'Replies from Roman Catholics'

Mike Sullivan - 34

7th February, 2005

(Continued from page 290)


The Word of God defines Rome as a 'stumbling block'


You write: I will pray for you. I believe that the hatred and lies you are teaching causes scandal. Our Dear Lord said, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Mt. 18:6).

TCE: Who causes scandal? Jesus made it clear, in Matthew 16:18, that 'the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church' - but this word of warning to His disciples concerning 'scandals' was a warning to them about their behaviour too (Luke 17:1-3):

1 Jesus said to his disciples: 'Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 So watch yourselves.

He used the same Greek word in His warning to Peter (Matthew 16:23):

Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

The word is used in a similar context in Romans 14:13:

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

But we learn, from Romans 16:17-19, that the ways to avoid 'scandals' are clearly set out in the Word of God:

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

As we have said before - they knew what would cause division and scandals (obstacles) because they had learned from the apostles teachings, both verbally and by the written word, who to avoid. Clearly, because you accept the views and traditions of men to be part of your standard of judging, Papal Rome does not know who and what to avoid - which is why John Paul II is deep in a mire which even historical Papal Roman Catholics recognise as heresy (by their past standards!).

Everyone who has ever been trapped in Papal Rome - and those who escaped from her whoredoms during the Reformation - struggled to escape from the darkness that surrounded them. The inspired writer John described the problem (1 John 2:9-11):

9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

How could these men, who had only just escaped from the clutches of Rome, torture, burn, behead and drown their fellow men - many of whom simply desired to follow the loving Lord Jesus Christ whom they had heard about? Because they were in a darkness which had its Satanic tentacles around them still. Wherever you find a spirit that desires and plots the death of a fellow-man (excepting obvious cases of self-defence or defence of nation and liberty) then you have the spirit of Anti-Christ. The Munster Anabaptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and some Puritans, had still not fully escaped this spirit, but their behaviour still failed to plummet to the depths that Rome - the supposed holder of the 'keys' - reached!

The reason for the stumbling of Rome is found in several passages (Romans 9:30-10:4):

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the 'stumbling stone.' 33 As it is written: 'See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.' Rom. 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

To varying degrees they all made the same mistake as Israel and set out to follow the ways of men, setting up kingdoms and organisations based on the precepts of men rather than on the Word of God. And why do they stumble? Peter knew (1 Peter 2:7-8):

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, ' 8 and, 'A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.' They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.

Christ is both the stone which serves as a foundation (
themelios) for the church and the stone over which one can fall, the stumbling stone (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8; referring to Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; Psalm 118:22; Rock). This explains why men, e.g. many Jews, do not come to salvation. Where Jesus and his message are refused, man finds his eternal destruction (cf. Luke 2:34). Luke's version of the saying about the corner stone presses the picture even further: 'Every one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one it will crush him' (Luke 20:18). This combines the saying about the corner stone (Psalm 118:20; Isaiah 28:16; cf. Luke 20:17; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7) with Isaiah 8:14 f. which declares: 'And he [God] will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and be taken.' But what was said of God by Isaiah is said of Jesus in Luke (cf. Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:4 ff.). According to Luke 20:18, man will be broken by Christ in any case. He will be either broken on him now, as Christ shatters his preconceived plans for his life, or he will be broken by him in judgment.

Whether the disciple of Christ may cause offense to others is another matter. Paul expressly forbids the strong to cause the weak to stumble and to hurt their conscience (Romans 14:13, 21; 1 Corinthians 8:9). Their freedom, though justified in itself, must not cause others to fall. This is the law of love. He who hurts the conscience of another creates an obstacle for the gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:12 f., 19 f.). Paul enlarges the circle still further, when he says: 'Give no offense [aproskopoi . . . ginesthe] to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God' (1 Corinthians 10:32).

Ironically, the English translation into 'stumbling-block' was first introduced by William Tyndale (who was strangled and burned by Papal Rome for daring to give the Word of God to the people!) in his translation of Romans 14:13: 'That no man putt a stomblinge blocke or an occasion to faule' [
proskomma skandalon]. Later translators preferred to use it for skandalon. After Tyndale the expression was used in the senses of an occasion for moral stumbling, an occasion for falling into calamity, an obstacle to belief, understanding, progress, and, more rarely, literally of a kind of threshold or object sticking up in a road. Truly, Papal Rome has proved itself a 'stumbling block' to the nations with its false gospel and sacraments. What is the way that true believers are meant to cause 'division' (1 Cor 11:19) and put 'a stumbling block' between those whom God has called and those who choose man's 'strength' and 'wisdom'? 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 emphasises the difference between God's gospel we seek to preach and the foolishness of the 'wisdom of men':

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In contrast to those who sought this gospel by following the Word of God through the leading of the Spirit alone - such as the Anabaptists - the Papal Church of Rome has been an utter scandal since its inception under Constantine, when it quickly began to show its true colours by persecuting true believers.

'Binding and loosing' - and the 'Keys'?

You write: I will pray that someday you will come into the fullness of truth and embrace the beautiful teachings of the Church founded by Christ, who gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose--the power our current pontiff, Pope John Paul II enjoys.

TCE: Regarding the 'Keys to the kingdom' - we should note that a key is a badge of authority (Isaiah 22:15, 22; Luke 11:52) and 'the kingdom of heaven' is not heaven, for no man on earth carries the keys to heaven! Hence all of the 'jokes' about 'St. Peter at the gate' stem from this misunderstanding. They are both un-Biblical and in bad taste. We use keys to open doors. Peter was given the privilege of opening 'the door of faith' to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), to the Samaritans (Acts 8:14ff), and to the Gentiles (Acts 10). But the other apostles shared this authority (Matthew 18:18), and Paul had the privilege of 'opening the door of faith' to the Gentiles outside of Palestine (Acts 14:27). Nowhere in this passage, or in the rest of the New Testament, are we told that Peter or his successors had any special position or privilege in the church. Peter in his two epistles claimed to be nothing more than an apostle (1 Peter 1:1), an elder (5:1), and a servant of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

Regarding 'Binding and loosing' - this was a very familiar phrase to the Jews, for their rabbis often spoke of 'binding and loosing,' that is, forbidding or permitting. Our Lord's statement in 16:19 referred to Peter. But His statement later in 18:18 included all of the apostles. As the representatives of their Lord, they would exercise authority according to His Word. The phrase actually changes in meaning totally when the Greek verbs in verse 19 are considered and literally reads: '... and whatever you bind on earth [forbid to be done], shall have been already bound...in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth [permit to be done], shall have already been loosed in heaven.' Thus Jesus did not say that God would obey what they did on earth, but that they should do on earth whatever God had already willed. The church should not be seeking to get man's will done in heaven - as the papacy has clearly done in order to wallow in wealth on earth - but should obey God's will on earth.

Thank you for praying for us Mike - but who are you praying to? Mary, the dead saints, or the Jesus of Papal Rome who is another Jesus (1 John 2:18-19; 2 John 9) bringing another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)? We challenge you to answer the many questions posed here and through our pages for, if the Papal Roman Catholic Church were 'the Faith' it claims to be, they should not be hard to answer. Eternity is too long and too final to regret having taken the word of men who have shown themselves to be utterly corrupt and fallible for the requirements of your salvation. Test Papal Rome's claims with those of the Bible as we have done here. Don't trust your feelings or the experiences of others but find out for yourself. Study the Word of God to discover the true condition of man and his need for a perfect Saviour. Put your trust in the completed work of the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus

'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time' (1 Timothy 2:5).

TCE


===================================

Mike 'replies': 17th March 2005

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your lengthy email. Wow, I'm flattered that you deem my email worthy of an eight-page response.


While I appreciate your effort, I must admit that your read on both Catholic doctrine and history is inaccurate on all counts. If I thought it would be fruitful to engage in a blow-by-blow debate, I surely would do so. I certainly could provide substantial evidence to the contrary of each of your arguments. However, I'm convinced that it would be a waste of our time, and I didn't send my original email to engage in such a debate. In fact, I sent the original email because I was horrified to see that someone could so thoroughly despise the Faith for which I'd willingly go to my death.

Your email is a re-hashing of many well-known lies about the Catholic church. I'd recommend that you refer to actual Church documents rather than other discredited Evangelical/Fundamentalist websites for your primary sources. I'd also recommend that you objectively study the Bible and the Fathers of the Church. I believe you will begin to see a continuity there that you apparently do not see.

For future reference, when discussing things with Catholics, it would probably be more effective for you to cite specific Church documents such as John Paul II's actual words, rather than some of the most liberal newspapers in the US. The Vatican's website ( ### ) is easy to search and is a much more credible source. Also, when quoting St. Thomas, it would be helpful if you quote the actual text of his words, not just what some anti-Catholic has said he said. The text of the  is found on www.newadvent.org , which, by the way, is also an excellent resource for the truth about Catholic doctrine and history.

I will continue to pray for you to see the truth about the Church Christ himself founded. I will also pray that you are able to understand the continuity that exists between today's Catholic church and the Church of Jesus and His Disciples. It is sad that there is so much confusion amongst Christians. When I look at the number of Protestant denominations that spring up each year I see discontinuity with Christ's wishes that we all might be one. True unity can only exist in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, under the authority of the Successor to the Apostles. I pray you will someday see this truth.

Sincerely in Christ,

Mike Sullivan


===================================
TCE replies: 22nd March 2005

Dear Mike

thank you for your prompt reply.

We will respond briefly, though probably not as briefly as you desire:

1. we tend to reply in detail to all mail, so you haven't been chosen for special treatment;

2.  just about every complaining letter written to us that goes beyond an angry rant claims that 'substantial evidence to the contrary' could be supplied;

3.  we have never received any counter material (to the facts we claim to be biblical and historical) that we cannot refute;

4. the fact that all faiths outside orthodox Biblical Christianity cannot defend their beliefs speaks volumes;

5.  claims that we believe 'lies' or 'discredited' sources are mere whistling in the graveyard responses; we repeat - to demonstrate this is not so just try disproving one of the quotes!

6. someone who has demonstrated their misunderstanding of a basic Biblical text (re. Galatians 1:6-9) is hardly in a position to advise others to 'objectively study the Bible';

7.  the [early] '
Fathers of the Church' tend to support Biblical doctrine, but their work should be treated with caution as they occasionally stray into error, revealing their lack of inspiration;

8. even so-called liberal sources are capable of accurate reporting and proved to be consistent with other reputable sources at the time the messages were recorded - apart from the fact that the worst excesses of 'liberal' media would struggle to compete with the depths 'credible' Rome has sunk to during her history;

Thomas Aquinas approved the killing of those who opposed Papal Rome!


9. 
We wrote: 'Thomas Aquinas, prominent in the Dominican Order and the most authoritative philosopher and theologian of the Roman Church even to the present day, held that the church had the right to hunt out and kill heretics as a means of maintaining its purity ...'.

You advise us: '... when quoting St. Thomas, it would be helpful if you quote the actual text of his words, not just what some anti-Catholic has said he said. The text of the Summa Theologica  is found on www.newadvent.org, which, by the way, is also an excellent resource for the truth about Catholic doctrine and history.'

So, what do we find when we go to your recommended source?  Within seconds of searching under 'heresy' we find this 'great Catholic' considering the teaching of Scripture on the subject - and then rejecting it for the 'wisdom of the world' and the archetypal Papal position - if 'heretics' oppose the church kill them!
 
So, to confirm that we wrote the truth, all that is required is to read
your recommended source at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm where we find under the headline: 


Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?


Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24,25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Mt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10,11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn,
the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For  Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as  Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.

10.  that you should continue to fool yourself that the Church you are willing to 'die for' is any different from that recommended by Thomas Aquinas says everything about the deception you labour under.  Your mail speaks for itself and other Roman Catholic's have already received ample refutation of your claims that '
continuity ... exists between today's Catholic church and the Church of Jesus and His Disciples' and 'the number of Protestant denominations that spring up each year [shows] ...  discontinuity with Christ's wishes that we all might be one. True unity can only exist in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, under the authority of the Successor to the Apostles.' 

It is clear, from your inability to answer even one question we have posed, that your mind is closed to the truth and further information would only be ignored by you.

We have gone more than the 'extra mile' (Matthew 5:41) for you and trust you have read the conditions under which we accept mail -   http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page5.html

These refutations of your claims will appear on our site in due course so that others may be warned of the damnable heresies of the Papal Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent blindness that afflicts so many Catholics today.

Your mail also stands as further testimony to the truth of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:43-44):

43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

The ability of men to bolster their own name and ambitions above the Word of God has been aptly demonstrated by you through Aquinas.

Sincerely in our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus,

TCE


===================================

Mike 'replies':  23rd March, 2005

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your response.

Regarding St. Thomas, I appreciate you quoting the entire article in question. You don't really believe, however, that the Catholic Church believes that heretics should be put to death, do you? St. Thomas wrote in the thirteenth century, a time when thieves were quickly put to death for even minor offences. Further, St. Thomas was simply arguing that heretics ought not be tolerated.

I really can't see the point in debating with you. It is obvious that your understanding of history and the Catholic faith is so skewed and your anger so bitter that my arguments would fall on deaf ears and would generate pages upon pages of more-of-the-same.

I assumed that your 8-page response was an opportunity for you to generate more material for your website. In this last email you confirm this. I am sorry to hear it because, as I mentioned before, I believe you cause great scandal. I also believe it shows that your response to me was not motivated by charity for a brother you believe to be lost, but rather as an opportunity to build up your arsenal of anti-Catholic hatred. (Incidentally, I hadn't read the conditions under which you receive mail, and it would have been decent of you to point this out in your initial response.) Well, I refuse to engage, but I certainly will pray for you.

Again, I will pray that you learn the truth about the Christian faith, but more than any factual knowledge or mere datum, I will pray that your hardened heart will be softened to the love of Jesus Christ present in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Have a blessed Holy Week.

Sincerely and with a promise of prayers for you,

Mike

===================================

TCE replies:  24th March, 2005

Dear Mike

thank you for your prompt reply.  We will respond as briefly as you desire.

Would the Catholic Church put heretics to death - if it still could?!


Although '
Regarding St. Thomas' we quoted 'the entire article in question', you still write:

'
You don't really believe, however, that the Catholic Church believes that heretics should be put to death, do you? St. Thomas wrote in the thirteenth century, a time when thieves were quickly put to death for even minor offences. Further, St. Thomas was simply arguing that heretics ought not be tolerated.'

Aquinas clearly stated that the fate of the 'heretic' was determined by the Church of Rome


TCE:   You make accusations against us and when we examine the evidence that is supposed to exonerate a hero of Papal Rome - the evidence proves we were right!  You try to excuse him by claiming it was the times he lived in that resulted in such death sentences.  Yet Aquinas clearly stated that the fate of the 'heretic' was determined by the Church of Rome:

'
the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore DELIVERS HIM to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.

It was clearly Papal Rome which delivered '
heretics' to the secular tribunal to be 'exterminated' in the 13th century, just as they continued to do wherever they held power world-wide right up to the 18th century (as we pointed out in the first reply to which you objected).  The article continues to the conclusion: 'Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command'!  For you to try and claim that 'St. Thomas was simply arguing that heretics ought not be tolerated' is laughable. 

Truly you demonstrate a classic case of refusing to accept the evidence against someone you have placed on a pedestal - blatant hagiography!  And so you are deceived enough to continue:
'I really can't see the point in debating with you. It is obvious that your understanding of history and the Catholic faith is so skewed and your
anger so bitter that my arguments would fall on deaf ears and would generate pages upon pages of more-of-the-same.'

TCE:    Debating us - with what?  You set us a simple test which we have passed, thus proving we deal in facts.  Yet all you can prove is your inability to handle the facts of history which you then try and twist to your own conclusion - and yet accuse us of being 'skewed'!  Where have we been shown to be at fault, angry, or bitter?  And where have you put up an argument?  You truly kid yourself further when you write:   
I assumed that your 8-page response was an opportunity for you to generate more material for your website. In this last email you confirm this. I am sorry to hear it because, as I mentioned before, I believe you cause great scandal. I also believe it shows that your response to me was not motivated by charity for a brother you believe to be lost, but rather as an opportunity to build up your arsenal of anti-Catholic hatred. (Incidentally, I hadn't read the conditions under which you receive mail, and it would have been decent of you to point this out in your initial response.) Well, I refuse to engage, but I certainly will pray for you.

TCE:  If you had bothered with even a limited perusal of our site in the first place you would have both read the conditions under which we receive mail and discovered that we gave only a single example of the kind of un-researched dogmatic rant to be avoided.  That you naturally followed the pattern of that single example - without prompting - speaks volumes!  Even after we gave the reference to this information you still manage to continue in the same vein and draw a clearly illogical conclusion and one that you certainly had not 'assumed' beforehand.  Your initial response to the 8-page reply ('Thank you for your lengthy email. Wow, I'm flattered that you deem my email worthy of an eight-page response') reveals this fact!  Ask yourself - why can so few Roman Catholics be honest?

Incredibly, you believe you can say we '
cause great scandal' while you repeatedly libel us.  And then you can accuse us of being 'uncharitable'?!  It is unfortunate that one of the painfully necessary processes in being loosed from deception is the presentation of the facts which prove the deception - if this appears uncharitable it is a small price to pay to waken the blinded from their slumber.  You may be lost for eternity despite our most sincere efforts but, if the Lord is willing, this will not be so and others, reading this in time, will also recognise the nature of the deception you labour under and where the truth clearly lies. 
We thank you for the sincere intention of your prayers but, sadly, '
the truth about the Christian faith' and 'the love of Jesus Christ' cannot be found in the un-Biblical, pagan, cannibalistic Papal 'Sacrament of the Eucharist', as we have shown in previous replies to mail.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus

TCE


===================================

As you can read (seven years later!) , receiving clear refutation of the points he attempted to make simply resulted in Mike's 'refus[al] to engage'!?  This is the response witnessed at our doors countless times after Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have called with 'their versions of the truth' and been challenged with the real facts from the Bible and the real history of their leaders and organisation.  In exactly the same cultish manner he accuses us of 'anti-Catholic hatred' when we have merely refuted his claims with facts.  Couple this with his final appeal to the emotion of 'the Mass (Eucharist)' which is virtually identical to the 'burning in the bosom' plead of the Mormon Cult and equates to:  do not bother me with the facts it is all about 'feelings' - plus, my mind is made up!  The Bible repeatedly reveals that it is facts that determine the truth - never feelings (cf. John 5v36; Acts 17v11).

Full Menu

Topics discussed on pages responding to Roman Catholics
Section 26-44:

Theological debate is not loving or God's way?

Catholics are against the occult?

What is 'the church' founded on?

Jesus said his flesh was real food and his blood real drink?

Even if Rome were wrong about the Eucharist - it would still be alright with God?

'Visual Eucharistic Miracles' prove Rome is correct?

The Eucharist - as possible as the Incarnation?

Blind unthinking faith is required to be a Christian?

Failure to 'discern the Eucharistic truth' brings Judgement?

Is the 'Pope' an antichrist?

Should Christians 'take action' against Roman Catholics?

Catholicism's Christology is heretical!

Many go to Hell because Jesus sacrifice was insufficient?

Rome attributes to Mary what Christ has already done!

Rome's 'indulgences' reduce/eliminate suffering after death?

'Our Lady of Medjugorje' unites Rome with Islam?

How can Rome make Mary 'co-Redeemer'?

Mary credited with attributes that belong to Christ alone!

Catholics pray to Mary - making requests only God could fulfill?

The Queen of Heaven and Babylon - and Rome!

Mary is not 'mediatrix' between mankind and Christ!

Mary's 'Immaculate Conception' - only officially declared by Rome in 1854!

Mary's 'bodily assumption to heaven' - only officially declared by Rome in 1950!

Rome's invented doctrine that Mary was 'united' in the redeeming suffering of her Son!

The 'woman' of Revelation 12 is Israel - not Mary

Alternative views of the 'woman' peddled by Rome?

How was Genesis 3:15 understood by the early believers in the nation of Israel?

Other attempts to add Mary's sufferings to the Redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ

Rome promotes 'Mary' to 'Mother of the Head, and the Mother of the Body'

Israel, or Mary, 'clothed' with the 'Sun, moon and stars'?

How Rome attempts to 'prove' their 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine

Exegesis claimed for eisegesis - even appealing to Luther!

The term 'woman' in the New Testament - and Genesis 3:15?

Did Jesus regularly use the term 'woman' when addressing women?

What about the other occasions when men addressed individual women as 'woman'?

Why 'born of woman' does not equate to 'the Woman' of Revelation 12

Does the term 'woman' always simply refer to an individual?

Mary is the 'Mother of the Church?'

The Mother of Jesus shares in the sufferings of the 'Immolated Lamb'?

Mary is the Mother of the Head and Mother of the Body?

Popes instruct believers to pray to Mary - what does Jesus say!?

Rome's use of force to compel obedience!

Thomas Aquinas, Popes, and bishops, vow to kill 'heretics'?

What kind of 'unity' does Rome really promote?

Rome's doctrine of 'the two swords'?

Massacres resulting from Papal policies?

The Inquisition - created by Popes to deal with heretics!

Influence of Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuit order?

Why was Paul John II accused of heresy by other Papists?

Let us see you prove these historical facts to be false!

Rome's 'gospel' is defined by Scripture to be 'accursed'?

How does the Word of God define Christian 'unity'?

The Word of God defines Rome as a 'stumbling block'

'Binding and loosing' - and the 'Keys'?

Thomas Aquinas approved the killing of those who opposed Papal Rome!

Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

Would the Catholic Church put heretics to death - if it still could?!

Aquinas - the fate of the 'heretic' was determined by the Church of Rome!

When did Rome fall into serious, evil error?

The paganization of Christianity began under Constantine

The Church Fathers never claimed to be inspired

The Sovereignty of God

John 6v52 - and those represented in the 'parable of the sower'

What happens to Papal bread & wine if left?

How did the 'thief on the cross' get the promise of Paradise from Jesus?

The seeking after good works of 'correct' sacraments for salvation

Manna in the wilderness and Jesus - 'The Bread of Heaven'

Another problem in claiming a literal meaning for 'transubstantiation'!

'Transubstantiation' contradicts Scriptural warning against cannibalism!

Many, like the Jews, choose to be offended by this offer of Jesus'

Dwelling in Christ - Biblically and the version of Papal Rome!

Peter understood - why don't the many 'popes' who supposedly followed him?

Metaphorical interpretation proves falseness of Papal dogma of transubstantiation

Jesus spoke of the cup as symbolizing the new covenant

Papal decree (A.D. 1415) forbade laymen to partake of the wine in the Lord's Supper

Another cultic flip-flop (Vatican II council, 1962-65) now allows both bread and the wine to lay-persons!

Papal contradiction meant failure to fully administer 'Sacramental Mass' to all believers for 550 years!

Jesus Who?

Quote the Catechism when knocking the Roman Catholic church

Know the reality of eternity in heaven by believing on Jesus Christ as your Lord & Saviour!

Go to the following link to discover eternal life is
A Free Gift for You

Home Page   |   Expositor History   |   'Orthodox' Heretics   |   Other Religions   |   Cults  |   Occult   |   New Age Movement  |   Rome & Ecumenism

christian.expositor@ntlworld.com