The story of Alberto Rivera: how accurate?

[moonflower2]

Can someone explain to me in something rather clear and simple what exactly it is that the Catholics are doing when they have "communion" on Sunday mornings? Is that what they call the eucharist?

I'm assuming from these earlier posts that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body & blood of Christ, but so do the Lutherans, but the Lutherans don't call it the eucharist. Aside from all the other obvious differences with the Catholic church, I don't think that Lutherans "worship" the wafer and wine, do they?

[Oscar]

And which thousand would that be, pray tell?
Verne

p.s I am more than a little startled that you would consider the Papacy and what it stands for, more importantly what that system has historically done to believers, in any way "Christian". I distinguish the system from its adherents, some of whom I believe to be saved...
The critical point of derparture is the position of the Catholic leadership that church tradition, not the Bible, is the ultimate arbiter of doctrinal matters. In this position they are entirely unabashed. It is hard consider a system like this "Christian"...

Verne,

First of all, I don't recall having said anything about the papacy at all.  

Second,  I am not speaking specifically of the ROMAN catholic church.  When I said "catholic" I am referring to the "universal" church as it existed from..say...300 to 1300AD.  During that period, you've got the first real pope, Gregory I who "reigned" from 590-604.

But infant baptism, sacramentalism, government by heirarcical bishops, church state unions, persecution of dissenters were all in place long before the papacy.  These were characteristics of both the eastern and western churches.  I believe it was 1256AD when they finally formally separated.

Now, as to the "system" and the "adherents".   The system is nothing more than the beliefs, practices, documents and property of the adherents.  How does one separate them?

For example, Augustine of Hippo.   One of the great theologians of the western church.  Can you divide between the Christian and the system?  He was both a great Christian theologian and a Catholic bishop.  He also favored the imposition of catholic teaching by government power.

If you wish to say he wasn't a Christian, go ahead.  But to do that you would need to explain how he fooled Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the other reformers so well.  

So, how would you differentiate between the system and the adherent in Augustine?

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Can someone explain to me in something rather clear and simple what exactly it is that the Catholics are doing when they have "communion" on Sunday mornings? Is that what they call the eucharist?

I'm assuming from these earlier posts that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body & blood of Christ, but so do the Lutherans, but the Lutherans don't call it the eucharist. Aside from all the other obvious differences with the Catholic church, I don't think that Lutherans "worship" the wafer and wine, do they?

Moon,

The word "eucharist" is the anglicized form of the greek words for "thank you" or "thanksgiving".   We "give thanks" for the bread and wine when we celebrate the Lord's supper.

Very early the idea arose and became popular that there was virtue in the "elements", the bread and wine.  But then they needed to differentiate between the eucharistic elements and plain old bread and wine.

So the idea of "consecrated" bread and wine developed.  Only the ones that were blessed, prayed over, or whatever by an authorized church official were effective.   Eating and drinking this stuff was supposed to communicate grace in some way.   If you didn't get it....you could lose out on salvation.

Of course, this conferred tremendous power on the church hierarchy.  They could send you to hell if you made them mad. 

Or, at least, so it was believed.

When the Reformation came the principle of justification by faith alone was recovered and preached.

The Roman Catholic church held a big council that lasted 9 years at at Trent.  One of the things that came out of it was the declaration that the bread and wine, properly consecrated  by an authorized priest, were physically transformed into the real body and blood of Christ.

Not just spiritually, as the Lutherans believe, but physically.  In Thomist philosophy they distinguish a things essence, (what it really is), from its accidents, (its physical characteristics).  RC's believe that the bread and wine are really Christ's body and blood in their essence, just as if you had cut a chunk of meat out of Jesus. 

Transubstiation, in their view, only effects the essence, not the accidents.

So, when they bow down to the "consecrated host", they believe that they are bowing down to Jesus Christ himself.  They don't believe that God is a wafer, they believe that Christ is present in the wafer.

Sounds strange to us, and it is.  But it is based on philosophical ideas that were widely accepted in Medieval philosophy.

We think of the bread and wine in terms of physics and chemistry.  This or that elements in this or that chemical combination acted upon by some catalyst...and so on.   They didn't.   They thought of reality as being closer to the spiritual than we do.

The problem is, for them, that they made in an "infallible" declaration, and can't take it back.   

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

First of all, I don't recall having said anything about the papacy at all.  

Second,  I am not speaking specifically of the ROMAN catholic church.  When I said "catholic" I am referring to the "universal" church as it existed from..say...300 to 1300AD.  During that period, you've got the first real pope, Gregory I who "reigned" from 590-604.

But infant baptism, sacramentalism, government by heirarcical bishops, church state unions, persecution of dissenters were all in place long before the papacy.  These were characteristics of both the eastern and western churches.  I believe it was 1256AD when they finally formally separated.

Now, as to the "system" and the "adherents".   The system is nothing more than the beliefs, practices, documents and property of the adherents.  How does one separate them?

For example, Augustine of Hippo.   One of the great theologians of the western church.  Can you divide between the Christian and the system?  He was both a great Christian theologian and a Catholic bishop.  He also favored the imposition of catholic teaching by government power.

If you wish to say he wasn't a Christian, go ahead.  But to do that you would need to explain how he fooled Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the other reformers so well.  

So, how would you differentiate between the system and the adherent in Augustine?

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for the clarification Tom.
I would make historical distinctions based on the doctrinal position.
Most historians agree that the kind of rigid heirarchichal structure we see today began with the teachings of Cyprian(Bishop of Carthage in Africa circa  A.D. 248-258).
Some feel the "system" got going even earlier than Gregory I with Leo I.(A.D. 440-461)
Nothing in the writings of Agustine suggest that he would endorse the teachings of Vatican II in my view.

  Now, as to the "system" and the "adherents".   The system is nothing more than the beliefs, practices, documents and property of the adherents.  How does one separate them?

It is possible to subscribe to erroneous or even heretical teaching and still be a believer. The assemblies certainly prove this.
You and I disagree on the doctrine of election and that means that one or both of us may be wrong. It does not mean that either of us is necessarily unsaved.
The items you mention as being particular to the system are not the ones I would have metnioned as defining. As you know there are five central propositions regarding Mary and you mentioned none of them. The items you cited I would not necessarily consider a basis for an absence of Christian fellowship.

The thing that in my mind is truly defining when it comes to an assessment of what is Christian and what is not is one's view of the Bible.

Beware anyone mitigating the centrality and authority of the Scriptures and substituting human erudition in matters of doctrine and living, It is the quickest way to spot a false teacher.

The Roman Catholic Church has stated in no uncertain terms that it rejects the authority of Scripture as the ultimate source of doctrinal truth, and has vested such authority in church tradition, and the conclusions of one human - the Pope.

I suspect that not every person who is Catholic is fully aware of some of the teachings of the "system".
I am certain that not every Catholic who may be aware of them accepts all of them as valid.
Contraception and the contents of the Canon of Scripture (Council of Trent notwithstanding  ) are two examples.
Verne
p.s. Concepts such as the infallibility of the Pope and the assumption of Mary are certainly not ones Agustine would recognize and are certainly not Medieval in their origin...

[vernecarty]

Verne,



But infant baptism, sacramentalism, government by heirarcical bishops, church state unions, persecution of dissenters were all in place long before the papacy.  These were characteristics of both the eastern and western churches.  I believe it was 1256AD when they finally formally separated.


Thomas Maddux

While there are many clear doctrinal aberrations espoused by the Roman Catholic authority, what I think justifies the view of those who tend to view them as a cult is their teaching concerning the person of Mary.
1.That she is the Mother of God
2. That she is "ever virgin".
3. That she was immaculately conceived.
4. That she was assumed into heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.
5. That she is Mediatrix of all Graces, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate for the People of God.

You cannot talk seriously about how one should view Catholicism, unless you are prepraed to deal with the implications of the these doctrinal positions in my view.
Verne

[M2]

http://www.chick.com/bc/2005/indulge.asp

The Pope has pronouced this to be the year of the Eucharist, to keep Catholics in line, making sure they bow down to the wafer god.  Oh and if you do follow along like a good cult follower, er, i mean catholic, the Pope will grant "plenary indulgence for Catholics who participate in veneration of the Blessed Sacrament during the Year of the Eucharist" Which means "worship of the wafer god can get time in purgatory reduced."

So that's why they bow down and do the genuflex.  Because God is in the bread  , lol.  What fools. 
As I said, the Catholic church is the world's oldest and largest "Christian" cult.  Imagine the Geftakys Assembly lasting for 1800 years and you've got a good idea of what the Catholic church is today. 

Regarding Alberto's story, it's not so hard for me to believe a pernicous plot on the behalf of Jesuits, nor of their infiltration into "eccumenical" circles.  There has been a documented strong movement to move all the churches into one (many news articles on this, little time to look them up and post).  Tom, any Jesuits in Protestant clothing at BIOLA?  heheh  Hmm, but then again how would you know?

Arthur

Aw come on Arthur.  Stop knocking the Catholics and calling them a cult.  So what if they want to worship the Eucharist and the virgin Mary and believe that salvation comes by the sacrament of baptism and confirmation.  Think of all the sincere and devoted leaders and followers.  Sincerity and devotion is what matters isn't it??  It's not up to you to judge them eh??  So many marriages have been healed by the good counselling of the priests.  And so many are truly following God, be it under the catholic umbrella.  Mother Teresa was a Catholic.  Isn't that enough reason to validate them?

Marcia (insert toungue-in-cheek smilie here)

[vernecarty]

Aw come on Arthur.  Stop knocking the Catholics and calling them a cult.  So what if they want to worship the Eucharist and the virgin Mary and believe that salvation comes by the sacrament of baptism and confirmation.  Think of all the sincere and devoted leaders and followers.  Sincerity and devotion is what matters isn't it??  It's not up to you to judge them eh??  So many marriages have been healed by the good counselling of the priests.  And so many are truly following God, be it under the catholic umbrella.  Mother Teresa was a Catholic.  Isn't that enough reason to validate them?

Marcia (insert toungue-in-cheek smilie here)

I take it you mean that he is spewing "hate" on God's people?
That we are supposed to only concern ourselves with "compassion" and "forgiveness"?
I guess we have to just forget about truth, righteousness, and the holiness of God.
Anybody interested in sending their young son off for altar boy training while we are at it?
Verne

[vernecarty]

Can someone explain to me in something rather clear and simple what exactly it is that the Catholics are doing when they have "communion" on Sunday mornings? Is that what they call the eucharist?

I'm assuming from these earlier posts that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body & blood of Christ, but so do the Lutherans, but the Lutherans don't call it the eucharist. Aside from all the other obvious differences with the Catholic church, I don't think that Lutherans "worship" the wafer and wine, do they?

Tom did a good job Moonflower.
The Eucharist falls under the general category in Catholicism referred to as the Sacraments.
The are generally defined as a sign from Christ by means of which He imparts His life and vitality to believers.
They include the bread and wine of the Eucharist of course, water babtism, and the exchange of matrimonial vows, the latter while not being directly sanctioned Scripturally( the wedding at Cana is often cited), but viewed (among others) as being legtimate by virtue of the "Church's experience and reflection".
Verne

[outdeep]

So that's why they bow down and do the genuflex.  Because God is in the bread  , lol.  What fools. 
As I said, the Catholic church is the world's oldest and largest "Christian" cult.  Imagine the Geftakys Assembly lasting for 1800 years and you've got a good idea of what the Catholic church is today.   

It is my observation that there are many types of Catholics just as there are many types of Christians.  There are Catholics who are the supersticious type who pray to Mary and get into wierd spiritualism.  Then, there are those who act, believe and talk very much like Evangelicals.

There is someone who posts on this website who generally gets a reaction because he tends to put Christians in a box - all Christian leaders are immoral, according to him and they are all hypicrites, etc.  We evangelicals have often been taught to do the same when it comes to Catholics.

I remember one time many years ago at work when I was in the office of a woman who was a Catholic.  She was sharing her heart about how she was praying for her kids and really wanted God to do a work in their lives.  I remember thinking for the first time that perhaps I may have more in common with many Catholics than I realize.  Now that my kids are at decision-making age, I wouldn't mind having such a person as a prayer partner.

I understand that there are many historical differences we have with Catholicism.  I understand that there are many who are works-oriented.  But, over the years, the lines have kind of blurred and I believe that there are many Catholics who we have more in common than you might think.  Certainly, I have more in common with the Catholic church than I do with the ACLU.

It is always easier (I know by my own guilt) to label folks, generalize, and make everything black and white.  By doing so, we can write off anything Catholic as a horrible entity and don't have to face the fact that it is made up of people who, like us, are at different stages on the spiritual journey and understanding.  It makes things easier to control and our life nice and tidy.  It's much easier if Catholics and eveyone in it is part of a cult.  That way, we don't have to bother getting to know them.

[Oscar]

While there are many clear doctrinal aberrations espoused by the Roman Catholic authority, what I think justifies the view of those who tend to view them as a cult is their teaching concerning the person of Mary.
1.That she is the Mother of God
2. That she is "ever virgin".
3. That she was immaculately conceived.
4. That she was assumed into heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.
5. That she is Mediatrix of all Graces, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate for the People of God.

You cannot talk seriously about how one should view Catholicism, unless you are prepraed to deal with the implications of the these doctrinal positions in my view.
Verne

Verne,

The idea that Mary was the mother of God always seemed nutty to me until I actually read the Chalcedonian Creed.  It is concerned with questions regarding the nature of Christ and mentions Mary incidentally.  

It says..."truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten..."

So, all the "mother of God" claims mean is that since Christ was fully God, and Mary was his mother, she was the mosther of God in that sense.

When I heard that phrase I used to think, "How can Mary be her creator's mother?"  But, that isn't what they mean at all.

Seems to me that the real question here is "Who is a Christian?"   In the gospels and acts it seems that Christ was preached as the Messiah, the Son of God, and no clearly defined explanation of what that meant was given until much later.  Paul said to the Philippian jailer, "...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."

Genuine Catholics do that.   That doesn't validate all their other ideas, but it does show that one doesn't necessarily have to "pray to receive Christ" to be saved.

Back to Mary...I used to work with a sincere practicing Catholic who was very well educated.  Had quite an understanding of Catholic teaching.  I challenged him to show me that their beliefs were apostolic, or at least from the apostolic period.  

The best he could do was some quotes from the 5th century.  I'm pretty sure that most of the doctrinal statements you quote were "promulgated" at Vatican I in the 1870's and hang completely on the validity of the papal infallibility doctrine.

It seems to me the move to declare Mary, "co-mediatrix" was voted down...but I'm not completly sure.  Maybe it was "co-redemptrix".  

BTW, the Catholic friend I had, (we worked together), was one of the few Christian teachers I ever knew that took a bold stand for Christ with the secularist teachers.  He stood for all the historic Christian doctrines, opposed abortion, homosexuality etc.  He took a lot of flak for it.  

Many of our brethren behaved like "secret service" Christians.  You would never have known that they were Christians unless you asked them in private.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

BTW, the Catholic friend I had, (we worked together), was one of the few Christian teachers I ever knew that took a bold stand for Christ with the secularist teachers.  He stood for all the historic Christian doctrines, opposed abortion, homosexuality etc.  He took a lot of flak for it.  

Many of our brethren behaved like "secret service" Christians.  You would never have known that they were Christians unless you asked them in private.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I too have learned not to paint with too broad a brush by experience. There are folks we readily accept as believers based solely on their say-so and some presumed subscription to theology but who don't act the part...
As to who is truly saved is a complex and rather elusive question. We have all been fooled at some point or another. I am becoming convinced that there are a few things about the regenerated life that simply cannot be counterfeited, if only we had eyes to see...
Verne
p.s you are right about fifth teaching concerning Mary not yet being made a matter of an infallible Papal decree, but the cardinals are pushing hard for it nonetheless...

[M2]

It is my observation that there are many types of Catholics just as there are many types of Christians.  There are Catholics who are the supersticious type who pray to Mary and get into wierd spiritualism.  Then, there are those who act, believe and talk very much like Evangelicals.
....
I understand that there are many historical differences we have with Catholicism.  I understand that there are many who are works-oriented.  But, over the years, the lines have kind of blurred and I believe that there are many Catholics who we have more in common than you might think.  Certainly, I have more in common with the Catholic church than I do with the ACLU.
....

On an individual basis there are some who are believers.  On the organizational basis I tend to categorize the catholic church as cult-like.  The priests(leaders) have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences of not doing so.

I watched a documentary video on the life of Mother Teresa.  She had actually left the Catholic church to start her work in Calcutta.  It was a number of years later, only after she had applied and re-applied for official status, that the church 'recognized' her order of nuns.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Ex. 9:27

These are amazing words, considering their source. They come from a person whose heart is completely hardened! Indeed they come from a life specifically raised up to demonstrate the judgmental power of God.
Unless we learn to think about the course of history in terms of God's purpose, we will play the part of fools.
Some hearing this confession could very well have concluded that this was a righteous man. After all, was he not clearly acknowledging his own transgression?
The key was of course the man could not cease from sin.
Some Christians still are unable to recognize Pharaoh's symptoms in others, regardless of what they say.
Pious platitudes from this man did not alter his fate, nevertheless, even he confessed his sin.
What will become of a man like George Geftakys?
I am more than ever convinced, that the reason so many of us fall into error, sorrow and a tragic  wasting of our precious time in futile pursuits is becasuse we fail to properly read and understand our Bibles...may the Almighty grant to each of us wisdom...

There is someone who posts on this website who generally gets a reaction because he tends to put Christians in a box - all Christian leaders are immoral, according to him and they are all hypicrites, etc.  We evangelicals have often been taught to do the same when it comes to Catholics.

An attitude like this is almost always borne of ignorance and from that perspective can be excused.
How many of us under the influence of the apostate were convinced that the only place godly people existed was in the assemblies? I dare say most of us were of that sad opinon.
We all learned better after we left.
Those who have left the cofines of the assemblies and are still of the opinon that the world is devoid of truly godly men and women have another far more serious problem...
Verne