Sent: 16th May 2005
Catholic Church=Whore of Babylon
I wonder if you can help me? I have a friend whom has a very extensive Biblical background as well as Greek, Latin and Hebrew. He says that through his studies, this what led him to the Catholic Church. I'm trying to convince him that all Catholics are going to hell. He also indicates that the church Fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, Augustine, Jerome, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, as well as later day, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, were not evil people. Can you give me some insight to prove that these people were also evil? Also give me some proof and dates of when the Catholic Church actually became an apostasy and when they had it right (apostasy=turn from it's way).
If you don't mind, I need very substantial verifiable scholatic-type proof because he has access to enormous volumes of information. Please I need all the help I can get to prove all Catholcs, without excpetion are headed to hell.
TCE replies: 28th June 2005When did Rome fall into serious, evil error?
... we apologise for the considerable time taken to respond.
TCE: As you will doubtlessly have reasoned, knowledge of the Bible and ancient languages is no guarantee of being led into the truth! Our seminaries are full of wonderfully qualified theologians who have made themselves 'twice' worthy of Hell (Matthew 23:15). It is also perfectly possible to study diligently and be led into erroneous interpretations that seem to prove the Papal Roman Catholic Church to be true.
We would be wary of simply saying that 'all Catholics are going to hell', but qualify the statement by agreeing that all Catholics who are relying on the historical, traditional, non-biblical doctrines and practices of the Papal Roman Catholic Church to get them to heaven, are destined to be lost in Hell for eternity.
If you read the following answers, sent to zealous Roman Catholics, you will gain an opinion concerning the 'heroes' of Papal Rome and the definite downside of such as 'St. Francis, [and] Thomas Aquinas.' We probably have enough material on 'Mother Theresa' on our web-site as well as 'Pope John Paul' (who is also discussed in some detail below).
We should point out from the outset that it is very unlikely that a Roman Catholic will reject the teachings of Rome because of even the strongest evidence against the character, lifestyle, or even horrendous atrocities, committed by their 'heroes'. As we see in some of the following accusations by a Roman Catholic, they even try and pin Rome's atrocities on 'Protestants' - while another tries to deny the evidence against Aquinas - and then excuses him because of the era in which he lived!
You write: Also give me some proof and dates of when the Catholic Church actually became an apostasy and when they had it right (apostasy=turn from it's way).
TCE: We recommend you read Dave Hunt's book, A Woman Rides the Beast' from which much of our evidence is gathered. Check its more than 800 footnotes for yourself and note that the sources quoted are Roman Catholic councils, catechisms, codes, encyclopaedias, their own historians and some respected non-Catholic historians. Then note whether all have been quoted accurately and in context--and reach your own conclusions. Although we cannot recommend making careful plans unless the Lord is in it, it may just be possible that asking your friend to read Hunt's book with the challenge to factually prove it to be in error will cause him to consider the truth about Rome's vile history and false gospel.
The paganization of Christianity began under Constantine
Proving exactly when Roman Catholicism became apostate is not that easy, but an examination of the beliefs of those who followed the early Church Fathers (and who Roman Catholics consider to have been 'Popes'), and of those persecuted by Rome for daring to translate and study the Bible and reject the teachings of Papal Rome, is very informative. Rome actually fell into evil error over many centuries as has been testified by Jesuit Peter de Rosa who wrote:
"All the councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests...the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between [Matthew 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies 'Thou art Peter' to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys....[I]t was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VII forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa.'...The first Bishop of Rome was not Peter ...Eusebius never once spoke of Peter as Bishop of Rome...etc."
There is no single date to prove when the Papal Roman Catholic Church fell into error and began to persecute and kill genuine Biblical Christians - it happened gradually. The roots can be traced back to its founder, Constantine (313-337 A.D.) who, while still Pontifex Maximus as head of the pagan priesthood became de facto head of the Church, called himself Vicar of Christ, and influenced the Church to be married to the world in spite of Christ's words to the contrary. Constantine, a young general, claimed a vision of the cross which he then affixed to his soldiers' shields, and foolishly credited Christ (whose servants were not to fight in such battles: John 18:36) with the crucial victory that made him emperor. Coming from the Latin vicarius, vicar means "in the place of." Its Greek equivalent is anti. Thus the popes' title, "Vicar of Christ," literally means "anti-Christ"--the one who pretends to be Christ. For centuries, Protestant creeds identified the popes as anti-christs. That label surely applies to the paganized Christianity over which the popes have presided as Constantine's successors. The paganism of today's Roman Catholicism entered the church in the fourth century and today's popes bear Constantine's three titles: Bishop of Bishops, Pontifex Maximus and Vicar of Christ. So all of this began around fifteen centuries ago and soon the apostasy was rampant. On one hand Rome would not want to admit that heresies began and, on the other, would have to believe that the church they know and love existed that long ago.
Some Roman Catholics will try and hide the fact that the Church went into severe apostasy that long ago because they try and claim that this means that Christ didn't keep His promise that "the gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the church He founded. They try and claim that, for many centuries prior to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian church that existed. This argument has been used by Catholic apologists such as Matatics and Hahn and by Ken Samples in his articles in the Christian Research Institute Journal.
The answer is simple: The paganization of Christianity began under Constantine and the apostasy worsened for centuries. Eventually the mass of professing "Christians" were identified with what came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church which claimed to be the one true Church and excommunicated, persecuted, killed and even tried to destroy the records of all who would not bow to its supreme authority and embrace its anti-Christ heresies. Nevertheless, there were always small groups of simple Christians who attempted to follow the Bible according to their consciences and who met in secret meeting places in fear for their lives. Tertullian was correct in saying: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." One of the best books tracing these groups is The Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent. So the entire church did not fall into apostasy so that 'the gates of hell' prevailed against it, for these small groups were not part of the "whore of Babylon" as John describes her in Revelation 17.
Constantine, the first "Vicar of Christ," did indeed prove to be an anti-christ. Not a genuine Christian, he had no concern for doctrine but only for religious unity in his empire. The original ecumenist, he convened the first Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nicea, in A.D.325, set the agenda and presided over it as Charlemagne would over the Council of Chalon (500 years later) during his attempt to revive the Roman Empire. Though all such attempts failed, the popes gave the Empire continuity in religion and wielded supreme secular authority as well.
In the July 3,1992 National Catholic Reporter (NCR) a Catholic priest confessed: "The church...was subverted by the ambitions of such men as [Popes] Gregory VII, Innocent III and Boniface VII [and many others] into a politico-ecclesiastical institution wielding totalitarian power in both sacred and secular fields." Historian Walter James elaborates: The Papacy controlled the gateway to heaven which all the faithful, including their rulers, hoped earnestly to enter....[I]t gave the Popes a moral authority which has never been wielded since. A Pope like Innocent III held all Europe in his net.... If that seven-headed beast with ten horns, the revived Roman Empire, is to appear, then the "woman" must hold the reins once again. While the Roman Catholic Church, since the Reformation, saw its supreme power challenged, it has regained much. The Vatican is a sovereign state like any nation. It exchanges ambassadors with the world's nations and participates in international politics.
John Paul II emerged as the world's most respected and influential leader. Though papal power is not wielded as overtly as during the Middle Ages, yet the Pope still "rules over the kings of the earth." Presidents Bush and Gorbachev consulted with the Pope at least once a week. President Reagan solicited the Pope's help against communism. Using Poland as a base, agents of the Vatican worked with the CIA to bring down communism and the Berlin Wall. These amazing events, Gorbachev later confessed, could not have occurred without John Paul II. Ecumenism is essential in creating a "Christianity" which embraces all religions.
Today the Reformation is seen as a semantic misunderstanding, its vital issues blurred or ignored. There has been growing cooperation between 'Evangelicals' and Roman Catholics and even leaders in apologetics to the 'Christian' cults have whitewashed Rome's heresies. Chuck Colson's (like Billy Graham's) embrace of Catholicism and acceptance of the Templeton Prize was one more shocking example of the growing ecumenism among evangelical leaders which is preparing the way for Anti-christ. It is doubtful that a more apt pope (from the deceiver's point of view) than John Paul II could have arrived upon the scene at this crucial hour. The centuries-long involvement of Roman Catholicism in pagan/occultic practices led naturally to its present marriage to the New Age. The involvement in Eastern mysticism of tens of thousands of priests, nuns, and laity is condoned by the Vatican.
Historian Will Durant comments: 'Statues of Isis and Horus were renamed Mary and Jesus....the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia were replaced by Christmas....[paganism] passed like maternal blood into the new religion....the world converted Christianity....' "Christianity" became the official state religion and was soon called Roman Catholicism. Every citizen in the Empire was required by law, under pain of death, to be a Roman Catholic. The foundation for the massacres of millions that followed was laid as early as A.D.380 with the "Edict of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I": 'We order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians, but others we judge to be mad and raving...nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches. They are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures....' As the apostasy grew, new heresies were steadily invented: the Mass and Transubstantiation, a special priest class with power over the laity, priestly celibacy, purgatory, indulgences, salvation by ritual and works, the sale of papal absolution for a set price for every evil from incest to murder, the exaltation of Mary above Jesus and God, etc. - a status they give her to this day.
Those who tried to "reprove, rebuke and exhort" in the face of such heresies were put to death. True Christians had no alternative but to leave the official Church in response to Christ's clear call: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins" (Revelation 18:4)! The history of the church became the history of heresies and the persecution of those who opposed them. Roman Catholic historian Peter de Rosa admits that Catholicism became: "the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen.... [Pope] Innocent III murdered far more Christians in one afternoon...than any Roman emperor did in his entire reign." Will Durant writes candidly, 'Compared with the persecution of heresy [by the Roman Catholic Church] ...the persecution of Christians by [pagan] Romans...was a mild and humane procedure.' The Inquisitions had been underway for centuries before the Reformation, and the massacre of true Christians (known variously as Albigenses, Bogomils, Brethren, Cathari, Hussites, Vaudois, and Waldenses) by the Roman Catholic Church had by then been underway for 1,000 years! The tragic yet inspiring story of those who contended for the faith and remained true to Christ reads like a continuation of Hebrews 11. Not content to exterminate them, Rome has maligned the memory of these faithful martyrs with accusations of heresy, occultism and even human sacrifice. The accounts we have of their "heresy trials," however, reveal a faith like that of the Reformers. Some of the worst tales are told of the Cathari, yet one can't fault their historically documented beliefs: [They] denied that the [Roman Catholic] Church was the Church of Christ; [declared that] the popes were successors to the emperors, not to the apostles...[that] Christ had no place to lay His head, but the pope lived in a palace....The Roman Church ...was the Whore of Babylon....' Consider Samuel Morland's The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont published in 1658. It gives an appalling account of Rome's attempted extermination of theWaldenses to that date. The title page promises: "A faithfull Account of the Doctrine, Life, and Persecutions of the Ancient Inhabitants [of the Piemont]; Together, With a most naked and punctual Relation of the late Bloudy Massacre, 1655...[documented] by divers Ancient Manuscripts' written many hundred Years before Calvin or Luther, and '...Authentick Attestations: The true Originals of the greatest part whereof, are [at] Cambridge [University]." The Waldensians' very biblical "Confession of faith" lists the exact books of today's Protestant Bible, which it declares to be inspired of God not because some Church council said so, but "because of the eternal and undoubted Truth of the Doctrine therein contained...besides the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who...opens the eyes of our understanding...." Reproduced also is the Waldensians' "humble Supplication to the most Serene and most High Prince, Philibert Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, Prince of Piemont" for protection from papal persecution: 'We are not ignorant, Most Gracious Prince, that many Accusations are laid against us...to make us stink in the Nostrils of all the Princes and Monarchs in the Christian world....First, we do protest before the Almighty...before whose Tribunal we must all one day appear, that we intend to live and die in the holy Faith...of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that we do abhor all Heresies ...condemned by the Word of God. We do embrace the most holy Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, as likewise the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds....[T]his Religion we profess ...is the Religion of our Fathers, Grandfathers, and Great-grandfathers, and other yet more ancient Predecessours of ours, and of the blessed Martyrs, Confessours, Prophets and Apostles.... [Those who would exterminate us] do it not out of zeal to God's glory, but rather to preserve their own worldly Dignities, Pomp, and Riches; wherefore we beseech your Highness not to regard or countenance their Sayings.' The Pope's response was to increase his armies and to offer, to all who would join in the extermination crusades, absolution of all sins and passage to heaven without going to purgatory. Today, Rome no longer has the power to effect such massacres. Yet the dogmas justifying the slaughter of millions are still in force and have never been renounced. Nor has Rome's false gospel changed. Unable to destroy the evangelical church through Rome's persecution, Satan is engineering a return of all Christians to the Catholic fold. Leading evangelicals have recently joined in partnership with the Church that not only killed the martyrs but sends its own members to hell with a false gospel!
Some claim it is ludicrous to identify the Roman Catholic Church as the whore in Revelation 17, and ignore the fact that the same conviction was held by Martin Luther and all of the Reformers, plus the countless evangelical Christians martyred by Rome for 1,000 years before the Reformation. So any who criticize this view also heap ridicule upon the memory of millions of Reformers and martyrs! Ever since the fourth century there have been multitudes of evangelical Christians who, out of conscience before God and in obedience to His Word, separated themselves from Rome and the papacy. Concerning them, Bishop Alvaro Palayo, an official of the Curia in Avignon, wrote grudgingly 300 years before the Reformation: "Considering the Papal Court has filled the whole Church with simony, and the consequent corruption of religion [that sounds like apostasy!], it is natural enough the heretics should call the Church the whore" (De Planct. Eccl. ii.28, cited in J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (London 1869), 185).
Rome clearly persecuted and killed these early evangelical "heretics." In referring to these martyrs, the great historian, Will Durant, wrote: "The Roman Church, they were sure, was the Whore of Babylon...." (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 1950), 4:772). Einerius, an inquisitor appointed by Pope Innocent III 350 years before the Reformation, said of the Waldensian Christians whom the Catholic Church was attempting to exterminate (their surviving churches are a major evangelical witness in Italy today): "They claim [that] the Roman Church is the whore described in John's Revelation." Even leading Roman Catholics said the same. St. Bonaventure, cardinal and general of the Franciscans, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, declared 300 years before the Reformation that Rome was "the harlot who makes kings and nations drunk with the wine of her whoredoms [i.e., the whore of Revelation 17]." The Reformers were certain of this and preached it and put it into their creeds. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said: "I would not hesitate with the Reformers of the 16th century to [say that Roman Catholicism] is, as the Scripture puts it, 'the whore.'" It is incredible that some contemporary Christians can decry the firm conviction held almost universally by the evangelical church and its martyrs for fifteen centuries!
It was not the Roman Catholic Church but those she martyred who were the real church throughout history. Martin Luther himself said, "We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and such great men (whose number is large and whose memory is eternal) have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly and plainly" (Plass, What Luther Says, 1:36). If, prior to the Reformation, Roman Catholicism was the true church which Christ founded, then who were the "many and such great men (whose number is large and whose memory is eternal)" to whom Martin Luther referred as having stood against Rome "for many years before" him? And who were those "heretics" and martyrs hundreds of years before the Reformation to whom Will Durant, the Inquisitor Einerius, Bishop Alvaro Palayo, and many others, referred? Further back than this in history the "Edict of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I" of February 27, 380, referred to "others" who were obviously non-Catholics. In part the edict said: 'We order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians, but others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of heretical teaching, nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches. They are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures, which we have decided in accordance with Divine inspiration'. (Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of historic documents with commentaries (London, 1954), p. 7). Clearly, in A.D.380, there were already"assemblies" of Christians who claimed to be "churches" independent of Rome. Indeed, the Albigenses and Waldenses traced their heritage back for many centuries and declared not only that Rome was the whore but that they and other believers independent of Rome were "the true church." E.H. Broadbent calls these Bible- believing Christians The Pilgrim Church in his book of that name: 'In the Alpine valleys of Piedmont there had been for centuries [prior to the twelfth century] congregations of believers calling themselves brethren, who came later to be widely known as Waldenses, or Vaudois. ...In the South of France...the congregations of believers who met apart from the Catholic Church were numerous and increasing. They are often called Albigenses [and] had intimate connections with the brethren--whether called Waldenses, Poor Men of Lyons, Bogomils, or otherwise--in the surrounding countries, where [non-Catholic] churches spread among the various peoples.'
It took more than 100 years to all but exterminate these believers, several centuries before the Reformation. Some foolishly believe and promulgate the false charges of heresy, Manicheanism, etc., which the Roman Catholic Church levelled against these evangelicals to try and justify their slaughter of these true Christians, who are described in Halley's Bible Handbook and Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Abraham Mellinus, in his History of the Persecutions and Martyrs published in 1619, writes that the Albigenses and Waldenses were sometimes called Catharists and held the same creed and though called heretics were "pious, upright and moral people." Mellinus informs us that the creed titled "Confession of the Waldenses and Albigenses" was read in the Parliament of the King of France in Paris, was orthodox and contained nothing to support the false charges Rome made against them. Having cited their creed, Mellinus wrote: "Thus far extends the confession of the faith of the Waldenses and Albigenses...which confession we have placed at the close of the 12th century [400 years before the Reformation] in order to anticipate and refute all the shameful doctrines which have been unjustly imputed, not only to the Waldenses … but particularly also to the Albigenses as though they had been Manicheans." The Roman Catholic Church has engaged in revisionism in order to justify its persecution and martyrdom of these evangelical representatives of the true church.
This is by way of introduction, but to emphasise the problem you are likely to have if your friend is thoroughly deceived by Rome, we now include answers we have supplied to Roman Catholics in recent years.
We first give their accusation under the title 'You write:' - and our answer as 'TCE:'
This material now appears on the website, starting under the following heading [also see sections following that page and main menu in frame on this page]:
Scandalous behaviour of 'just a few popes'?
Finally, Ben, to demonstrate further the inability of many Roman Catholics to even contemplate the history of their church, we enclose a short series of recent e-mails from another Roman Catholic:
Rome's use of force to compel obedience!
Sadly, Ben, these are typical threads of discussion with Roman Catholics. As you can see, bluntness concerning the true nature of their heroes rarely convinces them that their religion is in error - and they often know enough history to respond with attacks on people like Luther or Cromwell (as if this somehow exonerates their supposed 'saints' or alters the fact that it is Biblical truth that determines what we believe - not whether Luther, Augustine, or a pope taught and believed it!). We should also be aware of the kind of errors perpetrated by such as the Reformers who did not Reform far or fast enough (as discussed in the sections above and in various places on our website). Again, the error of Peter in Galatians 2 does not alter the fact that he was a faithful apostle who admitted his fault and accepted the admonition of Paul (thus proving he was not an infallible pope and showing the humble way in which we should all accept our ability to err!).
Knowing when to share such facts is never easy, but those who write to us have already been riled by the site - so we set off on 'the wrong foot' in many ways. If you have already set off in this direction with your friend you may decide to deviate to the more important matters of salvation in Christ by grace through faith alone.
Books and material to aid witness to Roman Catholics exist and The Berean Call ( www.thebereancall.org ), and authors such as Ron Rhodes, have written some excellent material.
We trust the Holy Spirit will lead you in all your witnessing,
In the Precious Name of the Lord Jesus Christ
Ben replies: 28th June 2005
Thank you for providing me with all the information on the early church Fathers, but I see the identical problems in reading them, that I see with Catholics reading the Bible. Basically if you read the churchFathers literally, the reader can see the literal waythe Catholic Church applies the words, just as they do the Bible. I need more proof that the words are meant to be applied symbolically, rather than literally. Let me give you a specific example: John 6:52, my Catholic friend says that this passage is literal, the Jews understood exactly what Jesus was saying and that's why they were so unconfortable. I've heard at least 6 different non-literal interpretations of John 6:52, anything from, "Jesus wasn't telling the truth in order to shock unauthentic disciples in order to dump them", to "no free food" or "they're going to have a very rough life". Which is one of our major problems, in that there's no consistency in the various denominational interpretations. If there was, it'd be much easier to refute Catholicism.
Do you have anything else that can assist me showing that passages such as John 6:52 are not to be taken literally?
===================================The Church Fathers never claimed to be inspired
TCE replies: 31st July 2005
TCE: Unfortunately, Roman Catholics learn to accept the symbolic interpretation that their leaders put upon Scripture, or any other writings or experiences, so the problem is one that can only be overcome by a Sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. Only then can the satanic influence over their minds be overcome. Having spent many hundreds of hours trying to debate with those trapped in deception using sound hermeneutics and exegesis while praying constantly for the leading of the Holy Spirit, we have to point out the extreme difficulty in convincing people to accept that their method of interpretation is incorrect.
The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is Biblical?
As far as the Church Fathers are concerned we accept that too much credence should not be put in using their writings anyway - and particularly as they never claimed to be inspired. Even relatively 'orthodox' writers of their era 'spiritualised' Scripture and we have an example concerning the Passover offerings where three Scriptures speak clearly of the commanded method of cooking:
Exodus 12:9: 'Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire: head, legs and inner parts.'
Deuteronomy 16:7: 'Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose...'
2 Chronicles 35:13: 'They roasted the Passover animals over the fire as prescribed, and boiled the holy offerings in pots, caldrons and pans and served them quickly to all the people'
Meat that was mebushshal bammayim ("cooked in water" or "boiled") was forbidden and 2 Chronicles shows that the verb bishshel can mean to "cook" or "bake" as well as "boil" - which is why the inspired Moses added "in water" in Exodus to clarify the instruction to roast the offering.
Sound interpretation reveals the truth here, but Church Father Justin Martyr, in a poor example of 'spiritualizing exegesis', somehow came up with the idea that two wooden spits were placed at right angles to each other, thus placing the Passover offering on a type of cross! It is one thing to see 'types' in the Old Testament, but to stretch the interpretation beyond the clear meaning of the words without good warrant, in order to see Christ the Lamb of God on the cross in the description of the Passover lamb, is the kind of interpretation that Papal Rome took up readily whenever it suited their doctrinal needs. However, there is no need for orthodox theologians to resort to such interpretations, for why strain to see Christ in such a manner when He is so clearly described in the New Testament (John 1:29, 36; 1 Corinthians 5:7)?
You write: … Do you have anything else that can assist me showing that passages such as John 6:52 are not to be taken literally?
TCE: The interpretation of John 6:52ff. is clear to orthodox Christian denominations who are very consistent in their interpretation of this passage. We don't know where you're finding the un-Scriptural opinions you express, but suggest you keep clear of anyone peddling such nonsense if you're hoping to persuade a Roman Catholic to reject Papal Rome and embrace the truth. The material we sent you contains the clearest possible reasons for believing that Christ could not possibly have meant His words of John 6 to be taken literally. How do you believe that the following facts can be overturned by Roman Catholics - presumably you did receive all of the material in the section below answering these Roman Catholic claims?:
If this amount of material is insufficient to cause your friend to reconsider his view of the Mass you can only insist that he try and disprove the clear logic of these Scriptural views while allowing the Holy Spirit to work in his life. We would be interested in hearing of any genuine refutations of the material above! Although we would all hope that those we witness to will quickly accept the truth that seems so obvious to us, it is an unfortunate fact that the Spirit must 'quicken' their spirit first and, until then, even the clearest proof cannot be seen by those trapped in deception.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus,
Ben replies: 3rd August 2005
Thank you very much for your response. The amount of rhetoric, must have taken a tremendous amount of time. I appreciate the time and energy. However, I really wasn't asking for all the details of "transubstantiation" and if it's true or not. My question was very simple and direct. I wanted to know why Jesus, would speak in a metaphor about "eating His flesh and drinking His Blood", and allow, at least some of disciples (even you acknowledge below, that at least some of them, thought literally), to believe that He was speaking literally? He let them walk away, to their own personal destruction, without trying further, to clarify to them what He really meant.
I want to know not only for the disciples back then, that self-desctructed, just because of a misunderstanding, but also allowing, probably billions of Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Lutherans, to self-destruct, just because He left His teaching, unclear enough (I know it's clear to you, but not to all these others), that they believe He spoke literally? Why did He do that? Below you state that some weren't really true disciples, but to me, that insufficient, to let such a critical teaching be left so open for interpretation, especially a metaphor "to eat His flesh and drink His blood". That specific Jewish metaphor, back in the period of time in Biblical history, bascially meant to "disrespect someone". So if the Jews thought, that He was indeed speaking symobolically,, what they would have heard is, "You are to disrespect Me to have eternal life".
(Continued on page 298)