-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Response to the Right Reverend H. Graham & His Followers
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
Rand has a long history of cut & paste tactics here. Not sure why the BB allows it.
He is not here to debate. However, he wholeheartedly believes that the pope IS the anti-christ and usually bringing that up draws his fangs and venum out. Let's see!
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Part 9
Through the centuries there had been a demonstrable backlash against the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe. John Wycliffe (d. 1384), Oxford theologian, was no less a vocal opponent. He is considered the spiritual ‘father’ of the Lollard movement. For well over a century the Lollards wreaked havoc with the established religion of Rome, causing their teaching and preaching to be banned under penalty of death.
The following quotes and confessions of their beliefs are gleamed from three authoritative sources:
1. NORWICH HERESY TRIALS 1428-31; Edited for the Royal Historical Society by Norman P. Tanner, 1977.
2. Lollards and Reformers, Margaret Aston, 1984.
3. The Premature Reformation, Anne Hudson, 1988.
It should be noted those who embraced Lollardy included blue collar workers such as shoemakers, tailors, skinners, carpenters, millers, and butchers, as well as knights, Catholic priests, scholars and the wealthy.
Lollard View of the Mass
· Under interrogation, John Sklly confessed, “I held and affirmed that no priest has the power to make Christ’s body in the form of bread in the sacrament of the altar and that after the sacramental words are said by the priest at Mass there remains pure material bread on the altar.”
· Richard Gryg: “When the people go to church at the consecration time of the mass, I have said that the blind goeth to the blind.”
· “Common to the heresiarch [Wycliffe] and to his followers was a denial of the contemporary views of transubstantiation and a belief that after the words of consecration in the mass the substance of the bread and wine remained on the altar along with the accidents [visible attributes]……material bread still remained there.”
· John Whitehorn viewed the host as pure bread and nothing else. His logic was founded on the words, ‘This is My Body,’ which signified God’s Word, “for the word is God and God is the word, as in the beginning of St. John’s Gospel. And therefore, whosoever receives God’s word devoutly, receives the very body of Christ.”
· John Pykas viewed the host as bread. “The body of Christ is in the word and the word is in God.”
Lollard View of Veneration Given Images, Crucifixes & Relics
· They denied the veneration of images, crucifixes and relics, calling it idolatry. A crucifix is no more holy than the gallows upon which men are hanged. A shrine simply holds the bones of the dead.
· They denied the value of religious paintings in churches, instead preferring to pay for their destruction, rather than their painting.
· Edmund Archer of Lodne professed: “I held, believed and affirmed that no manner of worship should be made any images of the crucifix, Our Lady St. Mary, or any other saint, especially to images of Christ’s cross, for every such cross is the sign and token [read ‘mark’] of Antichrist.”
· “And in England they are called Lollards, who, denying images, thought therewithal the crafts of painting and graving to be generally superfluous and naught, and against God’s laws.” (Stephen Gardiner, antagonist Bishop, 1547).
· “To images should no manner worship be done neither genuflexions nor incensing nor other thing of worship…..It is damnable to go on pilgrimage to any sepulchre relics of saints: for a pilgrimage should be done to poor men….It is damnable to offer to any image” (William Emayn, 1429 trial).
· “From this day forward I shall worship images, with praying and offering unto them in the worship of the saints that they be made after, and also I shall never more despise pilgrimage.” (Typical oath of abjuration required by Archbishop Arundel, 1395).
· A servant, John Burell, learned the Ten Commandments in English and discovered ‘that in the first commandment it contained that no honour should be shown to any images sculpted in churches by the hand of man, nor likened after them in heaven above nor after them that be in water beneath earth, to bow to them nor worship them.”
· Thomas Colyns opposed church imagery teaching his son John for the past 8 years the Decalogue, “and namely, he should have but one God, and should worship nothing but God alone.”
· William White denied giving honor to ‘any dead idol in church.’ “Trees growing in a wood are of greater virtue and vigour, and bear a clearer likeness and image of God than stones or dead wood carved to the likeness of man.”
· “Now men kneel and pray and offer fast to dead images that have neither hunger nor cold; and despise, beat and slay Christian men made to the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity. What honour of God is this to kneel and offer to an image made of man’s sinful hands, and to despise and rob the image made of God’s hands, that is, a Christian man, or a Christian woman? When men give not alms to poor needy men, but to dead images or rich clerks, they rob poor men of their due portion and needful sustenance assigned to them of God himself; and when such offerings to dead images rob poor men, they rob Jesus Christ.” (Prologue to 2nd edition of the Lollard Bible, 1396).
· Lollards viewed a practical use of images was that of “warming a man’s body in the cold, if they were set upon a fire, and the silver and jewels upon them would profit the poor men, and the wax for to light poor men and creatures at their work.”
· By displaying gilded and jeweled images in churches, the priests misrepresented Christ and the calling of His disciples by insinuating a Christian’s calling is to a life of luxury in the pursuit of riches.
· Upon examination, William Thorpe denied the usefulness of images as ‘books of the illiterate.’ [A common argument used by the RCC.] It is through preaching and the study of God’s Word that the Gospel is learned, he said. But because of the prevalent lack of preaching, images were instituted as lawful and necessary:
“For certain, sir, if the wonderful working of God and the holy loving and teaching of Christ and of his apostles and prophets were made known to the people by holy living and true and busy teaching of the [Roman Catholic] priests; these things, sir, would be sufficient books and calendars to know God and his saints by, without any images made with man’s hands…..the word of God suffices to all faithful men and women, without any such images.”
· To which Archbishop Arundel replied, “I hold thee a vicious priest and accursed! And all them that are of thy sect! For all priests of holy church and all images that move men to devotion, thou and such others go about to destroy!”
· Lollards typically referred to the images of the BVM, whether the blessed Mary of Lincoln or the blessed Mary of Walsingham as ‘witches,’ the witch of Lincoln and the witch of Walsingham.
· Roger and Alice Dexter were ordered to do penance for their refusal to worship any cross by publicly parading through town holding a crucifix, reciting ‘Hail Mary’ and ‘The Lord’s Prayer.’
· Rejection of relic worship by Lollard John Baylis: “When I shall see them before me put between two burning faggots and they not perished, then will I believe they are holy relics.”
· Alice Hignell rejected image worship. “She told those offering candles to an image of St. Leonard that she would do the same when the saint ate one and blew out another, and to those offering to a dusty image of the Virgin Mary she said she would follow their example only when the Virgin showed she could blow away the cobwebs surrounding the image, whilst she commented that if an image of St. Martin had any sense it would come down from its high, draughty place and sit by a poor man’s fire. She also declared she would have liked to have chopped such images for firewood”
· Another Lollard suggested, “It was as good to offer a candle to an owl in the woods as to an image of our Lady.”
· Miracles can be faked, as William Sarum noted: “Among the relics that be worshipped in churches is many a sheep’s bone.”
· William Thorpe thought God’s creation was sufficient to prove His existence to the laity, who did not need false pictorial representations of the Godhead to ‘teach’ the illiterate.
· William Graunger thought the cross should be despised because of the suffering Christ endured on it.
NEXT: Dangerous Lollard doctrine continued.
Through the centuries there had been a demonstrable backlash against the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe. John Wycliffe (d. 1384), Oxford theologian, was no less a vocal opponent. He is considered the spiritual ‘father’ of the Lollard movement. For well over a century the Lollards wreaked havoc with the established religion of Rome, causing their teaching and preaching to be banned under penalty of death.
The following quotes and confessions of their beliefs are gleamed from three authoritative sources:
1. NORWICH HERESY TRIALS 1428-31; Edited for the Royal Historical Society by Norman P. Tanner, 1977.
2. Lollards and Reformers, Margaret Aston, 1984.
3. The Premature Reformation, Anne Hudson, 1988.
It should be noted those who embraced Lollardy included blue collar workers such as shoemakers, tailors, skinners, carpenters, millers, and butchers, as well as knights, Catholic priests, scholars and the wealthy.
Lollard View of the Mass
· Under interrogation, John Sklly confessed, “I held and affirmed that no priest has the power to make Christ’s body in the form of bread in the sacrament of the altar and that after the sacramental words are said by the priest at Mass there remains pure material bread on the altar.”
· Richard Gryg: “When the people go to church at the consecration time of the mass, I have said that the blind goeth to the blind.”
· “Common to the heresiarch [Wycliffe] and to his followers was a denial of the contemporary views of transubstantiation and a belief that after the words of consecration in the mass the substance of the bread and wine remained on the altar along with the accidents [visible attributes]……material bread still remained there.”
· John Whitehorn viewed the host as pure bread and nothing else. His logic was founded on the words, ‘This is My Body,’ which signified God’s Word, “for the word is God and God is the word, as in the beginning of St. John’s Gospel. And therefore, whosoever receives God’s word devoutly, receives the very body of Christ.”
· John Pykas viewed the host as bread. “The body of Christ is in the word and the word is in God.”
Lollard View of Veneration Given Images, Crucifixes & Relics
· They denied the veneration of images, crucifixes and relics, calling it idolatry. A crucifix is no more holy than the gallows upon which men are hanged. A shrine simply holds the bones of the dead.
· They denied the value of religious paintings in churches, instead preferring to pay for their destruction, rather than their painting.
· Edmund Archer of Lodne professed: “I held, believed and affirmed that no manner of worship should be made any images of the crucifix, Our Lady St. Mary, or any other saint, especially to images of Christ’s cross, for every such cross is the sign and token [read ‘mark’] of Antichrist.”
· “And in England they are called Lollards, who, denying images, thought therewithal the crafts of painting and graving to be generally superfluous and naught, and against God’s laws.” (Stephen Gardiner, antagonist Bishop, 1547).
· “To images should no manner worship be done neither genuflexions nor incensing nor other thing of worship…..It is damnable to go on pilgrimage to any sepulchre relics of saints: for a pilgrimage should be done to poor men….It is damnable to offer to any image” (William Emayn, 1429 trial).
· “From this day forward I shall worship images, with praying and offering unto them in the worship of the saints that they be made after, and also I shall never more despise pilgrimage.” (Typical oath of abjuration required by Archbishop Arundel, 1395).
· A servant, John Burell, learned the Ten Commandments in English and discovered ‘that in the first commandment it contained that no honour should be shown to any images sculpted in churches by the hand of man, nor likened after them in heaven above nor after them that be in water beneath earth, to bow to them nor worship them.”
· Thomas Colyns opposed church imagery teaching his son John for the past 8 years the Decalogue, “and namely, he should have but one God, and should worship nothing but God alone.”
· William White denied giving honor to ‘any dead idol in church.’ “Trees growing in a wood are of greater virtue and vigour, and bear a clearer likeness and image of God than stones or dead wood carved to the likeness of man.”
· “Now men kneel and pray and offer fast to dead images that have neither hunger nor cold; and despise, beat and slay Christian men made to the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity. What honour of God is this to kneel and offer to an image made of man’s sinful hands, and to despise and rob the image made of God’s hands, that is, a Christian man, or a Christian woman? When men give not alms to poor needy men, but to dead images or rich clerks, they rob poor men of their due portion and needful sustenance assigned to them of God himself; and when such offerings to dead images rob poor men, they rob Jesus Christ.” (Prologue to 2nd edition of the Lollard Bible, 1396).
· Lollards viewed a practical use of images was that of “warming a man’s body in the cold, if they were set upon a fire, and the silver and jewels upon them would profit the poor men, and the wax for to light poor men and creatures at their work.”
· By displaying gilded and jeweled images in churches, the priests misrepresented Christ and the calling of His disciples by insinuating a Christian’s calling is to a life of luxury in the pursuit of riches.
· Upon examination, William Thorpe denied the usefulness of images as ‘books of the illiterate.’ [A common argument used by the RCC.] It is through preaching and the study of God’s Word that the Gospel is learned, he said. But because of the prevalent lack of preaching, images were instituted as lawful and necessary:
“For certain, sir, if the wonderful working of God and the holy loving and teaching of Christ and of his apostles and prophets were made known to the people by holy living and true and busy teaching of the [Roman Catholic] priests; these things, sir, would be sufficient books and calendars to know God and his saints by, without any images made with man’s hands…..the word of God suffices to all faithful men and women, without any such images.”
· To which Archbishop Arundel replied, “I hold thee a vicious priest and accursed! And all them that are of thy sect! For all priests of holy church and all images that move men to devotion, thou and such others go about to destroy!”
· Lollards typically referred to the images of the BVM, whether the blessed Mary of Lincoln or the blessed Mary of Walsingham as ‘witches,’ the witch of Lincoln and the witch of Walsingham.
· Roger and Alice Dexter were ordered to do penance for their refusal to worship any cross by publicly parading through town holding a crucifix, reciting ‘Hail Mary’ and ‘The Lord’s Prayer.’
· Rejection of relic worship by Lollard John Baylis: “When I shall see them before me put between two burning faggots and they not perished, then will I believe they are holy relics.”
· Alice Hignell rejected image worship. “She told those offering candles to an image of St. Leonard that she would do the same when the saint ate one and blew out another, and to those offering to a dusty image of the Virgin Mary she said she would follow their example only when the Virgin showed she could blow away the cobwebs surrounding the image, whilst she commented that if an image of St. Martin had any sense it would come down from its high, draughty place and sit by a poor man’s fire. She also declared she would have liked to have chopped such images for firewood”
· Another Lollard suggested, “It was as good to offer a candle to an owl in the woods as to an image of our Lady.”
· Miracles can be faked, as William Sarum noted: “Among the relics that be worshipped in churches is many a sheep’s bone.”
· William Thorpe thought God’s creation was sufficient to prove His existence to the laity, who did not need false pictorial representations of the Godhead to ‘teach’ the illiterate.
· William Graunger thought the cross should be despised because of the suffering Christ endured on it.
NEXT: Dangerous Lollard doctrine continued.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Part 10
Lollard Views on Baptism
· John Pykas testified, “The only true baptism is that of the Holy Ghost.”
· Lollard John Tanner believed baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost was sufficient without water.
· Another Lollard testified, “It is just as good to baptize in dust as it is in a font” which has allegedly been sanctified by a priest.
· Another declared, “What does it avail a child to be cast into cold water?”
· Also, the present day baptismal ceremony of the Catholic Church is nothing less than idolatry, following the traditions and additions of men, rather than following the model depicted in the New Testament.
· Many contended baptism of a child born to Christian parents was unnecessary.
· In summary, they denied the ritual of infant baptism with its unbiblical practices, such as making the sign of the cross which allegedly ‘blesses’ the baby, placing salt in its mouth, the exorcising of demons, etc. Nor is it necessary to salvation. They understood water baptism as the means utilized to enter into fellowship with the Catholic Church, which they detested as Antichrist. In their view the quintessential baptism was that of the Spirit, in Christ’s blood, which placed the recipient into the Body of Christ. And that baptism was of God, not man.
Lollard Views on What Constitutes the Church
· The true church of God was invisible, consisting of only the congregation of the saved who were good Christians, existing in homes of all believers, not in visible institutional constructs.
· John Godsell, parchment maker, professed, “All material churches are but synagogues. They are not to be revered because God hears prayers said in the fields as well as prayers said in such a synagogue.”
· Holy church consists of those God has ordained to dwell with him in bliss, no matter their status, whether priests or seculars, lords or commoners, ladies or poor women, whoever loves God continuously. And furthermore, it includes all that are called ‘known men’ [2 Timothy 2:19; 1 Peter 1:2] whom we consider to be either children of salvation or those nigh to salvation. All other men and women we consider as erring sheep in peril of perishing.
· For Wyclif the church consisted in the congregation predestinatorum, the body of those predestined by God for salvation; the congregation prescitorum, the body of those foreknown to damnation.
· Lollards understood the congregation of the predestined was to experience many trials and temptations according to the prophecies, yet promises perseverance and ultimate bliss. The Apocalypse is the revelation of the history of God’s predestined. [Wycliffe, Lollards and all Protestant Reformers and Puritans held the Historicist view of interpreting Revelation.]
· Christ is head of the body of the church, and every chosen man and woman is called a son or daughter of his church. Altogether they consist of the full body of his church.
· The classic Lollard treatise, The Lantern of Light, recognizes three possible churches when speaking of the ‘church’: the first is composed solely of the predestined [the invisible, true church]; the second is the physical building composed of lime, timber and stone [the church building]; the third comprises both the predestined and foreknown [to perdition] caught in the Gospel net as portrayed in the Parable of the Drag Net [all who profess Christ].
· The first church is understood as comprised of all men who should be saved; it containeth none else but only those who shall be saved.
· The third church is a warring faction where the predestined saints are persecuted by the foreknown damned.
· One Lollard expressed the opinion that the material [Roman Catholic] church was the temple of the Devil, not the temple of God.
· Another Lollard stated, “Holy church is the congregation of just men for whom Jesus Christ shed his blood.” [This is the Reformation doctrine of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement.]
· It is a gathering of true Christian men; those that be in deadly sin be out of the church of God’s ordinance and in the synagogue of Satan.
· The Parable of the Drag Net explains how it is possible to be in the church, but not of the church. Those who are of the church will not be weeded out. Those who are not of the church, though in the church, will be weeded out.
Lollard Views on Purgatory & Indulgences
· The Pope claims power to deliver souls from purgatory with his pardons. His pardon may be given with or without monetary exchange. Now if he, for money, may deliver one soul, he may deliver him as well without money; and if he may deliver one, he may deliver a thousand; and if he may deliver a thousand, he may deliver them all, and so destroy purgatory. Therefore, he is a cruel tyrant, though alleging all charity, if he keeps them there in painful prison till men give him money for their delivery.
· Lollards believed purgatory a fiction which did not exist, but for the purpose of monetary gain by the clergy.
· Indulgences are of no value in remitting sin. Margery Baxter professed, “The Bishop of Norwich and his ministers are members of the devil who spread the false indulgences given them by the Pope” and are nothing less than “damnable idolatry.”
· The 24th article of John Purvey’s Remonstrance Against Romish Corruptions in the Church (ca.1395) states, “Christian men are not required to believe that the indulgences of the Pope are infallibly true, nor without error or lies, whether publicly or privately bestowed. This is proven by sound biblical reasoning. For if Christ and His Apostles had the power to give such indulgences and did not give them when some Christian men were [allegedly] not fully purged [of their sin] in this life, and yet were worthy to be helped by the intercessory prayers of holy church, it seems that Christ and His Apostles failed in being merciful; or more to the point, that they were less merciful than the Bishop of Rome, or any other bishop. But this is a blasphemous statement to make: that any bishop is more merciful than Jesus Christ, who died because of so great a love for men’s souls. Therefore, it seems to be an absolutely false assertion that the Pope and other bishops have the power to grant indulgences at their pleasure, while Christ and His Apostles did not.” [Translation by this present writer.]
NEXT: Further Lollard Views on Catholic Sacraments & Practices.
Lollard Views on Baptism
· John Pykas testified, “The only true baptism is that of the Holy Ghost.”
· Lollard John Tanner believed baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost was sufficient without water.
· Another Lollard testified, “It is just as good to baptize in dust as it is in a font” which has allegedly been sanctified by a priest.
· Another declared, “What does it avail a child to be cast into cold water?”
· Also, the present day baptismal ceremony of the Catholic Church is nothing less than idolatry, following the traditions and additions of men, rather than following the model depicted in the New Testament.
· Many contended baptism of a child born to Christian parents was unnecessary.
· In summary, they denied the ritual of infant baptism with its unbiblical practices, such as making the sign of the cross which allegedly ‘blesses’ the baby, placing salt in its mouth, the exorcising of demons, etc. Nor is it necessary to salvation. They understood water baptism as the means utilized to enter into fellowship with the Catholic Church, which they detested as Antichrist. In their view the quintessential baptism was that of the Spirit, in Christ’s blood, which placed the recipient into the Body of Christ. And that baptism was of God, not man.
Lollard Views on What Constitutes the Church
· The true church of God was invisible, consisting of only the congregation of the saved who were good Christians, existing in homes of all believers, not in visible institutional constructs.
· John Godsell, parchment maker, professed, “All material churches are but synagogues. They are not to be revered because God hears prayers said in the fields as well as prayers said in such a synagogue.”
· Holy church consists of those God has ordained to dwell with him in bliss, no matter their status, whether priests or seculars, lords or commoners, ladies or poor women, whoever loves God continuously. And furthermore, it includes all that are called ‘known men’ [2 Timothy 2:19; 1 Peter 1:2] whom we consider to be either children of salvation or those nigh to salvation. All other men and women we consider as erring sheep in peril of perishing.
· For Wyclif the church consisted in the congregation predestinatorum, the body of those predestined by God for salvation; the congregation prescitorum, the body of those foreknown to damnation.
· Lollards understood the congregation of the predestined was to experience many trials and temptations according to the prophecies, yet promises perseverance and ultimate bliss. The Apocalypse is the revelation of the history of God’s predestined. [Wycliffe, Lollards and all Protestant Reformers and Puritans held the Historicist view of interpreting Revelation.]
· Christ is head of the body of the church, and every chosen man and woman is called a son or daughter of his church. Altogether they consist of the full body of his church.
· The classic Lollard treatise, The Lantern of Light, recognizes three possible churches when speaking of the ‘church’: the first is composed solely of the predestined [the invisible, true church]; the second is the physical building composed of lime, timber and stone [the church building]; the third comprises both the predestined and foreknown [to perdition] caught in the Gospel net as portrayed in the Parable of the Drag Net [all who profess Christ].
· The first church is understood as comprised of all men who should be saved; it containeth none else but only those who shall be saved.
· The third church is a warring faction where the predestined saints are persecuted by the foreknown damned.
· One Lollard expressed the opinion that the material [Roman Catholic] church was the temple of the Devil, not the temple of God.
· Another Lollard stated, “Holy church is the congregation of just men for whom Jesus Christ shed his blood.” [This is the Reformation doctrine of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement.]
· It is a gathering of true Christian men; those that be in deadly sin be out of the church of God’s ordinance and in the synagogue of Satan.
· The Parable of the Drag Net explains how it is possible to be in the church, but not of the church. Those who are of the church will not be weeded out. Those who are not of the church, though in the church, will be weeded out.
Lollard Views on Purgatory & Indulgences
· The Pope claims power to deliver souls from purgatory with his pardons. His pardon may be given with or without monetary exchange. Now if he, for money, may deliver one soul, he may deliver him as well without money; and if he may deliver one, he may deliver a thousand; and if he may deliver a thousand, he may deliver them all, and so destroy purgatory. Therefore, he is a cruel tyrant, though alleging all charity, if he keeps them there in painful prison till men give him money for their delivery.
· Lollards believed purgatory a fiction which did not exist, but for the purpose of monetary gain by the clergy.
· Indulgences are of no value in remitting sin. Margery Baxter professed, “The Bishop of Norwich and his ministers are members of the devil who spread the false indulgences given them by the Pope” and are nothing less than “damnable idolatry.”
· The 24th article of John Purvey’s Remonstrance Against Romish Corruptions in the Church (ca.1395) states, “Christian men are not required to believe that the indulgences of the Pope are infallibly true, nor without error or lies, whether publicly or privately bestowed. This is proven by sound biblical reasoning. For if Christ and His Apostles had the power to give such indulgences and did not give them when some Christian men were [allegedly] not fully purged [of their sin] in this life, and yet were worthy to be helped by the intercessory prayers of holy church, it seems that Christ and His Apostles failed in being merciful; or more to the point, that they were less merciful than the Bishop of Rome, or any other bishop. But this is a blasphemous statement to make: that any bishop is more merciful than Jesus Christ, who died because of so great a love for men’s souls. Therefore, it seems to be an absolutely false assertion that the Pope and other bishops have the power to grant indulgences at their pleasure, while Christ and His Apostles did not.” [Translation by this present writer.]
NEXT: Further Lollard Views on Catholic Sacraments & Practices.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Part 11
Further Lollard Views on Catholic Sacraments & Practices
· Confirmation, whereby the recipient was given the sign of the cross on the forehead with oil by the bishop, was considered worthless because it is only the Holy Spirit who strengthens, giving the desire and wisdom to understand the Word of God. [i.e. Scripture is unintelligible and foolish unless one is born of the Spirit, which is of God, not man; 1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:8.]
· Confession to a priest was worthless. Neither is man obligated to do the penance prescribed. Priests have no power to remit the sins of others, let alone their own sins of avarice and licentiousness. Only God can forgive sin.
· A priest can only profess absolution to men whom God has already absolved. Contrition of heart and turning away from sin is sufficient to warrant the grace of God’s forgiveness.
· Confession to a priest who is of dubious moral and spiritual character is considered false on many levels: First, nowhere is it stated a prerequisite to God’s forgiveness, and second, nowhere in the sacrament of confession is a person’s state of mind and heart taken into account. Many leave the confessional believing they are forgiven of their sins when they have no intent of actually ceasing their sinning.
· Private confession leads to immorality.
· John Purvey testified that priests who live contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles do not hold the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the keys of Hell.
· Lollards held the priesthood of all believers. In fact, they believed every good and faithful Christian person who “lives well in charity” is a priest, unlike the lascivious, proud, false Christians who bear the title, ’priest.’
· Edmund Archer professed, “Every good Christian man is a good priest, and has as much power as a priest of any Holy Orders, be he a Bishop of a Pope.”
· They insisted giving alms to the poor was of more value than the almsgiving of expensive pilgrimages or the paying of tithes which benefitted the priests.
· They denied mandatory fasting on Friday as the precept of men, having no commandment from God.
· They believed Sunday and feast-days no holier than other days.
· Burial in Church grounds has no more merit to Christian people than burial in meadows or wild fields.
· Anointing the dying with literal oil by a bishop is but a vain and preposterous practice having no value whatsoever.
· They neither feared nor respected the authority of the Catholic clergy or Pope to curse and excommunicate.
· They rebuked the superstitious ringing of bells in religious ceremonies which have no power to exorcise demons.
· Water or bread was no more holy after a priest’s ‘blessing’ by the signing of the cross, no matter the conjuring and incantations of magical spells spoken or sung. Exorcisms and hallowings made in the church are the very practice of necromancy rather than holy theology.
· Fruitful marriage has more merit than unfruitful celibacy practiced by hypocritical priests and nuns.
· In the Lollards’ view marriage was not only desirable, but obligatory for a true priest.
· One Lollard commented how he preferred clerical marriage to clerical fornication, citing 1 Cor. 7:2.
· Another stated that according to the Catholic doctrine of celibacy it would be more holy if clergy frequented brothels, since marriage is such an unclean abomination to them.
· Marriage performed by a priest is unnecessary. Mutual professed love is what binds the couple, not the rituals and vows of Catholicism.
· A simple ‘Our Father’ of a truly Christian plowman is better than a thousand Masses of covetous prelates and vain religious who are full of pride, false flattering and who nourish sins.
· Prayer outside a church building is as effectual as that within. A consecrated church has much value in shielding the congregants from inclement weather; otherwise the church is no more holy after consecration than before.
· Prayer in a language not understood is of no benefit. The prayer of a good life is of more value than a repetition of words.
· They denied prayers to Our Lady and the saints, for many so-called Catholic ‘saints’ were not in Heaven, but were simply declared so by the decree of men. Prayers are to be directed to God only.
· It is dishonoring to God to petition saints as if it were in their power to grant your prayer, since all power is God’s only to posses and use according to His will, not the will of the saints.
· Ornamentation of churches is abhorred: “there is little value in a gay church and a false curate.” Ornaments should be sold and money given to the poor.
· Lollards rejected sermons which were not grounded in Scripture. The friars’ sermons were valueless and to be deplored because they consisted mainly of fables, poetry and alleged historical events all to the purpose of winning the popularity of the people.
· Thomas Garenter testified he held only the Bible to be true: “for the legends and lives of saints, I held them naught and the miracles written of them I held them untrue.”
· Re: Ecclesiastical wealth: The rich young ruler was to give away all he had in order to follow Christ. The rich have a harder task to enter the kingdom of heaven, per the metaphor of the camel going through the eye of a needle. Paul lived by working as a tent-maker and Peter the fisherman found his money by fishing in order to pay taxes to Caesar. Yet those who claim to be spiritual descendants live off the backs of the poor. Not satisfied with that which is sufficient for their daily needs, (per 1 Timothy 6:8), their greed and avarice compels them to take more and more in fees for religious ceremonies, income from tenants, benefices and tithes. The begging friars were infamous for their alms gathering which greatly lessened the money available which could be given the genuine poor.
· Re: Tithes: Many believed the levying of tithes ceased at the crucifixion of Christ. Their only function was to make the priests rich and the laymen poor. Though many secular donors had intended their monetary gifts be dispensed by the clergy to benefit the poor, the money was instead diverted to purchase elaborate décor for the religious houses of monks, to increase the pomp of the clergy, and other rich Pharisees.
· Re: Religious Orders: The Lollards typically placed the Catholic religious clergy into four sects: The Roman Curia, monks, friars and canons, whose head is the Pope. These four sects have no biblical warrant, for Christ has but one sect of which He alone is the Head. These ‘new’ sects separate themselves from the common life of other Christians, contrary to the teachings of Christ. Their rules and regulations are held superior to Gospel tenets. It is sinful to believe Christ omitted mention of the new sects which are [supposedly] for the good of Christianity. For then He is not God, for God is perfect and His precepts perfect, needing no improvement or additions.
· Priests should be subject to the civil authorities.
· Re: License to preach: True preachers sent by God require no license to preach. Having a license to preach is no guarantee the priest was sent by God. Certainly a priest may be sent [to preach] by worldly prelates who have degrees and worldly authority, and yet be a heretic who was not sent by God but by the Devil. Of course, the license to preach is another money-maker for the established church.
· The Lantern of Light viewed the license to preach as ‘the mark of the beast.’
· Lollards viewed the requirement of a preaching license tantamount to that of a brother lying in a deep ditch about to drown. Is it not absurd in this case to require permission of the bishop to rescue him? Why then is it not absurd to require a license to preach the Gospel which saves souls from eternal death?
NEXT: Though she underwent excruciating torture on the rack and subsequent death by burning at the stake, 25-year-old Protestant Anne Askew refused to repudiate her biblical beliefs which denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Further Lollard Views on Catholic Sacraments & Practices
· Confirmation, whereby the recipient was given the sign of the cross on the forehead with oil by the bishop, was considered worthless because it is only the Holy Spirit who strengthens, giving the desire and wisdom to understand the Word of God. [i.e. Scripture is unintelligible and foolish unless one is born of the Spirit, which is of God, not man; 1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:8.]
· Confession to a priest was worthless. Neither is man obligated to do the penance prescribed. Priests have no power to remit the sins of others, let alone their own sins of avarice and licentiousness. Only God can forgive sin.
· A priest can only profess absolution to men whom God has already absolved. Contrition of heart and turning away from sin is sufficient to warrant the grace of God’s forgiveness.
· Confession to a priest who is of dubious moral and spiritual character is considered false on many levels: First, nowhere is it stated a prerequisite to God’s forgiveness, and second, nowhere in the sacrament of confession is a person’s state of mind and heart taken into account. Many leave the confessional believing they are forgiven of their sins when they have no intent of actually ceasing their sinning.
· Private confession leads to immorality.
· John Purvey testified that priests who live contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles do not hold the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the keys of Hell.
· Lollards held the priesthood of all believers. In fact, they believed every good and faithful Christian person who “lives well in charity” is a priest, unlike the lascivious, proud, false Christians who bear the title, ’priest.’
· Edmund Archer professed, “Every good Christian man is a good priest, and has as much power as a priest of any Holy Orders, be he a Bishop of a Pope.”
· They insisted giving alms to the poor was of more value than the almsgiving of expensive pilgrimages or the paying of tithes which benefitted the priests.
· They denied mandatory fasting on Friday as the precept of men, having no commandment from God.
· They believed Sunday and feast-days no holier than other days.
· Burial in Church grounds has no more merit to Christian people than burial in meadows or wild fields.
· Anointing the dying with literal oil by a bishop is but a vain and preposterous practice having no value whatsoever.
· They neither feared nor respected the authority of the Catholic clergy or Pope to curse and excommunicate.
· They rebuked the superstitious ringing of bells in religious ceremonies which have no power to exorcise demons.
· Water or bread was no more holy after a priest’s ‘blessing’ by the signing of the cross, no matter the conjuring and incantations of magical spells spoken or sung. Exorcisms and hallowings made in the church are the very practice of necromancy rather than holy theology.
· Fruitful marriage has more merit than unfruitful celibacy practiced by hypocritical priests and nuns.
· In the Lollards’ view marriage was not only desirable, but obligatory for a true priest.
· One Lollard commented how he preferred clerical marriage to clerical fornication, citing 1 Cor. 7:2.
· Another stated that according to the Catholic doctrine of celibacy it would be more holy if clergy frequented brothels, since marriage is such an unclean abomination to them.
· Marriage performed by a priest is unnecessary. Mutual professed love is what binds the couple, not the rituals and vows of Catholicism.
· A simple ‘Our Father’ of a truly Christian plowman is better than a thousand Masses of covetous prelates and vain religious who are full of pride, false flattering and who nourish sins.
· Prayer outside a church building is as effectual as that within. A consecrated church has much value in shielding the congregants from inclement weather; otherwise the church is no more holy after consecration than before.
· Prayer in a language not understood is of no benefit. The prayer of a good life is of more value than a repetition of words.
· They denied prayers to Our Lady and the saints, for many so-called Catholic ‘saints’ were not in Heaven, but were simply declared so by the decree of men. Prayers are to be directed to God only.
· It is dishonoring to God to petition saints as if it were in their power to grant your prayer, since all power is God’s only to posses and use according to His will, not the will of the saints.
· Ornamentation of churches is abhorred: “there is little value in a gay church and a false curate.” Ornaments should be sold and money given to the poor.
· Lollards rejected sermons which were not grounded in Scripture. The friars’ sermons were valueless and to be deplored because they consisted mainly of fables, poetry and alleged historical events all to the purpose of winning the popularity of the people.
· Thomas Garenter testified he held only the Bible to be true: “for the legends and lives of saints, I held them naught and the miracles written of them I held them untrue.”
· Re: Ecclesiastical wealth: The rich young ruler was to give away all he had in order to follow Christ. The rich have a harder task to enter the kingdom of heaven, per the metaphor of the camel going through the eye of a needle. Paul lived by working as a tent-maker and Peter the fisherman found his money by fishing in order to pay taxes to Caesar. Yet those who claim to be spiritual descendants live off the backs of the poor. Not satisfied with that which is sufficient for their daily needs, (per 1 Timothy 6:8), their greed and avarice compels them to take more and more in fees for religious ceremonies, income from tenants, benefices and tithes. The begging friars were infamous for their alms gathering which greatly lessened the money available which could be given the genuine poor.
· Re: Tithes: Many believed the levying of tithes ceased at the crucifixion of Christ. Their only function was to make the priests rich and the laymen poor. Though many secular donors had intended their monetary gifts be dispensed by the clergy to benefit the poor, the money was instead diverted to purchase elaborate décor for the religious houses of monks, to increase the pomp of the clergy, and other rich Pharisees.
· Re: Religious Orders: The Lollards typically placed the Catholic religious clergy into four sects: The Roman Curia, monks, friars and canons, whose head is the Pope. These four sects have no biblical warrant, for Christ has but one sect of which He alone is the Head. These ‘new’ sects separate themselves from the common life of other Christians, contrary to the teachings of Christ. Their rules and regulations are held superior to Gospel tenets. It is sinful to believe Christ omitted mention of the new sects which are [supposedly] for the good of Christianity. For then He is not God, for God is perfect and His precepts perfect, needing no improvement or additions.
· Priests should be subject to the civil authorities.
· Re: License to preach: True preachers sent by God require no license to preach. Having a license to preach is no guarantee the priest was sent by God. Certainly a priest may be sent [to preach] by worldly prelates who have degrees and worldly authority, and yet be a heretic who was not sent by God but by the Devil. Of course, the license to preach is another money-maker for the established church.
· The Lantern of Light viewed the license to preach as ‘the mark of the beast.’
· Lollards viewed the requirement of a preaching license tantamount to that of a brother lying in a deep ditch about to drown. Is it not absurd in this case to require permission of the bishop to rescue him? Why then is it not absurd to require a license to preach the Gospel which saves souls from eternal death?
NEXT: Though she underwent excruciating torture on the rack and subsequent death by burning at the stake, 25-year-old Protestant Anne Askew refused to repudiate her biblical beliefs which denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Thanks for this information.
Are you able to cite any sources? The reason for asking is that I am currently attempting to write a book on "The people's Reformation" - that is, the part ordinary people played rather than Henry VIII, Cranmer etc. Some of your quotations I have; others I don't.
FYI, here are the 'Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards.
In 1395, the Protestants felt confident enough to publish their ‘Twelve Conclusions.’ These were presented to Parliament and attached to the doors of St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. These are most interesting. The preface reads: “We poor men, treasurers of Christ and his Apostles, denounce to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament certain conclusions and truth for the reformation of the Holy Church of England, the which has been blind and leprous many years by the maintenance of the proud prelacy, borne up with flattering of private religion, the which is multiplied to a great charge and onerous [to] people here in England.” The Conclusions are summarized as follows:
My progress so far may be read here:
The People’s Reformation (1) Setting the Scene
The People’s Reformation (2)
The People’s Reformation (3). Medieval Christianity, Part 2
The People’s Reformation, Part 4. Wyclif and the early Lollards
Part Five - "The Lollard Burnings" is a work in progress at the present time.
Are you able to cite any sources? The reason for asking is that I am currently attempting to write a book on "The people's Reformation" - that is, the part ordinary people played rather than Henry VIII, Cranmer etc. Some of your quotations I have; others I don't.
FYI, here are the 'Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards.
In 1395, the Protestants felt confident enough to publish their ‘Twelve Conclusions.’ These were presented to Parliament and attached to the doors of St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. These are most interesting. The preface reads: “We poor men, treasurers of Christ and his Apostles, denounce to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament certain conclusions and truth for the reformation of the Holy Church of England, the which has been blind and leprous many years by the maintenance of the proud prelacy, borne up with flattering of private religion, the which is multiplied to a great charge and onerous [to] people here in England.” The Conclusions are summarized as follows:
- The state of the Church. The first conclusion states that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of State, led by the bad example of the Church of Rome.
- The Priesthood. This asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests are without Scriptural basis or precedent.
- Clerical celibacy. This claims that the practice of celibacy has led to homosexuality among the clergy.
- This states that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to idolatrous worship of the communion wafers.
- Exorcisms & Hallowings. The claim is that these practices as carried out by the priest are a form of witchcraft and incompatible with Christian doctrine.
- Clerics in secular offices. This conclusion asserts that it is not proper for Bishops and others to hold secular positions of power.
- Prayers for the dead. This declares that prayers for specific deceased people is uncharitable and the payment of clergy for making prayers or masses for the dead is a form of bribery because it excludes all other blessed dead who are not being prayed for.
- Here it is asserted that pilgrimages and veneration of relics and images have no spiritual benefit and are at worst idolatrous in that they worship created things.
- Here the writer declares that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous, since only God can forgive sins, and that if indeed priests had that power, it would be cruel and uncharitable of them not to forgive everyone even if they refused to confess.
- Wars & crusades. Here it is asserted that Christians should not go to war, especially those promoted by the Church, such as crusades, which are blasphemous since Christ instructed men to love their enemies.
- Female vows of chastity, and abortion. Here it is claimed that women who have taken vows of celibacy are breaking their vows, becoming pregnant and then seeking abortions to conceal the fact. This is strongly condemned by the writer.
- Arts & crafts. Christians, claims the writer, are devoting too much time and energy in the making of beautiful artifacts for the churches, and would do better to devote their lives to godliness and simplicity.
My progress so far may be read here:
The People’s Reformation (1) Setting the Scene
The People’s Reformation (2)
The People’s Reformation (3). Medieval Christianity, Part 2
The People’s Reformation, Part 4. Wyclif and the early Lollards
Part Five - "The Lollard Burnings" is a work in progress at the present time.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Part 12
In June, 1539, The Act of Six Articles became the law of the Catholic British land. The first article stated, “First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man.”
Punishment for the denial of transubstantiation was burning. There was no appeal upon conviction, nor was recanting considered an option.
So here we have, 130 years later, further statutes declaring corporal punishment for those who held religious opinions contrary to those held by the English Catholic Church. Why the necessity? Due to the proliferation of the vernacular Scriptures (which were illegal), a biblical uprising, called the Protestant Reformation, was taking place and must be quelled at all costs.
The following excerpts are taken from The Select Works of John Bale, D.D.: Bishop of Ossory…….The Examination of Anne Askew.
Anne Askew: “Then the bishop [Gardiner] said he would speak with me familiarly [i.e. ‘as a friend.’] I said, So did Judas when he unfriendly betrayed Christ……Then the bishop [Gardiner] said, I should be burnt. I answered that I had searched all the scriptures, yet could I never find there that either Christ or his apostles put any creature to death……
“Then came Master Paget to me with many glorious words, and desired me to speak my mind to him. I might, he said, deny it again if need be. I said that I would not deny the truth. He asked me how I could avoid the very words of Christ, Take eat; this is my body which shall be broken for you. I answered that Christ’s meaning was there, as in other places of scripture: I am the door (John 10); I am the vine (John 15); Behold, the Lamb of God (John1); the rock-stone was Christ (1 Cor. 10); and such other like [places]. Ye may not here, said I, take Christ for the material thing that he is signified by; for then you will make him a very door, a vine, a lamb, and a stone, clean contrary to the Holy Ghost’s meaning. All these, indeed, do signify Christ, like as the bread doth his body in that place. And though he did say there, Take, eat this in remembrance of me, yet did he not bid them hang up that bread in a box [i.e. a pyx], or make it a God, or bow to it…….
“I find in the scriptures that Christ took the bread, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Eat, this is my body which shall be broken for you, meaning in substance his very own body, the bread being thereof an only sign, or sacrament. For, after like manner of speaking, he said he would break down the temple, and in three days build it up again, signifying his own body by the temple, as St. John declareth it (John 2), and not the stony temple itself. So that the bread is but a remembrance of his death, or a sacrament of thanksgiving for it, whereby we are knit unto him by a communion of Christian love; although there be many who cannot perceive the true meaning thereof: for the veil that Moses put over his face before the children of Israel that they should not see the clearness thereof (Exodus 34; 2 Cor. 3), I perceive the same veil remaineth to this day. But when God taketh it away, then shall these blind men see…….
“The sum of the condemnation of me, Anne Askew, at Guildhall: They said to me there that I was a heretic condemned by the law if I would stand in my opinion. I answered that I was no heretic, neither yet deserved I any death by the law of God. But as concerning the faith which I uttered and wrote to the council, I would not, I said, deny it because I knew it true. Then would they needs know if I would deny the sacrament to be Christ’s body and blood. I said, Yea, for the same Son of God that was born of the Virgin Mary is now glorious in heaven, and will come again from thence, at the latter day, like as he went up (Acts 1). And as for that which ye call your God, it is but a piece of bread. For more proof thereof (mark it when ye will) let it lie in the box but three months, and it will be mold, and so turn to nothing that is good. Whereupon I am persuaded that it cannot be God.”
John Foxe (Acts & Monuments, 1563 edition) commented, “And thus the good Anne Askew, with these blessed martyrs, being troubled so many manner of ways, and having passed through so many torments, having now ended the long course of her agonies, being compassed in with flames of fire, as a blessed sacrifice unto God, she slept in the Lord A.D. 1546, leaving behind her a singular example of Christian constancy for all men to follow.”
NEXT: Observations.
In June, 1539, The Act of Six Articles became the law of the Catholic British land. The first article stated, “First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man.”
Punishment for the denial of transubstantiation was burning. There was no appeal upon conviction, nor was recanting considered an option.
So here we have, 130 years later, further statutes declaring corporal punishment for those who held religious opinions contrary to those held by the English Catholic Church. Why the necessity? Due to the proliferation of the vernacular Scriptures (which were illegal), a biblical uprising, called the Protestant Reformation, was taking place and must be quelled at all costs.
The following excerpts are taken from The Select Works of John Bale, D.D.: Bishop of Ossory…….The Examination of Anne Askew.
Anne Askew: “Then the bishop [Gardiner] said he would speak with me familiarly [i.e. ‘as a friend.’] I said, So did Judas when he unfriendly betrayed Christ……Then the bishop [Gardiner] said, I should be burnt. I answered that I had searched all the scriptures, yet could I never find there that either Christ or his apostles put any creature to death……
“Then came Master Paget to me with many glorious words, and desired me to speak my mind to him. I might, he said, deny it again if need be. I said that I would not deny the truth. He asked me how I could avoid the very words of Christ, Take eat; this is my body which shall be broken for you. I answered that Christ’s meaning was there, as in other places of scripture: I am the door (John 10); I am the vine (John 15); Behold, the Lamb of God (John1); the rock-stone was Christ (1 Cor. 10); and such other like [places]. Ye may not here, said I, take Christ for the material thing that he is signified by; for then you will make him a very door, a vine, a lamb, and a stone, clean contrary to the Holy Ghost’s meaning. All these, indeed, do signify Christ, like as the bread doth his body in that place. And though he did say there, Take, eat this in remembrance of me, yet did he not bid them hang up that bread in a box [i.e. a pyx], or make it a God, or bow to it…….
“I find in the scriptures that Christ took the bread, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Eat, this is my body which shall be broken for you, meaning in substance his very own body, the bread being thereof an only sign, or sacrament. For, after like manner of speaking, he said he would break down the temple, and in three days build it up again, signifying his own body by the temple, as St. John declareth it (John 2), and not the stony temple itself. So that the bread is but a remembrance of his death, or a sacrament of thanksgiving for it, whereby we are knit unto him by a communion of Christian love; although there be many who cannot perceive the true meaning thereof: for the veil that Moses put over his face before the children of Israel that they should not see the clearness thereof (Exodus 34; 2 Cor. 3), I perceive the same veil remaineth to this day. But when God taketh it away, then shall these blind men see…….
“The sum of the condemnation of me, Anne Askew, at Guildhall: They said to me there that I was a heretic condemned by the law if I would stand in my opinion. I answered that I was no heretic, neither yet deserved I any death by the law of God. But as concerning the faith which I uttered and wrote to the council, I would not, I said, deny it because I knew it true. Then would they needs know if I would deny the sacrament to be Christ’s body and blood. I said, Yea, for the same Son of God that was born of the Virgin Mary is now glorious in heaven, and will come again from thence, at the latter day, like as he went up (Acts 1). And as for that which ye call your God, it is but a piece of bread. For more proof thereof (mark it when ye will) let it lie in the box but three months, and it will be mold, and so turn to nothing that is good. Whereupon I am persuaded that it cannot be God.”
John Foxe (Acts & Monuments, 1563 edition) commented, “And thus the good Anne Askew, with these blessed martyrs, being troubled so many manner of ways, and having passed through so many torments, having now ended the long course of her agonies, being compassed in with flames of fire, as a blessed sacrifice unto God, she slept in the Lord A.D. 1546, leaving behind her a singular example of Christian constancy for all men to follow.”
NEXT: Observations.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Hello:
In Part 9 I listed these sources from which all the quotes are gleaned:
1. NORWICH HERESY TRIALS 1428-31; Edited for the Royal Historical Society by Norman P. Tanner, 1977.
2. Lollards and Reformers, Margaret Aston, 1984.
3. The Premature Reformation, Anne Hudson, 1988.
In addition, I cited The Lantern of Light (Writings and Examinations of Brute, Thorpe, Cobham, Hilton, Pecock, Bilney, and Others; With The Lantern of Light, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842); and John Purvey's 37 Conclusions (aka Remonstrance Against Romish Corruptions in the Church, edited by Rev. J. Forshall, 1851).
Further worthwhile original sources are An Apology for Lollard Doctrines Attributed to Wycliffe (edited by James H. Todd, 1842); Selections From English Wycliffite Writings (edited by Anne Hudson, 1978).
Margaret Deanesly's The Lollard Bible is an essential work.
A new and valuable publication may be found in The Antichrist and the Lollards by Curtis V. Bostwick, 1998.
Of course, the material gathered of Wycliffe's writings is staggering. There are enough Middle English glossaries to warrant attempts at translating sermons of interest.
I look forward to reading your links when time allows.
Peace in Christ!
I Wonder.
How many here at the BB would burn at the stake by refusing to affirm the Real Presence.
What would be the harm?
You simply say "yes" to the priest as he administers the Eucharist and says "The Body of Christ".
otherwise you are burned at the stake.
How many here at the BB would burn at the stake by refusing to affirm the Real Presence.
What would be the harm?
You simply say "yes" to the priest as he administers the Eucharist and says "The Body of Christ".
otherwise you are burned at the stake.
You really need to get a life!
What would be the harm? Well, if you didn't really believe it than you have sinned against God, in whom the Holy Spirit also exists. Better to say no and get burned at the stake, move on to the hereafter and then plead for mercy for your obstinance in not believing in the first place.
Good grief its a hypothetical Mr Grand Inquisitor. This was the spirit which energized the Spanish and Latin Inquisition.
OBTW, I am a former CATHOLIC so I guess you are correct - though my taking communion was for the most part a sin of ignorance.
Uh, but any way you are wrong, God is able to handle it.
Grieving the Holy Spirit is/was given in the context of :
Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
37818
Well-Known Member
". . . if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, . . ."
". . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; . . ."
Look, if folks want to believe a priest can turn a piece of bread into the body of Christ - let them.
This is the Baptist way according to one of our distinctives:
Individual Soul Liberty
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9
https://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/
This is the Baptist way according to one of our distinctives:
Individual Soul Liberty
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9
https://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/
Yeah, I know. Its not really ignorance as you claim, but willful disobedience to the words of God.
(Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.”
27Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Notice how clear Jesus is here. "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood", there is no beating abound the bush of what Jesus means. Your interpretation of the Last Supper discourse is terribly in error.
The priest does not do this, it is from the Holy Spirit that this is accomplished. The priest is merely the intermediary who is used so the sacrament can be distributed to the faithful.
When I take a picture of my mother out of my wallet and say "this is my mother" everybody knows exactly what I mean.
You are talking to a former Catholic.
"The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body"."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Everyone knows you are a former Catholic, Hank. We really don't need a constant reninder. I doubt you want me to constantly remind you that I was a Baptist before I found the truth, do you?
Jesus could have used metaphorical language as in 'I am the vine, you are the branches ' but He didn't. He spoke even more emphatically in John 6 but we have been there more times than I can shake a stick at. You have bought the Baptist teaching hook line and sinker. Btw, did St. Paul sound like he viewed the bread and wine as being only a symbol of did he say 'is it not the body and blood of Christ?' Please answer the question honestly.
Last edited:
- Status