Skip to comments.The Reality of Romanism
Posted on 05/17/2007 10:08:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
Reading Francis Beckwith's interview with David Neff in Christianity Today, reminded me of how idyllic the Roman church can seem in the minds of those who embrace it (Click here: Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).
But then this news report appeared today which gives a much different picture of the supposed glories of Romanism (Click here: Pope to canonize first Brazilian saint - Yahoo! News).
All discussion of justification, the authority of Scripture, and reciting the Creed aside, the Pope is heading to Brazil to canonize Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, a Franciscan monk who is credited with 5000 miraculous healings. Over 1 million people are expected to be in attendance. The healings supposedly come as a result of swallowing rice paper pills prepared by the monk over two hundred years ago. According to the AP news report . . .
"The Vatican has officially certified the medical cases of two Brazilian women as divinely inspired miracles that justify the sainthood of Galvao. Both of these women spoke of their faith with The Associated Press, claiming that their children would not be alive today were it not for the tiny rice-paper pills that Friar Galvao handed out two centuries ago.
Although the friar died in 1822, the tradition is carried on by Brazilian nuns who toil in the Sao Paulo monastery where Galvao is buried, preparing thousands of the Tic Tac-sized pills distributed free each day to people seeking cures for all manner of ailments. Each one is inscribed with a prayer in Latin: `After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.'
Sandra Grossi de Almeida, 37, is one such believer. She had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months. But in 1999, after taking the pills, she gave birth to Enzo, now 7. `I have faith," Grossi said, pointing to her son. I believe in God, and the proof is right here.'
Nearly 10 years before that, Daniela Cristina da Silva, then 4 years old, entered a coma and suffered a heart attack after liver and kidney complications from hepatitis A. `The doctors told me to pray because only a miracle could save her,' Daniela's mother Jacyra said recently. `My sister sneaked into the intensive care unit and forced my daughter to swallow Friar Galvao's pills.'"
So, if you "return home" to Rome, you get the whole ball of wax, including the beatification of saints who give out Tic-Tac size rice-paper pills which supposedly heal. And Pope Benedict XVI will be there to bless it all.
By the way, confessional Protestants affirm the historical evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and the full authority of Scripture. And yes, we even recite the Creed every Lord's Day and we use a biblical-text based liturgy which is quite similar to that described by Justin Martyr in the second century.
Too bad Dr. Beckwith didn't consider a confessional Protestant church before embracing Romanism. Now he's stuck with Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao and his rice-paper healing pills.
Why don't you believe them?
It seems that practice had crept in, being taught by Celsus, which motivated Origen to write against it. Alas, it came back in the Roman religion.
>> Are you denying that Roman popes have not been found to be heretics? <<
One council found that a pope (Liberius?) in the 4th century anathematized a previous pope, and a heresy they believed him to have promulgated. The pope in question, however, was imprisoned by Rome (Constantinus?), and likely did not sign the proclamation of his own free will. Therefore, it is highly questionnable whether the pope had truly held false doctrine, or committed the sin of caving into ungodly secular forces.
>> You can also include Phillip Schaff, whom Roman Catholics are fond of citing when they think Schaff supports RC positions. <<
Ah, yes... Philip Schaff. He was tried for heresy for holding positions which were “too Catholic.” Then, he reaches far more counter-Catholic positions, and continues to secure cooshy jobs. While I can see why Catholics may cite his early conclusions, he is not the best candidate for an appeal to authority, when citing his later counter-Catholic positions.
I’m trying to think who are you going to cite next in a race for less credible theologians, Howard Dean, Leon Trotsky, or Jim Jones?
You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you whose interpretation of Scripture is *not* authoritative. I asked you whose interpretation of Scripture *is* authoritative.
Here's Origin, uncensored
For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason...But because Celsus has not read our holy Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it came from us, saying that we "assert that the angels who come down from heaven to confer benefits on mankind are a different race from the gods," and adds that "in all probability they would be called demons by us:" not observing that the name "demons" is not a term of indifferent meaning like that of "men," among whom some are good and some bad, nor yet a term of excellence like that of "the gods," which is applied not to wicked demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know divine things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term "demons" is always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of a grosser body, who lead men astray, and fill them with distractions and drag them down from God and supercelestial thoughts to things here below.
What Origin is condemning is praying to a pagan god, which Celsus has supposed may be angels, for fear such "angels" are, in fact, demons. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm The chapters are very short, and this context should become quite plain from chapters 2 to 5. In chapters 8 through 9, again, Origin criticizes bowing to angels, but here it is plain he is referring to astrology. "Angels" simply means "messengers," and the "messengers" Irenaeus refers to are not Gabriel or Michael, but stars and planets, including one planet known to Romans as Lucifer.
I think the thread has been very informative — even all the removed comments.
I don’t know whose they were, but I have a good idea.
Meant to ping you, too, and thank you for your very enlightening comments. I’ve learned a lot.
Where was the seat of secular power at that time, over the location where he was located?
When was John the Baptist born?
Outstanding post. In all the years I’ve been on such threads, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Origen’s condemnation of Celsus and the practice of praying to the dead before.
Now there’s an interesting question. From the biblical accounts Mary and Elizabeth were cousins and pregnant at the same time, although Elizabeth was closer to term than Mary, so John must have been born in the autumn; but somehow escaped the “slaughter of the innocents” too.
As to John, he seems to have been something like an essene, goat hair coat and honey/locusts for breakfast/lunch/dinner. His “essene-ness” must have rubbed off somewhat on Jesus because he immediately went on his 40 day fast after the baptism. Long fasting periods were an “essene” kind of thing. As cousins they probably knew each other well. It was John’s ministry that, in part at least, inspired our lord Jesus into the calling of ministry/missionary work too.
The key phrase, to me, is “and the angels ministered unto him” after the temptations of satan. To most that just means they fed him food. I believe it means FAR more than that, can you guess what it REALLY means?
When was John the Baptist born? We don’t know except that it was before Jesus.
Yes, the bearer of light. In Greek, “Phosphorus.”
And I suppose Risky-Riskerdo here in 2007 has the authority to make such a determination? That he is somehow protected from error in deciding that?
The minute you take infallibility from the Church you end up putting it on yourself.
Presentation of quotes ain't enough...there's an element of convincing that has to be done. :)
Fire at will.
Not irrelevant at all. It was claimed that devotion to St. Christopher showed the falsity of the Roman Church because of the dubious legends that grew around him. The same exact argument could be made of any historical personage, Washington or anyone else.
It is a misapplication of the historical method, and a bad claim.