the pagans got everything right in substance (the Trinity, for instance) but wrong in name. They were misled, being in darkness. But now the full revelation has come, and all are called to accept that revelation in Christ.

If you want to put things satanically backwards then you are deceiving the people. God came first, not Satan. God always was, and is eternal; not Satan. Satan counterfeits Christianity. Catholicism is a counterfeit of what Biblical Christianity really is.

3 - 2 - 1 Launch Polemic Screed Missle number 1!!!

Naaaaaaaw.

It did not start until the fourth century when Constantine tried to marry Christendom to the state, and in doing so brought in many pagan customs into Christendom.

3 - 2 - 1 Launch Polemic Screed Missle number 2!!!

Naaaaaaaawwww.

So far you are batting zero, my man. Constantine moved the headquarters of the Church from Rome to a sleepy little town on the Adriatic Sea called Byzantium, renamed it Constantinople (so he had an ego, we all do!!) and did that specifically because he was upset that paganism was affecting the Church and he wished the Church to stay pure.

At that time Christianity was paganized, and in part the pagans were Christianized. But there still remained groups of believers, local assemblies true to the Word of God in every age that were outside of this ungodly marriage that was soon to be called the Roman Catholic Church.

I really wish you would tell me these kinds of jokes while I have a mouthful of food. I darn near choked laughing!!!

As I have said before, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your distortion of history and the idea of your little Fundamentalist enclaves as you present it. The historical evidence is that there was only one Church, led by St. Peter and those who succeeded him, and that this Church from day one was Catholic in praxis. The writings of the Early Fathers show that long before the Council of Nicea the Church believed in and practiced baptismal regeneration and taught that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. You have been given numerous posts with quotes from the Early Fathers proving this, therefore, I will not repeat myself to you.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Early Church was run like a Baptist meeting house. Nothing written which speaks of "accepting Jesus into your heart" (not even in the Bible, which says to be BAPTIZED INTO THE REMISSION OF SINS in Acts). It is all in your imagination.

All means all, and you had better use that word carefully.

That is ALL I need to know. If I have a problem with doctrine or morality, I can go to the Church for the answer. It is not of me or in me to figure things out. Remember that the Bible says that SOME are teachers. Not all. Some. In Protestantism, every man considers himself a teacher, and if he comes up with some sort of theological novelty and others will not accept his position, he just runs off, finds a discarded biscuit factory, and starts a "church".

The Catholic Church in your eyes is the true church; but why try to deceive others.

That's what I wonder about all the Protestant "preachers" and "teachers" who taught me falsehoods about the Church and its history as if these falsehoods were nuggets of gold. Why DO Protestant leaders try to decieve others by refusing to teach the Early Fathers in Sunday School, by teaching that "faith alone" is the original intent of the writings of the Bible, and by twisting and distorting the teachings of the Church to say that which it does not say?

As that site pointed out it is the harlot church. It is a counterfeit church.

Ummmmmm.......I thought you said this guy is a deist. Calling the Catholic Church "harlot" is NOT something deists do. It is something that fans of Jack Chick funny pages do.

It never had the truth to begin with.

Not what Jesus said. He promised that the apostles would be led into ALL (there's that word again) truth (John 13: 16) in the Upper Room. That truth was transmitted faithfully from generation to generation for 400 years before there was even a New Testament extant. You figure it out. How did the Early Church even know how to worship in the first 40 years after Christ died? The first 100? The first 300? They certainly didn't have any blueprints from the Old Testament, for if they had followed that, they would have continued Judaism intact, wouldn't they?

They knew because they were taught ORALLY the TRADITIONS which were handed down from generation to generation.

You speak very boldly and pompously: "ROME HAS SPOKEN" Whopee! So what!

Tell THAT to Jesus when you meet Him:

Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If a man will NOT hear the Church in disputes....seems that Christ has a much higher opinion of the Church than you do. Same thing with the statement He makes to St. Peter:

Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Whooooooweee!! That's power and authority!!!

So has every other cult under the sun. So did Jim Jones speak, and see where it got him! The Catholic Church spoke and many God-fearing Christians were drowned, beheaded, murdered, martyred for their faith; and for one reason only--believing and preaching the gospel. Read Foxes Book of Martyrs.

If I remember correctly, there were numbers of Catholics in Foxes Book of Martyrs. After all, since Protestantism only started in 1517, any martyrs prior to that were either Catholics or heretics like the Albigensians, the Waldenses,

Protestants abhor your false interpretation of John 6:53, and thus the resulting blasphemy.

You continue to amuse me so highly. If you could just put down your prejudice and read the writings of the second century, you would see that those who lived that close to our Lord's being on earth had the same idea -- that it is not wine nor bread, but the true Blood and Body of our Lord.

Christ was once offered for the sins of many. He has never been re-offered, re-sacrificed, re-presenting to God that which is eternal--all unbiblical concepts--all blasphemy to God.

Tell it to John the Beloved. He SAW Heaven (something I sincerely doubt you have done) and saw the Lamb there as it had been slain. John saw the reality which you cannot understand and do not wish to accept -- i.e., that the slain Lamb is STILL THERE TODAY, still slain in the eyes of God the Father for the salvation of the world.

If Jesus Christ is truly in the Eucharist then you are truly a cannibal for eating Him, after all you used the definition of the word as "to injure." I could think of nothing more injurious.
The act of the sacrifice of the mass is gross irreverence to the majesty of the Almighty God who sits on the Throne of God, after shedding His blood once and for all.

It is a mystery. In fact, in the Orthodox Faith, we call the Eucharist "the Holy Mysteries". It is not understandable how this can be, but it is, nonetheless. You are like a Jehovah's Witness who, being unable to understand and define how God exists in the Blessed Trinity, denies it because he cannot wrap his mind around it. God is much bigger than that.

He died once, and only once. A man does not die continuously. When my Grandfather died, he died, and that was it.

Your grandfather, God rest his soul, is not God. Yet God sees his death as if it is happening even now. The difference is that because of the nature of the death of Christ, God takes that death and applies it to our sins.


That is a ridiculous thought even to think of. Christ died once, and once for all.

Not at all. You prove to me that there is time in Heaven and eternity.

When he died, he was dead, and put in the grave for three days and nights. Then he rose from the dead. Do you believe the gospel account. He was dead. He did not continuously die even in the grave. He died once. Thus the need for the resurrection. You do believe in the resurrection don't you? If so, then there is no need for a Mass.

The Mass is the celebration of the Resurrection. If there was no Resurrection, then we have no living sacrifice to offer.

I repeat, mental assent to the facts is NOT the same as experiental union with Him. You need His Blood for your sins, and you need Jesus in the Eucharist to have union with Him. Salvation is our union with Christ, and there is nothing closer to the eternal union we will have with and in Him in all eternity than the Mass. It is the foretaste of Heaven for those who are spiritually tuned in to it.

The Catholic Mass is a lie, when they try to re-offer the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Heresy and blasphemy is what it is, but it is not a lie, not according to Scripture.
I tried to point out that there are denotative meanings and connotative meanings of words.

"You must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood". Those listening so connoted and denoted the meaning to be real that they walked away from Him. I guess you didn't catch that.

"This IS my Body. This IS my Blood"

You can connote that all you wish and it will not change the words of our Lord, what He meant by them, and what those listening understood. It is beyond belief that believers only 70 years removed from His death, those who spoke Greek fluently, would come to the understanding that indeed the Body and Blood of the Lord really do appear in the Eucharist.

Brother Ed

 

SheEagle wrote:

""It seems to me that some people just wanna fight! Where's the Peace, Goodwill to all Men?

From this Baptist to any and all Catholics on this Board: Merry Christmas with Love! And Jesus Loves you, too!""

Well said SheEagle I really like your attitude. You shine with God's love

MEE(Carol), what time did you want us???

For some reason my limited mind just can't seem to figure out how enjoying a "special" time of year, with Jesus Christ as the focus, can be wrong. I guess I am just too simple for many here on the BB As Ed had said above many modern things we have now are based on traditions and customs that we don't agree with but what I say is it just isn't important because God knows our hearts and what is important to us. As Sheeagle and MEE have said. We decide what reminds us of what. The star on a tree could mean different things to different people, to me it means that God made a miraculous light over His Son, who had come just for ME. And so it goes------

Ed and DHK, I apologise for not reading all of your posts it just seemed that they were going in a direction that wasn't going to be edifying.

Nimrod, Tuor, DHK, What if I told you that I could show you a verse that, to me anyway, is telling you guys to lighten up some about Christmas and maybe your view on other secular things? Would you just say it is out of context or would you listen? Let me know and I will post it

Again to MEE, SheEagle, ED and others, may you enjoy the beauty of the shining lights, the Christmas carols, the fellowship of family and the love of Jesus throughtout this Christmas and the coming year.

In Christian Love,
Brian

[ December 17, 2002, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Nils, Now that you say that I remember you posting that before. So what do you do with the holiday?

It is funny to me that Christians try to seperate the Christian part from the secular part when they are so intertwined that it is almost impossible. I enjoy both.

On the Santa thing, we don't have an issue with it. We get the kids presents put them under the tree and they don't question who they are from. They know the gifts are from Mom and Dad and they don't think about Santa. we have Santa stuff on decorations so the kids know that santa has to do with christmas but as long as they get some gifts they don't care where they are from. Last year we didn't put the kids presents under the tree until late Christmas eve. The kids thought it was fun to wake up and see what was for them under the tree. this year the suff is out already.

IN Christ,
Brian

[ December 17, 2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

The date imposed by the Catholic Church was imposed because of a pagan Holiday (the worship of the Sun) which Christmas conveniently took the place of. It is placed on Dec. 25 because that is the day that they worship the Sun. How convenient!

Not quite. 12/25 was the day of the winter solstice, that is, the shortest day of the year (the day of most darkness and least light). Every day after 12/25 has slightly more light than the day before. What better day to celebrate the birth of the Lord, who brought light to a dark world?

BTW - due to adjustments on the calendar, the winter solstice is now 12/21. Christmas Day, however, remainied on 12/25.

 

** Well Brian, since you are from Kenosha and SheEagle9/11 is from Snowbelt, (not sure if these are cities) just call when you arrive here, in Ohio, and I'll leave the light on for ya!

Carol

 

Hello again, DHK --

Well, I must say that your opening statement on learning from each other surprised me in a nice sort of way. Feeling Christmassy, eh? (Jest kiddin' ya!!!!)

Here is some information on the Albigenses:

The Albigenses asserted the co-existence of two mutually opposed principles, one good, the other evil. The former is the creator of the spiritual, the latter of the material world. The bad principle is the source of all evil; natural phenomena, either ordinary like the growth of plants, or extraordinary as earthquakes, likewise moral disorders (war), must be attributed to him. He created the human body and is the author of sin, which springs from matter and not from the spirit. The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him; whereas the New Testament is the revelation of the beneficent God. The latter is the creator of human souls, which the bad principle imprisoned in material bodies after he had deceived them into leaving the kingdom of light. This earth is a place of punishment, the only hell that exists for the human soul. Punishment, however, is not everlasting; for all souls, being Divine in nature, must eventually be liberated. To accomplish this deliverance God sent upon earth Jesus Christ, who, although very perfect, like the Holy Ghost, is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. His body was, therefore, of celestial essence, and with it He penetrated the ear of Mary. It was only apparently that He was born from her and only apparently that He suffered. His redemption was not operative, but solely instructive. To enjoy its benefits, one must become a member of the Church of Christ (the Albigenses). Here below, it is not the Catholic sacraments but the peculiar ceremony of the Albigenses known as the consolamentum, or "consolation," that purifies the soul from all sin and ensures its immediate return to heaven. The resurrection of the body will not take place, since by its nature all flesh is evil.

(b) Moral

The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated. War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.

Sound heretical to me. Especially in that suicide by starvation thing.

Let's see, what else did you say.....

Oh yeah, that verse about "study to show yourself approved....

That was to TIMOTHY. Timothy was one of the first bishops of the Church, and as such, would have been admonished to do so in order that he lead the parish correctly.

As for your "independent churches" idea, you do realize that the epistles which St. Paul wrote disprove that idea. Would you listen to instructions from another pastor from another church on how to run your assembly? I think not. You are much too independant to do so.

But those who gathered together to read and heed the epistles of St. Paul understood that he was one of the leaders of the Body, which is called The Church. There was a hierarchial leadership even that early in the Church.

Also, the "body imagery" of the Scriptures speaks against the idea of having numerous independant bodies. Christianity is one body, not many. The Church on earth is to be a type and shadow of the real and true Church in Heaven (Heb. 8: 5). Therefore, as there is one divine Head in Heaven, Who is the omnipotent Ruler over all creation, so there must be just one human head on earth of the Church. The shadow must properly reflect the real.

Brother Ed

 

The calumnies raised against the Albigenses, refuted by the conference of Montreal.

Those who will reflect a little upon the innocence of the primitive Christians, and the horrid slanders cast upon them, will not be much surprised to see the innocence of the Albigenses attacked after the same manner. The Devil having found this method succeed in the first beginnings of Christianity, was not so careless of his interest to forget to employ the same against those who opposed themselves to the corruptions which he had introduced, and which he was willing to substitute instead of the religion of Jesus Christ.

He made use of the same method against those of the reformed religion. Whoever reads the writings of the Jesuits shall find that they have accused our Reformers of the same heresies which the Devil raised to put a stop to the progress of Christianity. The Jesuit Gauthier alone may be a sufficient witness hereof, in his Chronological Table; and we may well say, that in this point he hath at least equalized the impudence of Feuardentius, if he hath not outdone him. Why should any man therefore think strange, that the Church of Rome and her adorers should take the same course against the Albigenses, which she practiced in our days; and which she hath not yet left, because she believed it would not fail of certain success? so prodigious is the stupidity of the people of her communion. And truly the managers for the Church of Rome were no less diligent to employ these devilish artifices against the Albigenses, than against us. Here are some instances of it, for it is impossible to relate all; I begin with some of the more general articles:

1. They accused them of novelty, sometimes supposing them to have been only known since the time of Peter de Bruis, or of Henry his disciple; though the contrary be evident from the history of this Church, as we have set it down; and by the public Liturgy, which the Papists themselves have published not long since.

2. They accused them of being the disciples of Peter Waldo, and from thence raised this accusation, that they were only a company of laymen, without either ministry or right to administer the sacraments; whereas it is certain, that they had a lawful ministry, and indeed a thousand times more lawful than that of the Church of Rome.

3. They accused them in general of being Manichees, perhaps, because formerly the Priscillianists, who were a branch of the Manichees, had a party in that province, or near it, as Philastrius tells us, and of whom some were scattered through Languedock, after the year 1010, though indeed the Albigenses disputed against them, and solidly confuted them, as we are informed by William Puylaurens.

4. They endeavored to make them own the opinions and crimes that were proper to the Manichees, by producing false witnesses to convict them thereof. We have an illustrious example of this, in the History of the Earls of Toulouse. William Catel, Counsellor for the King in the Parliament of Tholouse, tells us, that two heretics, whereof the one was called Raymond, the other Bennett, having appeared before the Pope's legate, it was witnessed against them, that they had been heard to preach that there were two gods, the one good, and the other evil; that Priests could not consecrate the holy Host; that married persons could not be saved, if they had to do with their wives; that baptism is not necessary to infants; and many other heresies, which they would never acknowledge, notwithstanding all the witnesses that appeared against them; but said, they were false witnesses, and that they believed what the Catholic religion engageth us to believe. But notwithstanding these their solemn protestations, they further object against them all the consequences of Manicheism as natural inferences from the former opinions, of which they pretended that they had convicted them by witnesses. This probably was the rise of those fine controversies we find in Alanus Magnus, and other polemical writers who copied him.

5. They have been charged with forswearing themselves before a court of justice without scruple, though at the same time they are accused for maintaining that every lie is a mortal sin. This is done by Alanus, who falls upon them very heavily upon that account.

6. They are accused of being Arians, though Alanus distinguisheth them, and that the Popish Priests ought rather to be accused of favoring Manicheism and Arianism, than the Albigenses, who subtilly disputed against these heresies.

But it will be easy to refute these calumnies, by the conference of Montreal, in the year 1206, related by the Monk of Vaux Cernay. It was offered to the Bishops by the Albigenses, under certain conditions: That there should be moderators appointed on both sides, men of authority, able to hinder any tumult or sedition. Also, that the place where the conference was to be, might be free and safe for all those that should assist at it: moreover, that the subjects to be disputed upon should be agreed to by joint consent, and not to be quitted till they were wholly discussed; and that those that could not maintain their opinions by the word of God, should be looked upon as overcome. The Bishops and Monks accepted of all these conditions. The place they agreed upon was Montreal, near Carcasson, in the year 1206; the moderators agreed on on both sides, were B. of Villeneuve, and B. of Auxerre, for the Bishops; and for the Albigenses, R. de Bot, and Anthony Riviere: Arnoldus Hot, the Pastor of the Albigenses, accompanied with those that were thought fit for this action, appeared first at the place and time assigned; and afterwards came the Bishop of Ozma, and the Monk Dominic, a Spaniard, with two of the Pope's legates, Peter Castel and Radulphus de Lust, Abbot of Candets; P. Bertrand, Prior of Auterive, as also the Prior of Palat, and several other Priests and Monks.

The theses propounded by Arnoldus were, that the mass and transubstantiation were the invention of men, and not the ordinance of Jesus Christ or his Apostles.

That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs.

That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ.

Arnaud sent these propositions to the Bishop, who demanded a fortnight to prepare his answer, which was granted. At the day appointed the Bishop failed not to appear with a large writing; whereupon Arnaud Hot desired leave to be heard upon the spot, extempore, declaring that he would answer all the particulars contained in the said writing, desiring, the auditors not to be tired, if he took up some time in answering so long a discourse; they promised he should be heard with attention and patience, without the least interruption. He discoursed at several times for four days together, with so much admiration of the assistants, and dexterity on his part, that all the Bishops, Abbots, Monks, and Priests, could have been willing to have been farther off; for he deduced his answer according to the several points laid down in that writing, with so much order and perspicuity, that he made his auditors perceive, that, though the Bishop had writ much, yet he had concluded nothing that could be made use of, to the advantage of the Church of Rome, against these propositions. This done, Arnaud demanded, that, since the Bishops and he stood engaged to one another at the beginning of their conference, to prove their assertions by the word of God alone, the Bishops and Priests might be commanded to prove the authority of the mass, as it was sung in churches, piece by piece; that it was instituted by the Son of God, and sung in the same manner by his Apostles, beginning at the Introit, as they call it, to the Ite missa est: but the Bishops could not prove that any of those parts had been instituted for that purpose by Christ or by his Apostles. Here it was that the Bishops were covered with shame and regret; for Arnaud had reduced them to the single canon, which they pretended was the best piece of the mass; where he proved that the holy supper of the Lord was not the mass; saying, that if the mass were the Lord's supper, there would be all after consecration that there was before in the Lord's supper: whereas, said he, in your mass there is no bread, for by transubstantiation the bread vanisheth; wherefore the mass, being without bread, cannot be the supper of the Lord, wherein all know there is bread. Jesus Christ brake bread, Saint Paul brake bread, the Priest breaks the body, not bread; therefore the Priest neither doth what Jesus Christ nor what St. Paul did. As Arnaud was about to proceed in these anti-theses between the Lord's supper and the mass, to prove that it was neither of Christ's nor of the Apostles' institution, the Monks, Bishops, Legates, and Priests thought fit to withdraw themselves, being resolved to hear no more, for fear they might fix impressions on those that were by, which might extremely shake their belief of the mass.

The Monk of Vaux Cernay endeavored to render this action suspected, in saying, that when these heretical judges perceived the weakness of their cause, and the misfortune of engaging in such a dispute, they refused to pronounce any judgment concerning it, as likewise to restore us our own writings, for fear, adds he, they might come to be published, but restored the heretics theirs. But how could two of the Pope's Legates, and so many Bishops, Abbots, Monks, and Priests suffer themselves to be drawn into a place, there to be thus abused and tricked? The Monk himself saith in the same place, that the heads of the heretics came to meet with the Catholics at the castle of Montreal, to dispute with them: the Catholics therefore were in possession of the castle; there could be therefore no opportunity of foul play, nor of any such violence; neither was it necessary that the moderators should pronounce their judgment in a case of dispute; seeing they hold that no other judgment is necessary but that of the Pope, who cannot err. Besides, how could this Monk know that the Albigenses were overcome, seeing that no sentence was given?

Perrin could have given us a faithful extract of this conference, because himself observes, that it had been brought to him from the Albigenses by Mr. Rafur, minister of the church of Montreal, in an old manuscript: from whence, though he doth not express it in so many words, I judge that he reduced the points in question between the Albigenses and the Church of Rome to six articles.

I. Article. The doctrines which they asserted in opposition to the Church of Rome were, that the Church of Rome was not the holy Church, nor the spouse of Christ, but that it was a Church which had drunk in the doctrine of devils; the whore of Babylon, which St. John describes in the Revelations, the mother of fornications and abominations, covered with the blood of the saints.

II. That the mass was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, but a human invention.

III. That the prayers of the living are unprofitable for the dead.

IV. That the purgatory maintained in the Church of Rome is no better than a human invention, to satisfy the avarice of the Priests.

V. That the saints ought not to be prayed unto.

VI. That transubstantiation is a human invention, and erroneous doctrine; and that the worshipping of the bread is manifest idolatry.

That therefore it was necessary to separate from the Church of Rome, in which the contrary was said and taught, because one cannot assist at the mass, without partaking of the idolatry there practiced, nor expect salvation by any other means than by Jesus Christ, nor transfer to creatures the honor which is due to the Creator, nor say concerning the bread, that it is God, and worship it as such, without incurring the pain of eternal damnation, because idolaters shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. For all these things therefore which they asserted, they have been hated and persecuted to death.

This account of the conference of Montreal, which I have copied from Perrin, is enough in my judgment fully to refute any scruple that might remain in the mind of a reader who reads in Roger Hoveden the letters of Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogon writ in the year 1178; which testify, that the Manichees of Toulouse had been convicted by the confession which many of them had made of the greatest part of the articles of that heresy. It is very visible that it was upon the authority of these letters, or upon some informations of this nature, that Alanus, who was born at Lisle in Flanders, and who had spent the greatest part of his time at the university of Paris, has built his catalogue of the heresies which he refutes in his treatise against the Albigenses, whereof I have given an extract in the foregoing chapter.

So that it is necessary to suppose one of these three things: either that the Earl Raymond of Toulouse, and those whom he protected, were really Manichees, as they are accused to be by the Pope's Legates, by the Bishops, and by Peter of Vaux Cernay, who sets down this accusation, and the forced confessions of the Albigenses, who own themselves to be Manichees; or that the Albigenses, who were the disciples of Peter de Bruys and of Henry, that were no Manichees, had gone over to that sect towards the end of the 12th century, and afterwards again became Petrobusians and Henricians at the beginning of the 13th, as it plainly appears they then were, from the conference of Montreal, where they freely proposed their opinions, entirely opposite to Manicheism; or that the Legates and Monks, that persecuted them with fire and sword, were great impostors in taking advantage against them from some confessions extorted from Manichees, who were here and there scattered in those dioceses, and which they made use of to animate the people of the Roman communion, and to engage the Princes and Bishops of all places to exterminate without mercy a sort of people who utterly subverted all the rules of morality, which is the band of society, and all the principles of both natural and Christian religion.

By Peter Allix,1690, Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses

 

Well, hey, Carol, the Snowbelt is in Ohio! NE Ohio to be exact!

Thanks for the invite! The fire & eggnog sound wonderful! (Non-alcoholic, of course for Baptists ).

I'll bring some of my world famous ( ) pumpkin bread or other goodies and maybe a few gifts, too!

Can we sing Christmas songs? Can we light hollyberry or vanilla candles? Can we have lots of colored lights?

I'll even bring my favorite Christmas CD with the Oak Ridge Boys singing "O Holy Night!" And my video of "It's a Wonderful Life!"

What time?

Merry Christmas! To everybody on the Baptist Board! Never forgetting....

JESUS is....the Reason for the Season!

 

Those who will reflect a little upon the innocence of the primitive Christians, and the horrid slanders cast upon them,

Since the primitive Christians were distinctly "katholicos" (Catholic) in their universal praxis, believing in both baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it is true that they have been indeed slandered by those who are ignorant of history, such as Mr. Allix.

will not be much surprised to see the innocence of the Albigenses attacked after the same manner.

Hardly innocent, based upon what they believe.

The Devil having found this method succeed in the first beginnings of Christianity, was not so careless of his interest to forget to employ the same against those who opposed themselves to the corruptions which he had introduced, and which he was willing to substitute instead of the religion of Jesus Christ.

Indeed, the devil keeps very busy with the current crop of Reformers, Anabaptists, X Catholics and the generally ignorant, in spewing forth lies and half truths against the most holy Bride of our Lord, the Church Catholic. He is helped in his work by those within that august Body who, having cast aside their first love, have endeavored to cast smears upon Her holy teachings and who have, some at least, by the most wretched and licentuous behavior, brought scandal and shame upon the fair name of Catholic.

He made use of the same method against those of the reformed religion.

Quite the opposite. The Reformers, ignoring the plain commands of the Bible in favor of their own egotistical teachings and rebellious spirit, engaged in a demonic rebellion most vile, for they have taken the holy body of our Lord and rent it into ten thousand pieces. Not content to do this, they then took doctrines and teachings which had been established by our Lord Himself and passed down through the ages by faithful men, and demonized these holy teachings, claiming that the ideas of their own warped and fervered minds were more holy than that which the apostles taught, guarded, and handed down to faithful men as instructed in Scripture.

Whoever reads the writings of the Jesuits shall find that they have accused our Reformers of the same heresies which the Devil raised to put a stop to the progress of Christianity.

The devil put no stop to Christianity. This is one of many lies straight from the pit of hell, and the Reformers should find themselves aghast to be counted in the company of the deviliesh Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other cultus who claim that the "pure religion of God" disappeared from the face of the earth until THEIR FOUNDER restored it!!

The doctrines which they asserted in opposition to the Church of Rome were, that the Church of Rome was not the holy Church, nor the spouse of Christ, but that it was a Church which had drunk in the doctrine of devils; the whore of Babylon, which St. John describes in the Revelations, the mother of fornications and abominations, covered with the blood of the saints.

And thus they call Christ Jesus Himself a liar, for He promised that the Church would NEVER be overrun by the gates of hell. They show themselves unworthy exegetes of the Bible, supporting their doctrines by using the fallible logic of man's thinking rather than the infallible leading of the Holy Spirit.

II. That the mass was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, but a human invention.

And once again they call Christ a liar, for it was He Himself Who said, "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood." And, as if that were not enough, generations of men who did not have to learn Greek nor Arabic, but who spoke it freely and understood its nuances, who learned from the men who were taught by the apostles themselves, SAID CLEARLY that this is indeed the Body and Blood, the very same Body and Blood of our Lord, which hung upon the Cross. They admonished the laity to faith in this, urging them not to see merely bread and wine, but with the "eyes of faith" to realize that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

III. That the prayers of the living are unprofitable for the dead.

Again, not what Scripture teaches, but when you remove those books which contradict your new theories, then you can assert anything and pretend that this is from God. Both Catholic and Orthodox of old have admitted to a state of being after death which is aided by our prayers.

IV. That the purgatory maintained in the Church of Rome is no better than a human invention, to satisfy the avarice of the Priests.

More calumy, more lies. That the teaching of Purgatory, along with indulgences for those in it, was abused by Teczel in the sixteenth century is not up for question. Indeed, he went beyond proper boundaries in trying to use these truths to raise money. But the Church corrected this at the Council of Trent and set aright that which had been abused. The abuse of a teaching does not make that teaching incorrect.

The real issue here is that the Reformers have bought into the legal fiction called "justification by faith alone" which is neither taught in Scripture nor agrees with the nature and working of a covenantal relationship.

V. That the saints ought not to be prayed unto.

And having severed the Body of Christ into thousands of splinters, they do now the same with the Body of Christ spiritual, pretending that there is one Body for those who have died in faith and another for those who are "in the Body" yet still on earth. There is but ONE Body of Christ, into which both the baptized and those who have died in the friendship of God are placed and exist. Those who have gone ahead are most solititous for the welfare of the Church and Her members here on earth, and to that end they pray that the will of God and all His goodness be done unto us.

VI. That transubstantiation is a human invention, and erroneous doctrine; and that the worshipping of the bread is manifest idolatry.

The worshipping of the Bible as God is idolatry also, for the Bible contains not all that Christ said or taught to the apostles, nor does it contain all that St. Paul taught. Since Christ is indeed the living word of God, then if we do not have EVERY ONE OF AND ALL of His words ever spoken while on earth, then one must state that we have at best only a partial revelation of Him. There is therefore that greater revelation given to us in Holy Traditions given in private discourses between the apostles and our Lord and passed down from generation to generation.

We have no proof that Christ DID NOT sit down with the apostles and thoroughly explain the substance, the nature, and the manner of Transubstantiation. We do know, however, that this was taught in the Early Church, and those who disagree with it are either prejudiced to a high degree or willingly ignorant of this fact, since to know this would change their minds about being a Protestant and rebellion against His Church.

That therefore it was necessary to separate from the Church of Rome,

Find this in Scripture please. I can find exactly the opposite, in which St. Paul taught that those who practice schism and forment dissentions are acting and walking IN THE FLESH!!
There is NO COMMAND to separate onesself from the Church, and the Reformers are no better than the Arians, who also being heretics, thought that they, too, found something "special and unique" in the Bible which those wicked old papists were hiding from the masses.

nor say concerning the bread, that it is God, and worship it as such, without incurring the pain of eternal damnation, because idolaters shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

No doubt that the Arians said the same thing, wording it thusly "...nor say concerning a mere baby that it is God, and worship it as such. For I have no doubt that those who find it hard to imagine that the bread and wine can be transformed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, would not find it repulsive to the understanding to believe that the God of the universe, Who holds all things together and in His very hands, would be found in the tiny body of flesh found in a humble manger. What inconsistency!!!

Furthermore, these wretched men may well have found themselves outside the kingdom of God, for there is but ONE KINGDOM, which in days of old, consisted of the nation of the Jews and outside of which was no salvation. To be saved from wrath, one must needs have gone to the Jews, been circumcized, and keep all those ordinances in faith which God had given to prophesy of the coming Christ and to forgive one's sins.

This being done, God has replaced the physical and seen kingdom of the Old Covenant with a physical and seen kingdom of the New Covenant, for He would not have men to be ignorant of where His kingdom is or who is in charge of it. He would not have men to wonder vainly about that which gives eternal life, but gave both His Son for the sins of the world, and a physical and seen Church, as a beacon of light upon the hill to point all men to Christ. Those who separate themselves from this Church can have no relationship to Christ as God intended, and especially those who WERE ONCE IN THE CHURCH and of willing rebellion separated themselves from it. Salvation belongs to the Church, and She is the dispenser of God's mercies through the Sacraments which Christ Himself ordained. Those Reformers may well be even now regretting their rebellion in which they precipitously and without thought severed themselves from that Body in which is life eternal.

One must wonder if Peter Allix could be brought back for a second and asked of his rebellion against our Lord's Church and of his eternal state (of which I know not and neither do you), what his response would be to us living here and now.

Call me when you wake up, my dear DHK. History records a different set of truths than that which you copy from the pages of the Protestant Rebellion. It is both a shame, but also quite strange that they would so easily forget the writings of the Early Fathers which so eloquently prove that the Church is the Body of Christ and that the Catholic Faith is the Faith which was practised back then.

Brother Ed

 

SheEagle9/11 and Brian, does this mean that we are Christmas hypocrites?

Mee (Carol)

 

I posted that history of the Albigenses to demonstrate to you that Albigenses did not believe the things whereof you accused them of. And they did not. If you do not believe history I cannot help you. Is it not ironic that you want me to prove the historicity of a people from the church fathers, i.e., the Albigenses, who lived centuries after the church fathers. Where is the logic in that? The Albigenses, like the Baptists of today, took the Bible as their final authority in all things of faith and practice. They were more akin to Baptists then to Catholics. They distanced themselves from the church fathers, which held to many heresies themselves, as you alluded to.
Read my post and see what it was that the Albigenses actually believed. And then realize the Catholic Church undertook a great Inquisition against these innocent people because the believed and taught the Bible as truth. Thousands upon thousands were cruelly murdered in cold blood, after having first been inhumanely tortured by the inquistors. This is the Christianity that you so love and believe in.
DHK

 

DHK -- You know, I put the word Albigenses in my search engine.

Even the secular encyclopedias admit that they believed that God created Satan.

What's the matter with you anyway? You won't believe the reports of the Early Church Fathers, but you will believe that the reports of the Church are false, even when SECULAR encyclopedias agree with what has been said.

Now I guess you are going to tell me that it is all a gigantic Roman Catholic conspiracy to keep the truth from the masses, as if NNE could research and find the truth outside of the influence of the Church.

Your hatred of the Church has made you quite irrational.

Brother Ed

 

I am not irrational, but I do hate the heresies of the Catholic church, or untruths that are propagated by any religion for that matter.

There are 8,160 results when “Albigenses” is entered into a Google search engine. Most of them are Catholic. I read the article out of the Word book Encyclopedia. He also was a Catholic, even though writing for a secular encyclopedia. He referred to “the Church,” as the Catholic church, called the Albigenses heretics, and took the typical Catholic viewpoint on the subject. When you start with a prejudice or bias, you will certainly come to a biased conclusion.

Here is a quote from one of the results of the google search on Albigenses.
"Renwick continues, "It is certain that, although outwardly suppressed, the spirit of these persecuted sects continued to live in the hearts of the people till the Reformation. Much historical research is still called for in order to bring out the true story and the theological position of those numerous bodies. There are complicated questions involved and in the past historians have depended too much on the statements of the enemies of the dissenting groups for their of their doctrine and morals"(p. 98).

Karl Keating took up the subject of the Albigenses in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. He says (page 298), that fundamentalists take one point of Albigensian doctrine (the use of the Bible in the vernacular) and conclude that these people were "Bible Christians". H.C. Vedder has already pointed out that the other similarities were rejection of the sacraments and baby baptism and belief in justification by faith. Keating goes on to point out the errors often ascribed to Albigenses who, he says, may not have been doctrinally pure (but we have only Rome's word for that). Keating does not claim to be a historian, but it is evident he has read much history and much of it has evidently been written by historians who do more than God can do. (God cannot change the past; historians can).

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/NA4.html

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I do hate the heresies of the Catholic church"

Do you believe that one of these heresies is the teaching that baptism saves you?

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

God bless you,

Carson

 

The word "baptism" simply means "immerse." In what were Noah and the 8 that were "immersed" in, that "saved" them? Were they immeresed in water? Did the water save them? Or was it some other thing that they were immersed in? What saved them?
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Are you saying that "baptism" in 1 Peter 3:21 is not referring to water baptism?

If so, then you need to explain what Peter means when he says in v. 21, "not as a removal of dirt from the body", which shows that Peter is explicitly referring to Christian water baptism.

"baptism ... now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Christian water baptism saves you, DHK.

Do you deny this?

Do you deny what the Bible teaches?

God bless you,

Carson