Helen replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bill, first of all, I do not use or refer to anything Chick writes. I try to go to original sources. In that vein I just ordered a $50 set of Wilkinson's material. I want to see it for myself. He is quoted enormously and I don't want to simply use him secondhand. Some of the material is from Hislop's 'Two Babylons', some from a couple of books on ancient Egypt that I have, and some from websites that reference their material. Again, I do not use Chick's material.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah yes, good ole Hislop! The one singular and classic piece of anti-Catholicism we have ever seen - and thoroughly debunked time and time again!
Did you go to the link and go down to where that Chick tract also spoke of the "round wafer"? Yep, you may not have quoted Chick, but we sure do know where he got his material, don't we, Helen?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the wafers are concerned, here:
The very shape of the unbloody sacrifice of Rome may indicate whence it came. It is a small thin, round wafer; and on its roundness the Church of Rome lays so much stress, to use the pithy language of John Knox in regard to the wafer-god, "If, in making the roundness the ring be broken, then must another of his fellow-cakes receive that honour to be made a god, and the crazed or cracked miserable cake, that once was in hope to be made a god, must be given to a baby to play withal." What could have induced the Papacy to insist so much on the "roundness" of its "unbloody sacrifice"? Clearly not any reference to the Divine institution of the Supper of our Lord; for in all the accounts that are given of it, no reference whatever is made to the form of the bread which our Lord took, when He blessed and break it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is My body: this do in remembrance of Me." As little can it be taken from any regard to injunctions about the form of the Jewish Paschal bread; for no injunctions on that subject are given in the books of Moses. The importance, however, which Rome attaches to the roundness of the wafer, must have a reason; and that reason will be found, if we look at the altars of Egypt. "The thin, round cake," says Wilkinson, "occurs on all altars." Almost every jot or tittle in the Egyptian worship had a symbolical meaning. The round disk, so frequent in the sacred emblems of Egypt, symbolised the sun.
]http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect43.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll have to take a look at that web site, but it is obvious, Helen, that what I said about this went right straight over your head. Do you not see the practicality of having the hosts in a round shape? Suppose they were square for a moment - too easy for them to fracture, with corners breaking off. Another possibility is the "pill" shape, or like little round loaves, used in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Rite (Byzantine) communities. But while they may not flake either, they are more difficult to pack in a ciborium, useful for administering communion in a large church with a large attendance.
The round shape is practical, not a reference to some pagan usage, Helen. The only requirement is that it be make of pure unbleached flour and not leavened with yeast, like the original unleavened bread that was used at the Last Supper. Further, I know of no provision, biblical or otherwise, that describes the size or the shape of the bread, Christ held in His hands in His blessings. I have been to a cedar supper, which has the bread being rather larger then what is used in a Catholic Church, but more or less round anyway, just like peta bread is round. Mexican Tortilla bread is round as well, helen, simply because it is more difficult to knead the dough, as Mexican woman are so skilled at doing, into a
square shape. Even in Boston, where the best pizza in the entire wide world is made, with the skill of the cook tossing the dough into the air until it has achieved the desired shape, ends up being (gasp!)
round! But you know those Italians; must be some secret cult, an offshoot of an obscure Egyptian religion, that the shape would be so. But then I guess anti-Catholics have to look to extremes to show their evidence of worshipping the Sun god.
And the next thing you will produce, I wonder, is that famous Sunburst over the main altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is likewise some perverse worship of the sun god, right Helen? (I forget who claimed this nonsense) but the fact is, this work of art represents the
Holy Spirit, enlightening all of Christendom, but there I go, spoiling a "good story," right?
So, Helen, the assertions of your friend Wilkinson, let alone Jack Chick, is purely and simply totally and completely utter anti-Catholic nonsense!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding Lent, it is most certainly of pagan origin and was incorporated into the Roman Catholic church. You asked 'Who today sees any pagan origin on Lent in this day and age?" Go to New Orleans, or Sao Paulo, or any number of similar cities on Mardi Gras, and you will see the paganism rampant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, look me straight in the eyes as I explain to you,
MARTI GRAS IS NOT LENT! But I tell you what, Helen, I have a daughter who lives in Covington, LA, across from New Orleans via the famous causeway across Lake Ponchartrain. When we go to Marti Gras, we don't go the Burbon Street monstrosity! We rather go to the surrounding celebrations which is not the debauchery and the great excesses, but rather events
for the children! They are harmless good fun all the way!
Then, afterwards, the next day is
Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. And then I would invite you to St. Peter's Church in Covington, LA and have you get a taste of Christian mortification, a return to the spiritual things that so often get put aside during the working and stressful parts of the year, and get back to Christ and His gospel! That church is something else, Helen, as even outside of Lent, we have a separate chapel wherein the Blessed Sacrament is constantly exposed, in a very ornate "sun burst" like container called the
monstrance, and in the "sun burst" center is the host, worshippers come at all hours of the night to keep vigil.
And no, we do not worship a "piece of bread," we worship Jesus Christ Himself, in the likeness and form of bread, but is no longer bread by His body and blood. Awesome, Helen!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point is, Bill, Roman Catholicism is BUILT on paganism. At the time of Constantine, and later, when it became illegal to be anything BUT "Christian," the old statues of the pagan gods and goddesses in the various temples were simply renamed for "saints." But the Bible says all believers are saints! So what are these statues doing all around, except perpetuating the ancient idolatry. And don't tell me that they are not idols. In many countries many of them are dressed and cared for in exactly the same way Hindus dress and care for their idols. They are prayed to exactly as Hindus pray to their idols. All that is different are the names.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Utter nonsense once again! "Roman Catholicism" is only one of several "Rites" of the
ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH in which the Roman/Latin/Western Rite (Roman Catholic Rite) is a
subset.
Constantine's only real significance is, that for the first time, Christianity became legal in Rome, and that he eventually became a Christian himself. And would you please go back to your Wilkinson fellow, or perhaps to Jack Chick, and document the renaming of pagan gods and goddesses to Christian saints? Claim such does not make it so, Helen. Instead, go to the Catacombs of Rome where you will find extant frescoes of how the early Christians worshipped, and they did not avoid images, Helen. And they did not avoid prayers for their departed loved ones in epitaphs on their tombs either…
Seek out the truth, Helen, and discard the anti-Catholic nonsense you are getting your information out of!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the meantime, I don't know anything about the babies buried under churches and stuff, but I do know that in the Middle Ages there were entire orphanages set up for the illegitimate children of the hierarchy of the Catholic church! That is documented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please! Produce the documentation, Helen! This I gotta see!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wrote: "And we burn incense, light candles, and use water for baptism, all traceable to pagan use as well! So what, Helen?
And my response is that so much -- the wafer, the various feast days, the elevation of Mary - all these are not just based on paganism, they ARE pagan. They have no place in Christianity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Baptism too, Helen? Oh my goodness. Do you use water for baptism in your church, Helen? Or do you baptize with water at all?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Back to the Rock part - you don't have to be a Greek language scholar to see that Peter is not whom the church was built on. It was Christ. He is the Rock. He has always been the Rock. He will always be the Rock. Peter knew exactly what Christ mean by naming him Peter, as he mentions in 1 Peter 2. If you don't believe Peter himself, there is no way I would expect you to believe me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you take that verse, you know the one, "…you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…" and show it to a group of English teachers? Please do so, and have them parse that sentence, along with all of the bible versions you may provide them, including the Greek, and see what they come up with as to who Christ builds His church upon. As a Protestant, it hit me like a "daisy cutter" exactly what the sentence meant, and if you would get the book I originally recommended, you will see admissions on the part of Protestant scholars who have come to the same conclusion - Christ built His church upon (gasp!) PETER!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does God grant authority to men? To some extent, yes. But God reserves unto Himself the right and authority to judge regarding a man's soul. That is not authority ever granted to another. The Mormons think Joseph Smith has that authority, you folks seem to think Peter and some or all of the Apostles had that authority, but no one is God but God, and He is the judge. Isaiah 22:22 refers to the authority over the house of David, not authority over men's souls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It went completely over your head, didn't it, Helen?
There is not one smathering of evidence in scripture that backs up your assertion here, and the Mormons will have a hard time as well. But Matthew 16:19 is clear about the "keys of the kingdom."
Now, what do you suppose was the reason I referred to Isaiah 22:22 for? And Helen, you stepped right into it! You are indeed right that the "keys" in that passage denotes (here it comes!)
AUTHORITY! - That was my whole point! Now, is not 'keys" a mighty fine metaphor for authority? This is not a
literal key here, Helen, just as there is not a literal physical "ring of keys" Jesus gives to Peter. But as "key" is the metaphor for authority in Isaiah, so it is in Matthew 16:19 that Jesus gives awesome authority to Peter!
Get it yet, Helen?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The literal translation of John 20:23 is as follows:
"Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven." This is wisdom that was given to they Apostles, not authority to forgive sins. If it were authority to forgive sins, then they would have been equal to God, as it is against Him, and Him only, that we sin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Sigh!) Do you recall my "cause" and effect" reasoning I used here in the past, Helen?
I will give it again:
"Whose sins
you (speaking to the apostles) forgive (cause), they are forgiven." (effect)
And likewise:
"Whose sins
you (those wonderful apostles again) retain (cause), they are retained." (effect)
Now, Helen. If I turn on the switch (cause) the light goes on. (effect)
And also:
If I turn off the switch (cause) the light goes off (effect)
It can never be, in my sentence construction, that the light goes on, before the switch is thrown, and likewise, it can never be that the light turns off before the switch is thrown in the off position either.
But you would have sins forgiven (effect) before the cause is made!
Matthew Henry said about the same in his commentary that you gave here, Helen, and I liked to have rolled all over my floor in uncontrollable laughter when I first said that! It is so illogical, from the construction of the sentence you may read in any bible version, that no wonder you Protestants and Fundamentalists tip toe lightly around John 20:22-23! It is a wonderful (or perhaps, I should say sad) case of Eisegesis as I have ever found!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding the acceptance of which books belonged in Scripture where the New Testament was concerned, by 100 A.D. all of Paul's letters had been collected and were being used. Letters (for example, from Polycarp and Ignatius) quote from the Gospels and Paul's letters.
By 200 A.D., the "Muratorian Canon" included the four Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1&2 John, Jude, Revelation of John. Also included were the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Shepherd of Hermas was considered OK for private use but not for public teaching or worship.
The New Testament used by Origen (250 A.D.) included 1 Peter and 1 John, but disputed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and some other books later left out altogether.
The New Testament used by Eusebius (300 A.D.) was essentially the same as that accepted by Origen. Thus, by the time of the Council of Carthage, the basic New Testament had been in place for quite some time. The only books confirmed then were James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, and Jude. Explicitly excluded were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter, and the Didache.
In other words, God had the NT in line long before the Catholic church made anything 'official.'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know what, Helen, I am going to simply agree with your last sentence here, knowing full well that it was through Christ, and His infallible church, that God's providence would have it done as you say!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as Christ's church is concerned, although it is invisible, the people are not. They are the ones who have spread the gospel. "Making disciples", by the way, is NOT 'making believers.' Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Making disciples is teaching new believers to obey, and walking alongside them for awhile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "people," did you say, Helen? Where are their artifacts, their documents or any evidence you can s****e (Boy, I love the mindless censoring that occurs in some of these conferences!) up that they even existed at all? (Outside of Catholicism, Helen)
Good luck!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The successes of the Catholic church in spreading the Gospel? You are referring to the slaughter of those who did not agree? Or maybe the enslavement of the American natives? Or maybe the eradication of ancient history with the eradication of the Aztecs in Mexico? Or maybe you are talking about Bloody Mary's 'cleansing' - in the blood of Protestants - of England? The Gospel spread despite the Catholic church. Sometimes by Catholics, but often not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It never fails that when Protestants begin to loose the argument, they must resort to bring out all of the "sins of the fathers" and oh how cruel and mean they were. Yet the very bible you hold in you hot little hands is courtesy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! And you trust it as infallible when all this time, look at the opportunity for the so-called "corrupt church" in perverting scriptures! You are treading on a precarious high wire, Helen.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These are not just 'skeletons in the closet', to use your term. This is the history of the Catholic church! Christianity was legalized by Constantine. This legalization was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church. In 380, Theodosius made Christianity an imperial command. Here is the edict:
It is Our Will that all the peoples We rule shall practise that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with divine judgment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you mean this one, Helen? (click the link below):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm
Would you have been OK with letting the Arian heresy continue until it would have taken over the entire church and Europe? Helen, it was not unusual for the Civil authorities, having a close relationship with the Catholic Church, to have a great deal of clout insofar as which religion the population was to practice. This was not unusual for the times, as we see as even the Protestants were similarly bent. And my I acquaint you with the effect of the Islamic hordes that almost took over all of Europe, being stopped in what is not Turkey and had a foothold in Spain and some areas of France? Would it surprise you that when the Islamic forces so conquered, "the sword" was the great persuader for the conquered to convert to Islam!
Those were harsh times, Helen, and I certainly am glad we do none of these things today, but if you hate the Catholic Church so much and hold her responsible for much of what was common, then you must also hate your own country that treated the American Indian as badly as they did! I do not excuse the sins and the accesses of our ancestors, but we must judge them in the times they lived.
Thinking ahead, oh how cruel and "pagan" we must be seen in the future, that we actually had a death penalty in our time…
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And so the slaughter of the church began - all in the name of Christ, or at least of Christianity. The Imperial Court of Rome became the Imperial Court of the Church. In Thessalonica 7000 people were killed in a stadium when the gates were locked and the soldiers turned loose on them. Afterwards, in the letter Ambrose wrote to Theodosius concerning this event, he wrote, "No angel, no archangel can forgive you. God alone can forgive you, and He forgives only those who repent." Ambrose held over Theodosius' head the power of excommunicating him. This power was embraced by the church ever after, under the pretence that no one could get to heaven unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The division between East and West, so waved away now, was so serious that each side later excommunicated the other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At least we see an official of the Church confronting Thessalonica (taking this story at face value). And as I must remind you, Theodosius was a Roman Emperor, not a bishop or a pope of the Church. But you are still going to hold the Church responsible anyway, aren't you, Helen?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And you can't hand-wave away the Crusades and the Inquisitions. Thousands, and maybe a million or more, died at the hands of Catholic-controlled judiciaries. The Roman Catholic church has most certainly NOT been a representative of our holy Lord on earth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think there exists already, an interesting thread on the Crusades, so I will defer to that. I do not overlook any of the sins and excesses of any Catholic cleric, sins he may have committed. All I ask is an honest look at the record and the facts and let the chips fall where they may. The many claims of the atrocities in the several inquisitions, have been debunked as pure exaggerations and sensationalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked "How many truly immoral and wicked popes have we seen, Helen? I count about six. Now, subtract that number from all of the popes of history. Then please note the hundreds of good and holy men you find there."
That is MOST certainly NOT the point, Bill! This church claims to represent God Himself. This church has made a travesty out of that entire concept, parading around in grand robes and killing the opposition. Helping Hitler financially. The current Pope has declared Christians have much to learn from pagan religions. Baloney we do! But that statement qualifies as immoral and blasphemous as far as I am concerned.
As for not reading the entire Bible, that is really sad. It is God's Word to you. You ask me to read a book written by a man defending your point of view concerning the Bible, but you have not even read the entire Bible. I would rather put my trust in God than in man any day. I will concentrate on HIS Word, not on the word of any man. Nor can we ever compare notes on something you have not read!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(I noticed that I did not answer this statement at all on edit, but I will let it go until next time. WMP)
Abuses existed, Helen, just like they existed in a famous "Protestant" group that settled in New England!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God caused the Bible to be put in the order it is for a reason. There is value to be gotten reading it HIS way. It also honors Him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a Moslem friend down the road that says the same thing about the
Koran.
So who is right, Helen?
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]
. I read the "Death Cookie" once if it was for the fact that it was so wrong and untrue it would of been funny.