Tag Archives: Liturgy

Speaking in Tongues, Levitating and Vomiting Nails

Spinello Aretino Exorcism of St Benedict

Exorcists are in urgent demand as a result of a sharp rise in people dabbling in Satanism and the occult, experts from the Catholic Church in Italy and the US said.

Speaking in tongues, levitating and vomiting nails may seem far-fetched to most people, but church experts insist there is a need to recruit more priests as exorcists in order to combat sorcery and black magic.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/urgent-need-for-more-exorcists-as-increasing-number-of-people-da/

Related:

An exorcist has warned of a demon that seeks to attack families and has been encountered in numerous exorcisms carried out by the Catholic Church.

Priest César Truqui, based in Rome, Italy, said the demon, called Asmodeus, was also present in the Old Testament story of Tobias.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3808018/Exorcist-warns-demon-seeks-attack-FAMILIES-encountered-numerous-exorcisms-carried-Catholic-Church.html

All this reminds me of this verse:

Revelation 18:2:  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

To be clear, every commentary I consult says that this verse is referring to the complete destruction of Babylon.  However, the fact that the RCC is finding an increasing need for exorcism reminded me of the phrase “habitation of devils.”

Gill writes in his Exposition of the Entire Bible,

and is become the habitation of devils; as old Babylon was of satyrs, Isaiah13:21 demons, which appeared in a hairy form, like goats, and the word is rendered devils in Leviticus 17:7 and the inhabitants of Rome now are no other; the pope and his cardinals, the priests, Jesuits, monks, and friars, are the spirits of devils, and their doctrines the doctrines of devils; see Revelation 16:14

And now they claim to be surrounded by devils.   Go figure.

Holiness and Ritualism

REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A. on how Rome satisfies the need for holiness through its ritualism:

Rosary 2006-01-23We may lay it down as a fundamental axiom, that there can be no religion without holiness.  Whatever be our doctrinal opinions, if we be not holy we cannot see the Lord.  And, accordingly, holiness is the great gift of a risen Saviour to his Church.  He has shed forth the Holy Ghost to purify our hearts by faith.  Now, in this Christian holiness there are two or three leading features to be carefully observed.  (1.) It is not a plant which grows naturally in the human heart, but is the especial work of the Holy Ghost himself.  (2.) It consists in a sacred principle which controls the whole man, and not in any one class either of actions or omissions.  (3.) This ruling principle is the constraining power of the love of Christ.  “The love of Christ constraineth us.”  From which remarks it appears at once that true holiness is from its very nature impossible to the unconverted man.  He is not under the influence of the Spirit; he does not know the love of Christ, and he is, therefore, incapable of that hallowed principle which shall bend his whole mind in one direction, and wean him from sin by the consecration of his whole man to God.  Hence, the unconverted man, if thoughtful and conscientious, is sure to feel distressed.  A holy standard is presented to his view, while his conscience convicts him of lamentable defect.  He sees there must be necessity, but has not felt its power.  He sees there must be holiness, but he knows he is not holy.  He is aware that without righteousness there can be no true religion, but he sees so much sin within his heart that he cannot believe himself righteous.

What, then, is to be done?  What is the refuge of the human heart under such circumstances?  Either he must stifle conscience, which is impossible, or he must embrace the Gospel, in which case he would find joy in the Holy Ghost, or he must so accommodate that Gospel as to soothe his heart without changing it, which accommodation is Popery.  And how is this effected?

One mode is by ritualism.

There are two great classes of Christian duties combined in the formation of Christian holiness—moral and positive; moral being the general effect of Christian principle, positive consisting in certain Christian acts.  Now it is plainly in respect to these moral duties or duties of Christian principle that the natural heart finds the chief difficulty, and the outward acts of a ceremonial religion are incomparably easier than the holy dedication of a devoted heart.  Hence it follows that the human heart is naturally prone to slide insensibly from the principle to the ritual, and to endeavour to compensate the defects of the one by a rigid attention to the requirements of the other.  By such an accommodation no part of Divine truth is professedly set aside, but yet, by altering the proportions of the several parts, by throwing a strong light on one side of the picture, and a deep shade on the other, its whole character is completely changed, and religion is given to the natural man though his heart is left unsanctified by the Spirit.

This tendency to substitute ritual for principle may be daily seen in every society.  One thinks himself holy because he has kept his church; another, because he is a regular communicant; a third, because he attends daily service; a fourth, because he never neglects to say his prayers; while a fifth is quite sure that he is born again, because in his infancy he was baptized; although, possibly, neither one nor the other has learned anything of true holiness of heart.  Out of this tendency has sprung up the whole system of Romish righteousness.  The weed that grew out of the human heart it has adroitly cultivated, till it has become the strongest flower in its garden.  What under the Gospel sprang up by nature against the Gospel it has embodied and arranged so as to become a substitute for the Gospel.  Hence, under Popery, ritual has in many cases overpowered principle, and attention to ritual religion is made the substitute for spiritual holiness before God.

It is extremely difficult to produce documentary evidence of any such substitution, for, of course, it is in no case acknowledged.  The truth of our charge, however, may be easily seen in the practice of indulgences.  It is sometimes thought that this monstrous practice has been abandoned by modern Popery.  But such is not the case; for I find in the “Catholic Directory” for 1848, that there are eight plenary indulgences granted to the faithful in the eight districts of England, and four more for the peculiar benefit of the London district.  Now the essence of these indulgences is the substitution of ritual for principle, for the remission of moral sin is promised as a reward to the observance of an ecclesiastical rite.  Take, e.g., one of the indulgences granted by Pope Sixtus IV.:—“Our holy Father, Sixtus IV., Pope, hath granted to all them that devoutly say this prayer before the image of our Lady the sum of 11,000 years of pardon.  Ave Sanctissima Maria, &c.”  So the late Pope issued an apostolic brief to Ambrose Lisle Phillips, Esq., in which, amongst other things, he promises “indulgences of 100 days as often as the members shall recite their appointed decade of the rosary on working days.”  He promises at the same time indulgences of seven years and seven lents as often as they shall recite the aforesaid decades on Sundays and holidays, &c.  It is impossible to imagine a more glaring preference of ritual above principle.  The guilt of moral sin is remitted as a reward for the performance of an ecclesiastical rite.

Another clear illustration of the same principle is seen in the substitution for repentance of what they term the sacrament of penance.  Where you find repentance in the Scriptures you find penance taught by Rome, as, e.g., in Ezek. xviii. 30:—“Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions.”  Luke xiii. 3.  “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.”  And Acts ii. 38:—“Repent and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  In all these passages the Council of Trent, Sess. xiv. 2, has changed “repent,” into “do penance,” and has so made the rite a substitute for the principle.  Of course the pious Romanist would say, “We have the principle too, for we truly repent in penance.”  But that does not affect the question.  The Bible has promised remission of sin, and connected it with the principle; the Church of Rome has adopted the promise, but transferred it to the rite.

The effects of this on different minds are, of course, very various.  In some of a devout and conscientious character, it produces the most earnest attention to the positive duties of religion, and gives them a dim gleam of doubtful hope in the unceasing observance of all prescribed services.  But when there is not this spirit of devotion, it enables a wicked man to make a compromise with God, and to follow the natural bent of his natural heart, by attending to the Church’s services, while he utterly neglects the weightier matters of the law.

In the late trials for murder in Ireland, it was remarked that many of the guilty culprits were persons remarkable for their attention to the ritual of their Church; and there was a case at the close of the last Irish rebellion in which the hour of a murder was thus proved.  One of the witnesses swore that it took place after the hour of twelve o’clock on Saturday night, and he was sure of the fact because the murderers were determined to have a supper before they went on their guilty errand, and that Saturday being a fast-day, they could not touch meat until after the clock had struck.  The ritual of fasting was rigidly observed, while the regard for life was altogether gone.  In one of the jails at Rome there is a celebrated bandit, by name Gasparoni.  This man, by his deeds of bloodshed, had desolated an extensive district in the neighbourhood of Rome, though all the while he avowed himself a very religious man.  Sir Fowell Buxton inquired of him whether he had fasted when he was a bandit.  He said, “Yes.”  “Why did you fast?” was the next question.  “Because I am of the religion of the Virgin.”  “Which did you think was worse, eating meat on a Friday, or killing a man?”  He answered without hesitation, “In my case it was a crime not to fast; it was no crime to kill those who came to betray me.”  The man had no true holiness, but had taken the ritual of fasting as its substitute, so that in the midst of his murders he believed himself a very religious man.

The same principle appears in the Romish treatment of the Lord’s-day.  The moral commandment of the Most High God is abandoned, and for it you find in many Romish catechisms the substitute of human ritual, “Thou shalt keep the festivals.”  And this appears in the universal practice of Romish countries.  They appear to regard it as a duty to attend mass, but that once done, the whole day is devoted to amusement.  The rite is observed, and the conscience satisfied, so that the unregenerate heart is left at full liberty to pursue its own course, and take its pleasure on the Lord’s holy day.  Thus the same persons who are engaged in the utmost apparent devotion at mass in the morning are found in throngs in the dissolute French theatre at night.  “Attend to the Church’s rites and live as you please,” appears to be the maxim of their morality.

You perceive the same thing in Romish literature.  It has been one of the characteristics of the late movement toward Rome that amongst its most devoted followers it has let loose the spirit of the world.  You will observe, for example, in Burns’s Catalogue the strangest possible mixture of ritualism and worldliness, and will see the book of Romish devotion placed side by ride with the wild German love story.

Thus has Popery taken hold of the great grand gift of Christianity, and presented it to its votaries in a form accommodated to human nature.  It does not deny the necessity of holiness, but it so transforms its character that the unholy man may think he has attained it, and the Italian murderer conscientiously believe himself religious.

Source:  POPERY THE ACCOMMODATION OF CHRISTIANITY TO THE NATURAL HEART at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42280/42280-h/42280-h.htm, p. 13-17

Per Project Gutenberg:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project  Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

A Shadow Of The Throne Provided Here On Earth

REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A. on how Rome satisfies the human need to worship:

Gaspar the Crayer - Veneration of the Virgin by saintsIt is plain to any man that without worship there can be no true religion, and the Gospel is a grand scheme whereby God enables men to pray.  Christ came that we might have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.  His blood removes every barrier, and his Spirit gives the needful power.  But unless that Gospel be embraced with an appropriating faith, true prayer remains an impossibility; men may repeat their prayers, but, like St. Paul, they will never really pray.  Hence, if a man remain in an unconverted state, he must do one of two things; he must either give up prayer altogether, which cannot satisfy an anxious mind; or he must have some modification of true worship.  If he cannot rise in heart to heaven, he must have a shadow of the throne provided for him on earth.  Now mark the effect of this necessity.

The first great difficulty in the way of earnest prayer is realization.  The natural man cannot realize unseen spirits.  There is a height and glory in them beyond his reach.  But yet there is no peace unless he does realize.  So what must he do?  Me must invent some representation, whereby to lead on his mind; some image, figure, or effigy, which may stand before him, in order to bring the object of his worship to his view, and which may stand as a hallowed emblem, through which he pays God his honour; he invents for himself just such a system as is described in the decree of the Council of Trent, when it says, Sess. xxv., “The honour which is given to the images is given to the prototypes which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and make prostration, we adore Christ, and venerate those saints of whom they are the likeness.”  Through the image they adore the Saviour, and the image is employed as an accommodated help to assist the process of realization in the worship of an unseen God.

If there were any doubt that this is the true history of image-worship, it would be removed by the fact that the sin has appeared under the same form, under all circumstances, and in all ages.  Aaron made the calf as a representation of God, and said, “These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt;” and the Hindoo of the present day regards his idol as a representative of his deity.  A Jesuit priest was in conversation the other day with a learned Hindoo in the neighbourhood of Madras, and urged him to embrace what he termed the Catholic faith.  “What is the good,” said the heathen, “of my exchanging one system of idolatry for another?”  “Idolatry!” said the priest, “you do not mean to say that ours is idolatry.  We do not worship our images; we merely set them before us, and adore our Saviour and the saints in them.”  “And do you suppose,” replied the heathen, “that we actually worship the images?  No; we merely set them before us as a representation of our gods.  No, Sir; a Christian I may become, but I shall never be a Roman Catholic.”  There was not a shade of difference between the two systems, both having sprung from the natural tendencies of the human heart.

This identity was on one occasion curiously illustrated by the Church of Rome itself, for when they obtained possession of a magnificent statue of Jupiter Tonans, they removed the thunderbolt out of his hand, and gave him two large keys in its place.  By this slight alteration, they changed Jupiter into Peter, and transferred him from a Pagan temple to a Christian Church.  Could anything shew more clearly that Paganism and Romanism were nothing more than different accommodations to the idolatrous tendencies of the human heart?  There was no opposition in principle, and the only difference was between the thunderbolt and the keys.

What a refreshing contrast do we find in the records of the Tinnevelly Mission, where the heathen idols have been used for pavement at the Church doors, so that none can enter God’s house for worship without first trampling the former idol under foot!

From the same nature has sprung the system of saint worship.  There is always a tendency to deify the great, and just in proportion as time advances does this tendency increase.  The man’s human frailty is daily witnessed by his own contemporaries, and the humanity of his nature kept in view by visible facts; but when the corrective evidence of real life loses its power through the lapse of time, the human failures are forgotten, while the great acts are exaggerated, till something supernatural is attached to the memory, and the earthly benefactor is adored as a god.  This is the history of all the tutelary deities of Pagan lands.  Romulus, e.g., was no sooner dead than deified; the most popular deity of China, Laoutze, was one of the early emperors, and there is scarcely a nation in the world that has not elevated its benefactors into gods.

Here, then, is the natural tendency of the natural heart—a tendency in direct opposition to Christianity.  But, though thus opposed to the Gospel, it is not necessarily eradicated from the heart of every professing Christian; and, hence, it has produced within the Church a new mode of Christianized hero-worship, in which the martyrs have taken the hero’s honours, and the Virgin is crowned with the crown of Cybele.  There was nothing wonderful in this.  They witnessed the martyrs’ faith, and met for sacramental communion around the martyrs’ tombs; they knew their souls yet lived, and they knew not but what they might be even present.  What, then, could be more natural than that the waiting heart should begin to adore them?  It was not addressing a Pagan god, but a Christian saint, and the very prayer was an acknowledgment of all the great principles of Christianity.  But when once that prayer was uttered, the Rubicon was crossed, and the principle of saint-worship established in the Church.  Hence you find the guardian saints and angels of the Church of Rome filling exactly the same office as the tutelary deities of the Heathen.  And, as we have just remarked the identity of Pagan and Roman image-worship as illustrated by the alteration of the image, so there is another curious fact which exhibits the similar correspondence between the hero-worship of the ancients and the saint-worship of modern Rome.  When the Emperor Phocas issued his celebrated edict in recognition of the supremacy of the See of Rome, he made a present to the Pope of the ancient temple named Pantheon.  Now this temple was originally dedicated to Cybele, and all the Pagan gods, and when it fell into the possession of the Pope, he made as slight a change as possible, for he just turned it over to the Virgin Mary and all the saints.  The principle was left untouched, though the objects of the idolatry were changed.

But there is a yet further principle involved in this saint and virgin worship; for the human heart requires tenderness and sympathy, so that we can never breathe out our secret burden to one who has no fellow-feeling with our trouble.  We want the sympathy of a common nature, if not the tenderness of a woman’s heart.  Hence in Heathen systems you constantly find a Heathen goddess to whom pertains especially the office of patronage and mercy.  Even Simon Magus had his Helena in his system of Gnosticism; and the poor Buddhist, while he looks with awe to his three Buddhas, has his Kwan-yin, or Goddess of Mercy, to whom he may appeal in trouble.  Yes! the human heart needs tenderness, and if there is any one aspect in the Gospel more glorious than another, it is the rich provision made for this very want.  There never was a scheme so wonderful, or a Saviour so perfect as that presented in the Gospel.  Glorious in his divinity, he sways heaven’s mighty sceptre, while, perfect in his humanity, he can be tenderly touched with the faintest cry of human grief.  He governs angels, and weeps with men.  But the natural man is a stranger to this sympathy; yet he longs for it and feels the need of it.  He is exposed to the shocks and buffetings of this rough world, and his bleeding heart needs a friend who himself has bled.  If he has not Christ, therefore, he naturally craves a substitute; something which may give him the sense of sympathy amongst the unseen powers.  And this desire has gradually run into saint and virgin worship.  It has taken hold of the hero-worship of the Heathen, and given it a Christian character by transferring it to the Virgin and the saints.  It does not do away with Christ, but provides a system of intermediate mediation which commends itself to the aching heart by the assurance of a woman’s love and a fellow-sufferer’s compassion.  Hence, if any particular saint was subject during life to any especial trial, he is supposed to take a peculiar interest in those who labour under similar affliction.  Nor can you read much of the adoration paid by Rome to the Virgin without perceiving that she is the Kwan-yin, the Goddess of Mercy, in the Romish system.  There is a halo of awe thrown around the brow of the Redeemer, while the Virgin is described in the attitude of tenderness, “the comforter of the afflicted,” “the refuge of the sinner,” and the ready listener to the sufferer’s cry.  We will adduce one instance in illustration, as given by Mr. Tyler in his valuable little work “What is Romanism?”  The worship of the Virgin is especially celebrated in Romish countries during the month of May, and there is a collection of religious poems used in the churches of Paris on these occasions.  One of these is as follows:—

“Vouchsafe, Mary, on this day to hear our sighs and second our desires.  Vouchsafe, Mary, on this day to receive our incense, our love: Of thy heavenly husband calm the rage.  Let him shew himself kind to all those that are thine!  Of thy heavenly husband calm the rage: Let his heart be softened towards us.”

Here God is presented in the attitude of terror, while the female advocate is the sole depository of grace; and the whole springs from the natural heart, which, under the sense of sin, feels a dread of God; and longing for sympathy, appeals to a woman’s love.

Source:  POPERY THE ACCOMMODATION OF CHRISTIANITY TO THE NATURAL HEART at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42280/42280-h/42280-h.htm, p. 9-13

Per Project Gutenberg:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project  Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Corpus Christi Day/Fronleichnam: Worshipping The Creature More Than The Creator

The Still Man on the “holy” day of Corpus Christi:

BentoXVI-51-11052007 (frag)Thursday May 26, 2016, here in Bavaria and in other German states, a holiday called fronleichnam will be celebrated. Fronleichnam is the German equivalent of what is called Corpus Christi Day in America.  Corpus Christi Day is a Roman Catholic holiday honoring the Eucharist, the consecrated bread used in the Roman Catholic Mass.

TimeAndDate.com says this about Corpus Christi Day:

“Corpus Christi is a Christian observance that honors the Holy Eucharist. It is also known as the Feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ, as well as the Day of Wreaths.”

The “Holy Eucharist” is the round, flat, consecrated bread–the wafer–that Roman Catholics eat during the celebration of the Mass. Corpus Christi Day, therefore, is a Roman Catholic holiday or holy day which honors a piece of bread.

The Augsburger Allgemeine, a German newspaper, in the May 24, 2016 edition, has this to say about fronleichnam:

“Fronleichnam wird in der Kirche auch ‘Hochfest des Leibes und Blutes Christi’ genannt. Das Fest knüpft an Gründonnerstag an und setzt die Menschwerdung von Gottes Sohn fort. Der Name leitet sich aus dem mittelhochdeutschen vrône lîcham – „des Herren Leib” – ab.

“Das Fest selbst entstand, nachdem die Augustinernonne Juliana von Lüttich im Jahr 1209 eine Vision hatte. Christus offenbarte ihr eine Mondscheibe, auf der ein dunkler Fleck zu sehen war. Die Mondscheibe sollte das Kirchenjahr darstellen und der Fleck symbolisierte ein fehlendes Fest zu Ehren des Abendmahls.

“Das Bistum Lüttich führte daraufhin das Fest im Jahr 1246 ein. 1264 wurde es von Papst Urban IV zum allgemeinen kirchlichen Fest erklärt.”

Translation:

“In the [Roman Catholic] Church, Corpus Christi Day is also called the ‘High Feast of the body and blood of Christ.’ The Festival falls on Maundy Thursday and celebrates the incarnation of God’s son. The name is derived from the middle high German vrône lîcham, which means ‘the Lord’s Body.’

“The festival itself was created after the Augustinian nun Juliana of Liège had a vision in 1209. Christ revealed to her a moon dial on which could be seen a dark spot. The moon dial represented the liturgical year and the spot symbolized a missing feast in honour of the Lord’s Supper.

“The Roman Catholic Diocese of Liège then introduced the feast in 1246. In 1264 it was declared a General Church feast by Pope Urban IV.”

Note that Corpus Christi Day is not based on the Bible, but was inspired by the alleged vision of a Roman Catholic nun. That means the early Christian Church did not celebrate Corpus Christi Day or anything like it. The Bible does not record the Lord Jesus commanding His Church to establish a holiday honoring the bread used in the Lord’s Supper. The reason for this, I believe, is simple: the bread is merely symbolic.

At the Lord’s Supper, the night before Jesus was crucified, Jesus broke the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24). “This do” refers to the breaking, sharing, and eating of the bread, which is recorded in Mark 14:22,23:

“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

“And He took the cup, and when He has given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it.”

Jesus said “This do in remembrance of me.” This means that in the breaking and sharing of bread we are to remember Him. It is an imperative: that is, a commandment. And the early Christians, obeying this commandment, continued to remember Jesus through the breaking of bread every Sunday, the first day of the week:

“On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7).

“And [the disciples of Jesus] continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).

“And [the disciples of Jesus], continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart (Acts 2:46).

It is through the breaking of bread (the Lord’s Supper) that true Christians are to honor the Lord Jesus’ sacrifice, not by celebrating a holiday in honor of that bread. Corpus Christi Day then, or fromleichnam, is unscriptural.

But, there is something else you should think about. More than being merely unscriptural, Corpus Christi Day is actually blasphemous. Jesus said that through breaking the bread we symbolize the giving of His body “which was broken for us.” The breaking of bread, then, symbolizes His crucifixion. If we do not break the bread, then, we effectively deny the death of Jesus. And by denying Jesus’ death, we also deny His resurrection; for in order to be resurrected, Jesus had to first die. Because the Eucharist is a perfectly round intact piece of bread, it actually denies the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But there is still more. The Roman Catholic Church has not only established a holy day in honor of a piece of bread, but it actually worships that piece of bread as Jesus Christ Himself. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence (also not biblical) declares that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ are actually present (hence the term Real Presence) in the Eucharist:

“First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration (blessing) of bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist…”

“This has always been the belief of the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body and the true blood of Our Lord, together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of bread and wine…” –Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, October 11, 1551.

Many of you Christians who count Roman Catholics as your brothers and sisters in Christ may be asking yourselves why we should even care that Roman Catholics have set aside a day honoring a piece of bread and, in fact, worship that bread as Jesus Christ. Allow me to illuminate you by quoting from the Roman Catholic Council of Trent on which the Roman catechism is based and is the basis for much of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church:

“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign or figure, let him be anathema” (Canon 1).

“If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria…let him be anathema” (Canon 6). (Latria is the highest form of worship and is only supposed to be given to God).

“Let him be anathema,” as many of you know, means “Let him be accursed.” When the Roman Catholic church curses someone, it is, in effect, a death sentence. And, because the Council of Trent was instituted primarily to condemn Martin Luther and all Protestants, then the “him” that is being cursed is the Bible-believing Christian–me, and, hopefully, you.

Roman Catholics profess to be Christians, and many say that the only difference between Catholics and Protestants is that they have “a different worship tradition.” DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT! If you were paying attention, then you know that the Roman Catholic church holds the Bible-believing Christian in very little esteem, to put it charitably, especially if you don’t agree with their doctrines concerning the Eucharist. Roman Catholics are very serious about the Eucharist and it is considered the most important of the seven sacraments (the sacraments are the “channels of grace” by which the Roman Catholic strives to merit the grace of God). They really believe that Jesus Christ is present in the communion wafer, and, in fact, call it Jesus.

The worship of the Eucharist is yet another form of idolatry practiced by the Roman Catholic church. Roman Catholics attempting to justify their worship of the Eucharist will say that they don’t actually worship it, but merely “adore” it. But, you must understand that adoration is a type of worship. And, as the previous quote from the Roman Catholic Council of Trent affirmed, the Roman Catholic must give the Eucharist the highest form of worship: that of latria. This makes the Eucharist an idol–a false god. The First Commandment is that we should worship God only, and, according to my Bible, that is Jesus Christ, who right now sits in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father. Jesus Christ, contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine, cannot be compelled to leave Heaven at the whim of some priest and enter into a piece of bread.

In “A God Whom His Fathers Knew Not,” we explain that Corpus Christi Day is a literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel found in Daniel 11:38. It is also an example of the idolatry that Paul speaks of in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans:

“When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

“And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image…

“…And worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Romans 1:21-23,25).

On Corpus Christi Day, the Eucharist is paraded around some Roman Catholic towns and communities housed in what is called a monstrance. A monstrance looks like a sunburst and is supposed to represent the glory of God. The Eucharist, housed in a monstrance, is literally an “image of the uncorruptible God.”

 

Roman Catholics have been deceived into believing that they are worshipping Jesus Christ when they “adore” the Eucharist. They need to know that they are, in fact, committing idolatry.

Christians who consider Roman Catholicism to be just another Christian denomination are also deceived, and they should be offended by the spectacle of Eucharist adoration and the idea that Jesus Christ resides in a piece of bread.

Christians should also be aware that during the Dark Ages, millions of Christians were burned at the stake under the Roman Catholic Inquisition, because they denied that Jesus Christ was “really present” in the Eucharist. If you believe the Bible, then you must also believe that history will certainly repeat itself.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith.

Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.

The Still Man

 

Note: The source for the quotations of the Council of Trent were taken from The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, translated and introduced by Reverend H.J. Schroeder, TAN Books, Charlotte, NC, ISBN: 978-0-89555-074-3.

~published under the following permission from http://www.thestillman.com/stillmanfiles/:

Copyright Notice

You may copy any content on this website, create derivative work from it, and re-publish it for non-commercial purposes, provided you include an overt attribution to me, the author, and the re-publication must itself be under the terms of this license or similar.

My God Will Not Be Eaten With Teeth

Brave words from martyr Anne Askew (1521 – July 16, 1546), who did not deny Christ even unto death:
Santísimo

“But as concerning your mass, as it is now used in our days,   I do say and believe it to be the most abominable idol that is in the world:  for my God will not be eaten with teeth, neither yet dieth he again.  And upon these words that I base now spoken, will I suffer death.”

~Select works of John Bale D.D. Bishop of Ossory: edited by Rev. Henry Christmas

“As for that ye call your God, it is a piece of bread.   For a more proof thereof… let it but lie in the box three months and it will be mouldy and so turn to nothing that is good. Whereupon I am persuaded that it cannot be God”

~The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe:  Rev. George Townsend;  1837-41

Source and read more about Anne Askew: http://out-of-theordinary.blogspot.ca/2015/10/anne-askew-extraordinary-life-of.html

“The Family That Prays Together, Stays Together”

Interesting background on the above saying, which Protestants also hold true:

SFR b+w - returning thanks“The saying was invented by Al Scalpone, a professional commercial-writer, and was used as the slogan of the Roman Catholic Family Rosary Crusade by Father Patrick Peyton (P. Peyton, All for Her, 1967). The crusade began in 1942 and the slogan was apparently first broadcast on 6 Mar. 1947 during the radio programme Family Theater of the Air. The Crusade in Britain started in 1952, and the expression now has many (often humorous) variant forms. [Jennifer Speake, ed., “The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs” (5th ed., 2008), p. 109]”

HT: http://virginiahuguenot.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-family-that-prays-together.html

Confess or be Excommunicated

JASNAGÓRA6

The Protestant Pulpit:

Removing Auricular Confession, Adding Public Confession in Our Worship

In the year 1215, under the popedom of Innocent III, the Council of Lateran met. The 21st canon of this Council enjoined in substance that all the faithful of both sexes, after they came to years of discretion, should privately confess their sins to their own priest, at least once a year, and endeavor faithfully to perform the penance enjoined on them; and after this they should come to the sacrament, at least at Easter, unless the priest for some reasonable cause judged it fit for them to abstain for that time. And whoever did not perform this was to be excommunicated, and put out of the Church; and if he died was not to be allowed Christian burial. Of this canon, the Roman writer Fleury remarks, “This is the first canon, so far as I know, which imposes the general obligation of sacramental confession.”

Read more: https://ilyston.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/replacing-auricular-confession-to-public-confession-in-our-worship/

Note: This blog was deleted after I prepared this post :-(.  I don’t know where the blog author has gone.

 

R.C. Sproul Wishes Protestants Were More Catholic

R. C. Sproul (cropped)I wish we had more annual festivals. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, celebrates with great joy the Feast of the Ascension every year. Some Protestant bodies do, but most do not. I wish we would celebrate that great event in the life of Christ when He was raised up into heaven to be crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. We celebrate His birth; we celebrate His death. I wish we would also celebrate His coronation.”

Source: https://www.facebook.com/Ligonier/po…53870123688115 and http://www.ligonier.org/blog/celebra…-pagan-ritual/

HT: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/88558-R-C-says-nothing-more-pleasing-to-Christ-than-the-church-celebrating-His-birthday, Comment #1

Reformed Churches Adopting Romish Worship

A Daughter of the Reformation:

UnchurchI’ve been noticing a trend within the Reformed Presbyterian world. Many churches seem to be drawn to practices that have more in common with Rome than with Geneva. I’m not really sure what exactly the attraction is, but here are some of the things I’ve noticed, in no particular order:

  • Eucharistic liturgy
  • Intinction
  • Monastic Retreats
  • Contemplative prayer
  • Vestments
  • Observance of Ash Wednesday/Lent

It seems worthwhile, given the current fascination, to consider these practices and to ask whether they are in keeping with Scripture and our Reformed Presbyterian heritage.

Read more: https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/if-it-looks-like-rome/

Maybe Hislop Wasn’t So Wrong After All

From F. F. Bruce: Babylon and Rome via Feileadh Mor:

Semiramis and Tammuz“It is worth noting that Hislop’s identification of Tammuz with Nimrod rests on a more secure basis than he knew. Nimrod the founder of cities is, according to Langdon, identical with the Sumerian god Ninurta (whose name also appears in the form Nimurta); and “like all gods who were ‘sons’, Ninurta was originally also Tammuz, son of the Earth-mother, and died each year with the perishing vegetation…. The cult of Ninurta spread to the West in early times, and a temple of Ninurta at Gebal is mentioned in the fifteenth century [B.C.]… it is obvious that not only the Adonis cult of Gebal was borrowed from the Tammuz cult of Sumer, but that Ninurta… has a direct connection with the Sumerian and Phoenician cults of the dying god” (Semitic Mythology, pp. 131 ff.).”

“This composite Mother-goddess took a powerful hold on the imagination of the peoples of the Empire. With the Christianisation of the Roman state, she ceased gradually to be worshipped as Cybele or Isis, but her worship continued to flourish none the less. In The Evangelical Quarterly for October, 1934, Professor C. B. Lewis in an article, “Survivals of a Pagan Cult”, argues convincingly that the Cybele cult survived in the poetry of the troubadours in the veneration for “the loved one far away”. Nor can it be seriously disputed that the worship (hyperdulia, to use the technical term) of the Virgin Mary in many of its features is but the continuation of the Mother-goddess cult under another name. We have already noted the coincidence of her festival on Lady Day with the Hilaria Matris Deum. “It is interesting to note in passing,” says Dr. T. R. Glover, “that the land which introduced the Mother of the Gods to the Roman world, also gave the name QeotÒkoj (Mother of God) to the Church”,37 and again, “There is evidence to show that the Madonna in Southern Italy is really Isis renamed”38 (The Conflict of  Religions in the Early Roman Empire, pp. 21, 23). The title Isis und Horos2 MK 1888“Star of the Sea” by which the Virgin is addressed in many hymns was given to Isis by her sailor devotees in the Roman Empire.39 And other parallels will occur to those who read the following account of Isis worship by Dr. W. R. Inge: “her worship… was organised upon a plan very like that of the Catholic Church. There was a kind of pope, with white-robed shaven priests. The toilet of the ‘Madonna’ was attended to every day. Daily matins and evensong were sung in her temples. There was a great festival in the autumn, at which the death of Osiris-Serapis was lamented, while there was rejoicing over his  resurrection”.40 The one discrepancy between this ritual and that of the Catholic Church is the date of the death and resurrection of the god. This fell in the autumn in Egypt, because the chronological framework of the Osiris myth in that land was based on the rise and fall of the Nile. Elsewhere, however, the death and resurrection ceremonies took place at the spring equinox. In Rome, for example, the death of Attis was celebrated on the 24th March, the dies sanguinis. Many elements in the Mass and in the Easter celebrations belong not to the Christian worship of apostolic days, but to the Mystery representations of the death and resurrection of the Dying God.”

““The truth that catholicism arose from a transformation of primitive Christianity in the atmosphere of the pagan mysteries is often denied”, says the Bishop of Birmingham, “but the known facts are decisive. It is to be regretted that detailed evidence is not as full as we could wish, inasmuch as documents describing the mystery-beliefs have largely perished. Their destruction was probably deliberate. Yet enough remains to show that the beliefs of Catholicism repudiated by a sound instinct at the Reformation were precisely those mystery religion accretions which were alien from the moral and spiritual simplicity of Christ’s teaching.”41”

Read more: https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/f-f-bruce-babylon-and-rome/