I monitor transmillennial patterns of apostasy. Beware the migration of the epiclesis.
Starkville, MS
Joined July 2011
- Tweets8.7K
- Following630
- Followers2K
- Likes4.3K
Pinned Tweet
@CrushnSerpents has accused me of lying in my opening statement during my debate with @ArchangeloRom yesterday. The public accusation provides an opportunity as entertaining as it is instructional. No, I did not lie, and he has yet to identify "the lie" of which I am accused. And by the way, there are no "hundreds of pages of context" in Fragment 37 of Irenæus. It's a paragraph.
In my opening yesterday, I stated quite clearly that the ancient Church believed the Malachi 1:11 prophecy was a Eucharist offering of the first fruits of the harvest for the poor. After the Eucharist "sacrifice" was over, they would take some bread and wine from the Eucharist offering and consecrate it, as I said, either by saying'This is My Body,' and 'This is My blood' or by invoking the Holy Spirit to similar effect. But the Eucharist offering was over before the bread and wine were consecrated, and the consecrated bread and wine were not offered. There was no offering of "Jesus' body and blood" in the ancient church. That abominable novelty came along in the late 4th century.
Evidence that first-fruits was the only Eucharist oblation of the ancient church is abundant:
Justin Martyr said the ONLY honour worthy of God is for us to use the fruit of the harvest "for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks" (First Apology, 13) and that "prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the ONLY perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God" (Trypho 117). When he describes the ancient liturgy, there is an offering of thanks for food (First Apology 65, 67) with no mention of having consecrated the food before offering, and when there is a mention of a consecration (First Apology, 66), it is spoken over the food that had just been "eucharisted," and there is no mention of offering the now consecrated food. Thus does Justin rule out a liturgical offering of Jesus' body and blood. Unconsecrated food is offered to God. Consecrated food is given to the flock to eat. But consecrated food is not offered.
Irenæus describes something similar when he says "We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation" (Against Heresies 4.18.1), and "the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation" (4.18.4). He then criticizes the Gnostics for offering the first fruits of creation to "the Father" while not even believing the first fruits had come from "the Father," then pronouncing the consecration over over food that had just been eucharisted: "But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood" (Against Heresies 4.18.5). Food is offered. Then it is consecrated. But consecrated food is not offered.
Origen describes this exact same liturgical order in Against Celsus 8.34, noting that in the Eucharist "we offer first-fruits, we also send up our prayers," and in 8.57 "And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist." Thus, his liturgy is succintly summarized in 8.33 as a Eucharist offering of first fruits, followed by a meal of consecrated bread: "But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.” There is no offering of consecrated bread, and when the bread is consecrated, it is not offered. Unconsecrated food is offered to God. Consecrated food is given to the flock to eat. But consecrated food is not offered.
And that gets us to Fragment 37, in which Irenæus says the Malachi 1:11 prophecy is fulfilled in the Church's oblation of first-fruits: "And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment." Once that oblation is complete—as I said in my opening remarks—the minister then performs the invocation, asking that the Holy Spirit "exhibit" to the recipients the bread and cup as the body and blood of Christ: "And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal."
There is an oblation of first fruits, and then AFTER the oblation is already over, there is an invocation of the Holy Spirit to "exhibit" the offerings to the recipients, as in "the body of Christ," "the blood of Christ." What is offered is not consecrated, and what gets consecrated is not then offered.
An interesting point of trivia: "exhibit" here is the Greek word "apophene" from which we get the English word "apophenia," which is a condition in which the mind forms an otherwise abnormal connection between unrelated objects. So Irenæus' liturgy of the Eucharist concludes with a prayer that the Holy Spirit would form in the mind of the recipient a connection between something that is not the body of Christ (the bread) and something that is the body of Christ (His actual body). Thus showing that Irenæus understood the bread and wine to be symbolic—antitypical—of Christ's body and blood, but NOT ACTUALLY His body and blood.
In my opening remarks I said exactly what I believed about the ancient liturgy (an unconsecrated Eucharist was offered, and after the offering was over, the Eucharist of the bread and cup was called the body and blood of Christ, but was not then offered), I warned about the tendency of the Roman Catholic to miss that and assume that because the ancient Church offered the Eucharist (it did) and called the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (it did) that therefore the ancient Church offered the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (it didn't).
As is now evident, @CrushnSerpents did exactly what I predicted: because after the Eucharist oblation Irenæus asks the Holy Spirit to "exhibit" the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, therefore THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST MUST BE WHAT IRENÆUS OFFERED IN THE EUCHARIST. But read Irenæus again and see what he offered: "For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment." And of course, Irenæue did not—in Fragment 37 or anywhere else—claim that the Malachi 1:11 prophecy was fulfilled in the liturgical offering of Jesus' body and blood.
Note well: to the Roman Catholic, unless you interpret the ancient liturgy consistent with their late 4th century novelty, you're lying.
To an ignorant man, truth is falsehood if it undermines the foundation of his ignorance. @CrushnSerpents has provided a timely illustration of this reality.
So this is from last year, but @JoeHeschmeyer thinks he has the question that can finally stump the Protestants. The question is intended force the unsuspecting Protestant to paint himself into a corner: "Who was the first pope?" If the answer is "Peter," then "Why aren't you Catholic?", right? And if the answer is "someone else," then "Who was it and how do you know that they’re the first one?" Whoever is identified as the first is, to Joe, sufficiently ancient that it still comes down to, "Then why aren't you Catholic?" Oh no! An impossible trap!
No, not really. There's an easy way out of this, if you're willing to take it.
First, Joe's question is a little anachronistic. Cyprian of Carthage was called "Pope" by the congregation in Rome, and Athanasius of Alexandria was called "Pope" as well. It was a common title long before it came to refer singularly to the bishop of Rome. But "who was the first pope?" isn't even the real question. The real question is "Who was Bishop of Rome at the time prophesied by Scripture for the emergence of the Little Horn that arose among the fragments of the Roman Empire?" and the answer is easy: Pope Damasus (AD 366 to 384).
We know this because Daniel prophesied that the Roman Empire would break into 13 fragments, and a Little Horn would arise among the fragments and claim three of them for himself (Daniel 7:20,24). (You can read why there were 13 here: nitter.cf/whpub/status/210705402…)
Sometime between about AD 370 and AD 383, during the pontificate of Damasus, the Roman empire divided into 13 dioceses, each under a metropolitan city. It was under Damasus' reign that the theory of the Three Petrine Sees originated. He claimed that the Church was built upon Peter's three seats in Rome (because that's where Peter died), in Alexandria (because that's where his disciple, Mark, ended up) and in Antioch (because that's where he started). Those three cities were by then the three metropolitan cities of the three Dioceses of Italy, Egypt and Oriens. And there began the claim that the true Church of Christ was Built upon "A See of One in Three Places." The fact that the Little Horn had already scooped them up on his rise is the reason Daniel only saw 10 horns remaining as it came to full stature, a prophecy almost a thousand years in its fulfillment.
Unsurprisingly, Damasus' rise to power was accompanied by all the carnal, murderous ambition that you would expect from such a figure. Ammianus Marcellinus records the violent election: "Damasus and Ursinus, being both immoderately eager to obtain the bishopric, formed parties and carried on the conflict with great asperity, the partisans of each carrying their violence to actual battle, in which men were wounded and killed. ... Ultimately Damasus got the best of the strife by the strenuous efforts of his partisans." (Roman History 27.3.12-13).
The English here is too polite. The Latin is much less dainty: "Damasus and Ursinus, burning with an intensity that transcended human bounds to seize the episcopal see..."
"An intensity that transcended human bounds."
I'll bet it did.
When all the dust settled, the basilica was soaked in the blood of 137 men, so "immoderately eager" 🧐 were these men to occupy this newly powerful episcopate.
Good times.
Unsurprisingly this Little Horn would one day find itself on the receiving end of the fawning attention of a false prophet (the Apparition of Mary) that could even make the fire of heaven descend to earth in the sight of men (Fatima), urging us all to bow down before an image (the Eucharist) that is known occasionally to bleed, pulsate, and even speak (Euharistic miracles). Yes, there was a time when men were put to death for not worshiping that image. Who could've seen that coming? (Revelation 13:15).
So, the first "Pope" (the way Roman Catholics really mean it) was Damasus. I know this because he arose at the time the Roman empire finally divided into 13 dioceses, and right on cue, he claimed 3 them as the seat of the new world religion, bearing the fruits of covetousness, carnal ambition and murder to attain to his throne.
And that leads to Joe's most favorite question of all: "Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?"
This, too, Scriptures answer plainly: "The dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority" to the Beast (Revelation 13:2).
Joe's questions are carefully crafted to force the Protestant to implicitly assume Joe's premise: an unbroken unfolding of Church History from Peter to Leo XIV. If you grant that assumption, there can be no "first pope" without conceding that Roman Catholicism is the Church Jesus founded on Peter.
But if you study the history of what Daniel foresaw, what happened with Damasus was a new thing, utterly unrelated to Jesus' promises to His Church, a grotesque departure from the preceding centuries. It was a new religion for a new empire, and Damasus was it's first "Pope." And the fact that practically the whole world fell for the lie should not surprise us in the least because this, too, had been foreseen: "the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast" (Revelation 13:3).
As I said, you need not be stumped by Joe's questions. But you do have to be willing to avoid the trap he has laid for you. 😇
catholic.com/audio/sp/the-on…
@garrettham_esq , this is one of my favorite questions.
The ancient church understood that it lived under the Roman empire, and that according to Daniel‘s prophecies, the Roman empire would soon split 10 ways and the wicked one, the beast of Revelation 13, the little Horn of Daniel 7, would scoop up three of the 10 and begin to rule over the rest as the 5th earthly empire of Daniel‘s visions.
Have you ever wondered to yourself, what would happen if the Roman Empire divided into 10 horns, and the wicked one snatched away three: how many horns would be left? There would be 7.
And yet in every depiction of the 5th empire in scripture, the beast of Revelation 13 has 10 horns in his entourage. Revelation 12, Revelation 13, revelation 17 all depict 10 horns all the way up to the very end when they do battle against the Lamb.
But if the Roman empire divided into 10 horns and the wicked one uprooted three, why do 10 remain? That’s a question that puzzled me for decades. Scripture abhors a contradiction.
It turns out that Daniel chapter 7 was written in a language that has no past perfect tense. And therefore there was no way in the original language to state that the little Horn came up among 10 horns, having already uprooted three in his uprising. That meaning can only be discerned in context, and Revelation provides that context.
The solution to the apparent contradiction between Daniel 7 and Revelation chapters 12, 13 and 17 is that Daniel was in fact aware that the Roman empire would divide 13 ways and the little Horn he saw arising had already scooped up three when he arose. Daniel chapter 7, never says that there had only been 10 horns in the original division and neither does it say that the wicked one or the little Horn scooped up three of the 10. There were in fact 13 horns before the little one arose.
The antagonist of Daniel chapter 7, that little Horn, also identified in Revelation 13 as the beast of the sea, is whoever scooped up three of the 13 divisions of the Roman Empire.
You will therefore find it fascinating to discover that in fact, the Roman empire was divided 13 ways. Under Diocletian it was divided into 12 dioceses and over the next century through readjustment and shifts they ended up being 13 dioceses, the 13th of which was formed only in about AD 370.
In AD 381, the council of Constantinople had the temerity to suggest that it was second only to Rome, and was in fact the new Rome.
The bishop of Rome responded that the see of Peter existed in three places simultaneously: in Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, and certainly not in Constantinople. And therefore the church, he claimed, the see of Peter was in fact of see of one existing in three places. Those three cities happen to be the three chief Metropoli of the three dioceses of Italy, Egypt, and Oriens. And therefore in its carnal. Geopolitical ambition, the episcopate of Rome fulfilled Daniel‘s prophecy and became the fifth earthly empire of Daniel’s visions, scooping up three dioceses of the 13-way division of the empire and eventually subjugating the remaining 10.
The rest is just details, but to prove that Roman Catholicism is apostate, does not require that I prove to your satisfaction that there is a separate church that existed throughout history. All I have to do is prove that Roman Catholicism is in fact, the apostasy that Daniel foresaw.
Once you realize that, you will begin to search elsewhere for the true church. But the scripture has already informed us that that true church is not Roman Catholicism. To begin your studies I invite you to consider this article called a See of One.
whitehorseblog.com/2014/05/2…
Just a reminder that “trogo” was used metaphorically in the ancient church.
It was not solely understood as literal chewing and munching:
Barnabas (1st century): “Now, wherefore did Moses say, 'You shall not eat (τρωγειν) the swine' ... Moses spoke with a spiritual reference ... He means, 'You shall not join yourself or be like to such men as are ungodly to the end'" (Epistle of Barnabas, 10).
Macarius the Egyptian (early 4th century): citing John 6:54, says trogein is a metaphor for "devouring" the Words of the Old and New Testaments, "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Wisdom", which means that Jesus gave us His flesh and blood as food "allegorically":
"Now the flesh and blood of Christ, or of Wisdom (for Christ and Wisdom are the same), are the words of the Old and New Testaments spoken with allegorical meaning, which men must devour (τρώγειν) with care and digest by calling them to mind with the understanding, and win from them not temporal but eternal life. Thus did Jeremiah eat when he received the words from the hand of Wisdom, and by eating he had life; thus did Ezekiel feel sweetness when he ate the roll of the words (Ezek. iii. 3), and the bitterness of this present life was cast away. Thus did the saints one by one, once long ago, and again and again, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Wisdom, that is, by receiving in themselves the knowledge and revelation of her, live for aye with a life that will never cease. It was not only to the disciples that He gave His own flesh to eat and likewise His own blood to drink (for He would not have done right in thus offering the life eternal to some at a certain season, but not supplying it to others); but it was to all men alike in whom was holiness and the spirit of prophecy, that He gave allegorically this supply of food." (Apocriticus III.23)
In celebration of Reformation Month, I have a few questions for Protestants.
In John 6:53-56, Jesus switches from phago to trogo 4 times in a row. Phago means to eat, general. Trogo means to chew, gnaw, crunch, used for animals eating. He who trogo my flesh...
Then in John 6:60, the disciples say This is a skleros saying, who can hear it? Skleros means hard.
Question: If Jesus was speaking symbolically, meaning believe in me, why would they call a symbolic teaching hard? A metaphor about believing is not hard. Eating human flesh literally IS hard. And why does Jesus, instead of clarifying I mean symbolically, double down and let them leave in John 6:66-67, losing most of his followers?
In 1 Cor 10:16, Paul uses koinonia, actual participation or sharing in, not symbolon of. The cup we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? Participation in what doesn't exist is nonsense grammar.
So you have to claim: 1) trogo means believe, 2) a metaphor is called hard, 3) Jesus let disciples go to hell over a misunderstanding he could fix in one sentence, and 4) Paul uses participation language for a symbol.
Question: Which early Christian in 500 years read it that way? Did the Holy Spirit let the entire Church be idolaters who literally worship bread for 1500 years?
Can Bree tell us which parts of the catechism ARE infallible and binding on us?
Chris Stefanick complains that “Catholics misinterpret the Church’s teaching about infallibility,” and explains that you don’t have to believe everything the pope says. Now, if only someone could tell me infallibly which papal teachings have been infallible.
Anyone? Anyone?
This quoted post is unavailable.
Still, though, Vigilantius was right, and Jerome expressed dismay that Vigilantius was well received by the Alpine clergy, who agreed with him and were in fact, making successful raids on the churches in Gaul, bringing them the truth.
These corruptions regarding relics began in late antiquity not in the late medieval period, and the vast majority of the professing world dove headlong into the error.
@hdpayens makes a good point with which I concur: if you hold the position that the Roman Catholic corruption of the church took place in the late or high medieval period, you’re tacitly buying into and accepting a lot of Roman Catholic error not only as tolerable, but as normative for centuries before “the later corruption.“
This is why it’s so important to recognize that the Roman Catholic apostasy occurred in the late 4th century not the 15th or 16th.
In 406 AD, a priest named Vigilantius attacked the veneration of relics and the intercession of saints. He expected the Church to thank him for purifying the faith.
Instead, Jerome wrote back with open contempt. His reply is a time capsule, and it demolishes the claim that these practices were medieval corruptions.
A thread.
The proposed theory of Roman primacy based on Clement’s letter to Corinth falls apart upon inspection.
Rome, too, had a schism. A faction of laity had refused their legitimate presbyters. And who did Rome’s troubles reach? Not a local council. Not a free-floating prophet. The church at Carthage, led by its bishop, Cyprian. Cyprian writes with unmistakable authority to a church that was not his. In fact, Cyprian commanded that his letter be read aloud in the Roman congregation to eliminate any remaining vestiges of error, for which intervention the warring Roman factions thanked him in writing!
If the OP is correct, that makes Carthage the Chief Episcopate of the early church. After all, a traveling evangelist writes a letter? That's advice. A bishop correcting another church's internal discipline, and commands that his letter be read aloud to the whole congregation to settle the division?
THAT’S JURISDICTION!
Clement of Rome never visited Corinth. He still wrote to correct it, and Corinth kept his letter for 70 years and read it aloud in worship.
The common picture of the early Church is a loose, informal fellowship. No hierarchy. No offices. Just believers gathering with whoever felt called to lead.
Then you open Clement's letter, written around 96 AD, and the picture collapses.
Corinth had a schism. A faction of laity had deposed their legitimate presbyters. And who did Corinth's troubles reach? Not a local council. Not a free-floating prophet. The church at Rome, led by its bishop, Clement.
Clement writes with unmistakable authority to a church that was not his. He reminds them that the Apostles preached, then appointed bishops and deacons, and that these offices were not human arrangements but instituted by God's will. And the Apostles, he says, provided for succession, so that when leaders die, other approved men take up their ministry. He tells the rebels to submit and restore the deposed men.
Corinth obeyed the letter so thoroughly that decades later it was still being read aloud in their liturgy, a fact we know from a later bishop of Corinth mentioning the practice to Rome.
A traveling evangelist writes a letter? That's advice. A bishop correcting another church's internal discipline, and that church treasuring it in worship for generations? That's jurisdiction.
Clement is named in the Roman Canon of the Mass. He is not decoration. He is evidence.
If the early Church had no hierarchy, why did Corinth treat Rome's intervention as authoritative instead of presumptuous?
To the contrary, the correct hermeneutic is to understand the deposit of faith in the context of the pope’s meaning (which has escaped Knowles). “Jesus doesn’t hear the prayers” means “Jesus doesn’t hear the prayers.” Now is not a time for nuance!
In the “full context” of Leo’s meaning, we may understand that while Pope Pius V called for widespread recitation of the Rosary at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Mary only heard the prayers of those where weren’t waging battle, and those are the prayers she communicated to “Jesus,” Who heard and answered them. That’s the only possible way to harmonize the text (unless you’re a Nestorian, Gnostic, Manichaean, Jansenist, Sedevacantist Beneplenist).
Canon 1404 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “the First See is judged by no one” — certainly not by Michael Knowles!
🤣
Birth Announcement! We've got a new Roman Catholic Denomination! It took him less than 30 seconds of labor: “Everyone has misunderstood this new papal teaching [except me].”
whitehorseblog.com/2023/07/1…
EVERY Catholic account to weigh on this new Nostra doc erred either by saying a) it makes a clean/meaningful distinction (ie popesplaining) or b) it coherently/decisively ends the Great Commission (ie rupture)
As the past decade's most consistent papal commentator, I explain it below (in 2 parts)
**FWIW: it's actually AMAZING what catatonic, cue-card-reading drones we have amongst the American Catholic "influencers"--and what extremes these NPCs w/ teleprompters and mercurial donors oscillate between: they all glazed SSPX from 2018 until 2026 (to which I always objected), and now bizarrely they're all glazing Pope Leo (to which I always objected)
These guys are feebleminded beyond expedience. A petty fog that waxes and wanes as the wind redirects
Some of us believe the apparitions are real. As are the Eucharistic miracles.
whitehorseblog.com/2014/04/2…
The doctrine that the Blessed Virgin Mary *was assumed* into heaven is not like the doctrine that Jesus Christ *ascended* visibly into heaven.
Verified apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, from heaven, have confirmed the truth of her assumption.
Protestants deny Marian apparitions just as atheists deny the incarnation of Christ. Unbelievers don't believe. There is no reason for them to do so and arguing, "Duh, dat's not in da Bible." is irrational and proves nothing. No one said it is.
Just a reminder that Tim Keller was an eager and willing proponent of this destructive intellectual project. At some point the PCA needs to face and acknowledge that reality. The General Assembly has invested years deliberating overtures of repentance for historical wrongs, both real and imagined. Tolerating Keller for as long as they did is the real kind.
trinityfoundation.org/journa…
The Most Destructive Intellectual Project of the Twentieth Century.
The Frankfurt School. You should know what it was, what it built, and why you are still living inside it.
1. The Institute for Social Research was founded in Frankfurt in 1923 and relocated to Columbia University in 1934 when Hitler came to power. The civilization they had decided to dismantle gave them refuge when another tried to kill them. They spent the next five decades producing the theoretical infrastructure for that dismantling. Western civilization itself was the problem: reason, the Enlightenment, the family, tradition, authority. Not reformed. Dismantled.
2. They called it Critical Theory – and the name is the program. Everything is to be criticized; nothing is to be built. In The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), Adorno and Horkheimer argued that Western reason — the reason that produced Newton and the rule of law — contained the seeds of Auschwitz. Not that reason had been misused, but that reason itself, taken to its conclusion, produces the death camp. This was not a critique of institutions. It was an indictment of the civilization itself.
3. Adorno gave them the psychological weapon. The Authoritarian Personality (1950) classified conservatism, religious faith, patriotism, and the traditional family not as political positions but as symptoms of a proto-fascist personality. If you believe in the nation or the father’s authority, you are pre-fascist. The opponent was no longer wrong – he was sick. You don’t argue with a pathology. You treat it.
This made dialogue impossible. You don’t persuade someone who is wrong; you diagnose someone who is sick. Politics becomes therapy, and disagreement becomes pathology.
4. Marcuse gave them the political weapon. Repressive Tolerance (1965) argued that tolerating wrong ideas is itself oppression. True tolerance therefore requires suppressing intolerant ideas. The left decides which ideas are intolerant. Everyone else is silenced – not despite tolerance, but "in its name." Censorship dressed in the vocabulary of liberation.
5. The generation that read Marcuse at Columbia, Berkeley, and Yale went on to run universities, media, foundations, NGOs, content moderation departments, and the EU regulatory apparatus. They implemented the argument sincerely because they had been taught it as philosophy. This was the Frankfurt School’s greatest achievement: it produced true believers.
6. French Theory picked up the tools and made them aesthetic. Foucault made the critique of power literary. Derrida made the critique of meaning philosophical. Deleuze made the critique of identity elegant. A political program became a cultural sensibility. You can argue with a program. A sensibility is in the air you breathe. By the time these ideas reached the American campus through the French conduit, they were no longer ideology. They were the water. The fish did not know they were wet.
7. A civilization stands on three pillars: truth exists and is accessible to reason; good is distinguishable from evil; and there is an inheritance worth transmitting. The Frankfurt School attacked all three – systematically and with considerable intellectual sophistication. It produced a generation that knows how to deconstruct and has forgotten how to build. That sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere.
The ultimate achievement was to make destruction feel like progress. Every inherited institution became suspect; every constraint became oppression; every act of preservation became reactionary. Deconstruction became the default, while construction became something that needed to justify itself.
The answer is not another theory.
It is the thing the Frankfurt School most feared: the builder who simply builds, the scientist who follows the evidence, the father who transmits what was transmitted to him.
The deconstruction machine runs on the assumption that nothing is worth building.
Prove it wrong.
Tell the truth, have courage, and build.
Aaaaaaaand…. we’ve got ourselves another Catholic denomination. whitehorseblog.com/2023/07/1…
unavailable
I love how Michael Knowles tries to own the pRoTs for not having kneelers and altar rails and liturgical vestments for their Eucharistic liturgy (2:00 minute mark).
Liturgical vestments don’t show up until the late 4th century. Kneeling was forbidden on Sundays for the first 1000 years, kneelers themselves were obviously introduced later than that, and altar rails are a 16th century counter-reformation novelty.
The Protestant liturgy predates the Roman Catholic liturgy by more than a millennium.
Thanks to Michael Knowles, now you know.
m.youtube.com/shorts/AeXbzUS…
Yawn.
It is official - IBC = I become Catholic.
After 3 years of inquiry, bible reading, prayer, studies, reading about church fathers, talks with some of you 🫵, but also through hard times, suffering & coming together with changing life plans.
I'm finally 100% committed & will look to start as soon as my situation allows.
I can't thank you enough for all the support - The questions answered and for your friendship, fellowship or in whatever way we are related.
I wanna thank the Saints, Mary & everyone who took part in this journey & I'll hope anyone on earth as it is in heaven, that wants to be there with me on my further road, will continue to guide me to my hopeful destination - Heaven.
Last, I wanna thank my Lord & Savior - Jesus Christ, for all you did for a filthy sinner like me.
Ave Christus Rex - Deus Vult !
You’ve probably seen the trinitarian triangle with Mary at the center, a depiction provided by “St.” Maximilian Kolbe, who claimed that Mary was “quasi-part of the Trinity.”
This is his “other” diagram depicting the “insertion of the Immaculate into the Trinity,” from which you can see how Kolbe concluded that Mary was the “quasi-Incarnation of the Holy Spirit.” Mary here is held to play the same function in the “reaction” as the Holy Spirit does in the “action.” If “Father-Son-Spirit” is the action, and “Mary-Jesus-Father” the reaction, both Mary and the Holy Spirit enjoy a triunity with the Father and the Son that no one else does.
If all graces come to us through Mary (as Rome claims), and the Spirit “maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Roman 8:26), Mary and the Holy Spirit essentially play identical roles here in our salvation. The only difference being that Mary has flesh, and the Holy Spirit does not, making her the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
This is why in Kolbe’s mind all Mariology was Pneumatological, and all Pneumatology was Mariological.
The heart of the Roman Catholic deeply desires to worship Mary, and love always finds a way. @rickbrennanjr
Mya's conviction that "you should have listened to God's word instead" is sufficient on its own (Amen, and amen!), as the Scriptures certainly do not identify Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, and Luke's alleged "hidden message" in chapter 1 is laughable for reasons I have detailed elsewhere. But as it turns out, the ancient "evidence" doesn't identify her as the Ark, either.
Hippolytus (3rd century) is cited as the earliest Church father to "clearly refer to Mary as the Ark," but it's wishful thinking. What Hippolytus really said is, "And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself" (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’). That's not "clearly" a reference to Mary. 🤣
Gregory Thaumaturgus (also 3rd century) is cited (from his First Homily, but the problem is that the First Homily attributed to Thaumaturgus is considered, even by Roman Catholics, to be spurious. Fr. Livius, who was attempting to find in the Homilies evidence of early devotion to Mary, had to concede that it was “of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, p. 48n). Schaff, in his series on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, lists the Homily under doubtful or spurious works.
St. Athanasius is quoted from the Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, a work that is "traditionally" ascribed to Athanasius, but in fact is a spurious work.
Ephræm the Syrian doesn't attest to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, either. Unless of course you're allowed to rewrite his original works. Watch what the Roman Catholic does to Ephraem to make him say what he very clearly does not: "With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror.” (Ephraem the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 3, cited in Livius,The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, p 66).
Um, y'all, you can't just make stuff up by saying, "Well, he was OBVIOUSLY referring to Mary as the Ark." Ephræm simply expressed the reality that Genesis 3:15 foresaw Christ as the destroyer of the dragon, but he did not identify the Ark as a figure of Mary containing Christ.
In fact, we could make a better case from Ephraem for Joseph being the Ark, because Ephraem believed Mary was the "pure tablet" of the Law that "contained" Jesus: "Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling” (Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 11). Note well that He does not say Joseph "bare about the pure Ark in whom" Jesus was dwelling. Mary can't be both the Ark that contained the Tablets of the Law, AND the Tablets of the Law that contained Christ. Missed opportunity, Ephræm!
Did Ambrose claim that Mary was the Ark? The evidence for such a claim is in Sermon 52, which is known to be spurious, from a much later writer. What did Ambrose really think: either that Jesus is the Ark:
• "But the dancing is commended which David practiced before the ark of God. For everything is seemly which is done for religion, so that we need be ashamed of no service which tends to the worship and honouring of Christ.” (Ambrose, On Repentance, Book II, chapter 42).
No, that's not about Mary.
So that leaves us with 7th Century John of Damascus, who, according to the claim "further developed this typology." Yeah, I'll bet he did.
What got "developed" was fraud, redaction, forgery, invention, aberration and lies. The ancient Church did not believe Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.
This is the unfounded leap, tucked in there neatly as a necessity. Mary had to be sinless because… “Her not remaining perfect and above reproach would have been counted against our Lord.”
Well shucks, even His trust in His Father was counted against Him! (Matt 27:43). Should He have avoided that, too?
Jesus coming in contact with sinners is the very thing the Pharisees “counted against” Christ because He was spending time with harlots, tax collectors and gentiles:
• “Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:39)
• “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” (Luke 15:2)
Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14). Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners, might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one? Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother as eager to be cleansed of her sins as the harlots and lepers were to be of theirs?
To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable.
So deeply offensive to them is the incarnation that they cannot countenance Him coming in contact with the sinners He came to save, much less that He could take on authentic flesh from Adam’s race, or that their sins could be imputed to Him.
Roman Catholicism is just Gnosticism awkwardly LARPing as Christianity by dressing up and acting like OT priests, as if Jesus was really the beginning of the Law for righteousness, instead of the end of it.
I find it very sad when Protestants go out of their way to denigrate Mary. They can't seem to accept that Mary might be uniquely blessed and thus uniquely worthy of our devotion. It's almost as if they view Mary like a consort of Zeus, as some random hookup by God and Jesus was the result, like a Hercules or a Perseus. Mary was chosen before time to play her role in our salvation. To do that God perfected her in a way He perfected no one else, and she remained perfect throughout her life. Her not remaining perfect and above reproach would have been counted against our Lord. How can a perfect God have an imperfect mother?
This is what I mean when I say the Roman Catholic threshold of immaculacy is unrealistically low. Vainglory is such an egregious offense against God that Thomas Aquinas promotes Pride to “the queen of all vices, and puts vainglory in its place as one of the deadly sins.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pride).
And John Chrysostom says Mary had the “disease of vainglory” and needed to be cured of it by Christ.
Catholic response? “BuT cHrYsOsToM nEvEr SaYs ShE SINNED!”
See how easy it is to be immaculate these days? You can commit one of the seven deadly sins AND STILL BE CONSIDERED SINLESS! 🤣 😂
He never says she sinned. He's very vague. This is why you guys get completely clobbered when you attempt to hijack our Church Father's writings. St. John Chrysostom was clear on:
Mary remained a virgin.
Mary is the Mother of God.
Mary as the new Eve.
The Authority of Rome.
Primacy of the Pope.
Sacrifice of the Mass/Divine Liturgy.
Eucharist as Jesus's real flesh.
Confession to a Priest.
Purgatory.
The Priesthood.
Apostolic succession.
Happy Immaculation Day, to those who celebrate.
It was on this day in 2024 that I came out as "immaculate," having discovered that the threshold of immaculacy for Mary was so low, even I could attain to it.
The ancient writers wrote boldly of Mary's impertinence, her vainglorious and carnal ambition, and her propensity for acting unseasonably, with untimely haste, and out of accord with God's will, even seeking to take credit for Jesus' miracles. To some, she was a figure of the synagogue of unbelieving Jews, and to others she struggled with doubt and would one day face the judgment of God for her sins—sins for which she received healing not prior to, but only after the Crucifixion.
In their defense of Mary's sinlessness—even in the face of Patristic testimony of her myriad shortcomings—Catholics convinced me that even I might be a candidate for such immaculation.
If you recognize in yourself some of these Marian traits (as I did), you, too, may be immaculate. Is today your "coming out" day?
Please limit your comments to hyperdulia only. I don't want to make this about me.
After years of study and thoughtful analysis, with periods of difficult introspection, painstaking emotional conflicts, but all the while helpfully assisted by Roman Catholics who really know how to read the Early Church Fathers properly and in context, I have decided to come out as ...
... Immaculate.
It was a hard decision, but I thought it important to lay out my thinking for you publicly.
Irenæus (AD 189) said, in contrast with Jesus, who always acted consistently with God's will, Mary did not, for she acted with "untimely haste" at Cana (Against Heresies, 3.16.7). But Roman Catholics have taught me that acting out of accordance with God's will is not sin.
Tertullian (AD 235) said Jesus censured Mary's faults (On the Flesh of Christ, 7), but Roman Catholics have taught me that faults aren't sins.
Origen (AD 254) said Mary was scandalized with unbelief at the cross (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7), but Roman Catholics have taught me that unbelief is not a sin.
Hilary (AD 360) said Mary would "encounter the severity of [God's] judgment" on the last day (Tract in Ps 118), but Roman Catholics have taught me that severity of judgment does not imply judgment for sin in any way.
Basil (AD 379) said Mary experienced "some doubt" at the cross (Letter 260.9). But Roman Catholics have taught me doubt isn't sin.
Chrysostom (397 AD) said Mary "asked unseasonably" at Cana, so Jesus had to "correct her weakness" and heal her "disease of vainglory" (Homily 44 in Matthew). But Roman Catholics have taught me that acting unseasonably, in carnal weakness with vainglorious ambition isn't a sin.
All of which is good news to me, because every "so-called sin" I have ever committed in my life has been the result of acting out of accordance with God's perfect will, unseasonably or in untimely haste, in carnal weakness with vainglorious ambition, in doubt and unbelief about God's promises, for which (I assumed until now) I would have to endure the severity of God's judgment.
But all that has changed now that Roman Catholics have taught me how to read the Early Church Fathers objectively. Through this period of study I have learned that the threshold of immaculacy is so low that even I have surpassed it!
I am coming out as Immaculate informally now, but formally next Easter.
I only ask that you respect my privacy, and that of my family, at this emotional time.