Tim Kauffman
@whpub
Followers
1,296
Following
414
Media
313
Statuses
4,905
I monitor transmillennial patterns of apostasy. Beware the migration of the epiclesis.
Starkville, MS
Joined July 2011
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
MOONLIT FLOOR OUT NOW
• 278575 Tweets
JUMP
• 209033 Tweets
Mets
• 165541 Tweets
Falcons
• 68220 Tweets
天使の日
• 54669 Tweets
Diana
• 43227 Tweets
#PowerGhost
• 31032 Tweets
Kirk Cousins
• 28753 Tweets
Bucs
• 28066 Tweets
MerzAesthetics x KTMP
• 27655 Tweets
Hayırlı Cumalar
• 23766 Tweets
SB19 IS ACER READY
• 21614 Tweets
#PowerBook2Ghost
• 19438 Tweets
HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT JIN
• 18587 Tweets
Mooney
• 18185 Tweets
ワートリ
• 16914 Tweets
Tariq
• 16380 Tweets
感謝マルチガチャ
• 15832 Tweets
Cane
• 14655 Tweets
PRABOWOsiapkan YangTERBAIK
• 13648 Tweets
Bleed
• 13113 Tweets
KEKUATANkita PERSATUANkita
• 13046 Tweets
最大4体ゲット
• 12656 Tweets
人達同士
• 12616 Tweets
#يوم_الجمعه
• 12502 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
THEOTOKOS 101
Roman Catholics will insist that we must call Mary "Mother of God" because the Church has allegedly done so for 2,000 years. When it is shown that the ancients did not call her that, Roman Catholics will produce such references as the Sub Tuum Præsidium, which is
@farmingandJesus
This is why the ancient writers, though they called her “Theotokos,” said it referred to her bearing his humanity, so called her “mother of His body” & “mother of his weakness as a man,” & said “as God He had no mother, as man He had no father.”
You can’t get to “mother of God”
2
1
23
24
9
51
Protestant: Let's play parallels: Jesus is the New Adam.
Catholic: Of course He is!
P: And isn't Mary the New Eve?
C: Of course she is!
P: And Eve was Adam's wife, so what would that make Mary?
C: I don't like this game.
P: Just getting started. Jesus called Peter Satan, right?
Protestant: Mary isn’t queen. Show me scripture!
Catholic: David was king.
Protestant: ok…
Catholic: And Jesus is the new David.
Protestants: ok…
Catholic: David’s mother was the queen so what does that make Mary?
Protestants:
263
119
1K
71
18
377
The early church thought Mary was sinful. That's what I learned from the early writers. Intellectual honesty demands it.
Tertullian AD 235: "When denying one’s parents in indignation, one [Jesus] does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. … in the abjured
54
29
355
My dear Protestant brethren have been recoiling in horror at this devotion with accusations of paganism at best and more likely idolatry. But as a former Roman Catholic, I'm here to tell you that you're all very wrong. It's much, much worse than you think.🧵
O Mary, Conceived Without Sin, Pray for Us Who Have Recourse to Thee 🌹
166
523
5K
74
54
259
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
36
22
243
Take a look inside the wild mind of the Roman apologist. Protestants believe Mary had sex with Joseph in a normal marriage after Christ was born. Dennis equates that with saying “Mary was a sex addict-wench after Jesus’ birth.” Dennis’ apple didn’t fall far from Jerome’s tree.🧵
If I was an atheist outsider without any knowledge about theology, I'd believe that Reformed Protestants think that the blessed virgin Mary is worse than the devil by how Protestant treat her.
-Used up Vessel
-Filthy sinner
-Sex addict-wench after Jesus birth
-Pressured God to
37
3
82
24
12
211
It's August, and that means it's that time of year when Roman Catholics claim that the church has believed in Mary's bodily assumption for 2000 years, and the only reason they didn't mention anything about until—wait for it—the late 4th century, is because nobody questioned it!🧵
23
18
180
The standard Roman Catholic retort (below) to the claim that the Apparitions of Mary are demonic is that "Mary" is just pointing us to Christ. As demons would never "point us to Christ," the people who cast aspersions on the Apparitions must have clearly lost their minds.🧵
@OpStCyprian
Some people will believe anything. Are you some people? You clearly haven't "looked into it." Friend, demons do not point people to turn from sin, repent, and have faith in Christ. Mary warns us against the danger of hell at Fatima.
3
0
5
12
25
141
Roman Catholics object when I characterize Roman Catholicism as a "religion of the apparitions of Mary" rather than the religion of Christ. Then they rejoice over the special messages and commands the apparitions of Mary communicate to their misguided & impressionable popes.🧵
THE FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD WHO CONFIRMS TO PIO XII THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY🇻🇦🕊️
This is the summary story, not very well known in the Spanish-language world, of Gilles Bouhours, the boy who brought to the Pope a confirmation message of the Assumption of the Virgin.
34
296
1K
20
11
144
Let’s not kid ourselves. These two pictures are the same. A nun who said “the rosary is my weapon” was praying to the same false god in 2020 as Harmeet Dhillon is in 2024. The Rosary is a prayer to demonic apparitions. 4 years passing doesn’t change that.
The standard Roman Catholic retort (below) to the claim that the Apparitions of Mary are demonic is that "Mary" is just pointing us to Christ. As demons would never "point us to Christ," the people who cast aspersions on the Apparitions must have clearly lost their minds.🧵
12
25
141
66
20
137
Tobit 12:12-15 has an angel presenting our prayers to God, and Revelation 5:8 & 8:3-4 have angels presenting prayers as "incense" before Him. Psalm 141:2 says "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense". The Roman Catholic says we should therefore pray to angels. Wrong.🧵
19
16
139
Catholics when they realize they need an infallible list of ecumenical councils to know the canon of scripture, and nobody has that list.
Protestants when they realize they need the Catholic Church to know which books belong in the Bible.
11
3
43
23
8
131
INFALLIBILITY 101
If you have ever interacted with a Roman Catholic, you have no doubt run into the "You Don't Understand Infallibility" wall which the Roman Catholic erects to protect himself from the realization that he himself does not—and cannot—understand infallibility.🧵
19
15
125
Brian claims the early church “uniformly acknowledged Mary’s sinlessness.” But if Basil and Chrysostom affirmed her sinfulness, how can the “early church” be said to “uniformly acknowledge” her sinlessness?
Even Cardinal Newman conceded on this:
“St. Basil imputes to the
This is patently false. The Early Church uniformly acknowledged Mary’s Sinlessness.
Here’s the Early Church on Mary (I presume you understand Saint Gabriel and Saint Elizabeth were clear that Mary is sinless):
(A) St. Athanasius
. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the
42
60
313
34
8
122
The 5 Marian Dogmas reveal as much about Rome's departure from the early church as they do about its reliance on Marian Apparitions for revelation. The 5 Dogmas are "Mother of God," perpetual virgin, sinless, assumed into heaven, and intercessor of all Christians. Let's see.🧵
The Catholic Church preaches 5 doctrines about Mary
Every Christian is bound to believe them.
(Save this mega-thread) 🧵
253
1K
11K
22
17
121
The insurmountable challenge facing the Roman Catholic Apologist is that his ostensibly apostolic religion can only be traced either to heretics or to a period 300 years after the apostles. Our best response is to discover what he is hiding, as this video illustrates well.🧵
Protestant Friends: Did you know the view that Mary had other children became known as the Antidicomarian heresy in the early church, and even the Reformers didn't hold to this view? What's the biblical evidence for her perpetual virginity? Let's look.
0
73
372
28
20
149
Because Roman Catholicism is the religion of the apparitions of Mary, not the religion of Christ. The 1917 vision of Mary told them they must make many sacrifices to keep people from going to hell. Crawling on their knees is one of those sacrifices.
Roman Catholics crawl 600 feet on their knees as an act of penance, from the Basilica to the Chapel of Apparitions, (where they believe Mary appeared bodily to three children in 1917) Then they circle around the Chapel on their knees too, while praying the rosary.
551
89
862
19
13
108
This is a typical Roman Catholic attempt to create the false impression that ancient admiration for Peter may be understood as definitively as proof of "Roman Episcopal Primacy" and "authority over other the bishops." That's not how the ancient writers thought about Peter.🧵
🧵Have you ever wondered what the Early Church Fathers thought of Peter? Did the Bishop of Rome have supremacy & authority over the other Bishops? What does Keys to the Kingdom mean?🧵
Follow along with this thread🧵
👇🏻👇🏻
22
83
637
20
9
112
Here's your regular reminder that there was no "consensus" or authoritative ruling on including the Apocrypha in the canon before Luther, so the argument that everyone agreed on the canon until Luther "removed" 7 books is fallacious.
Melito of Sardis (170 AD): not canonical (to
12
16
109
This is one of the most poignant concessions I've ever heard from a Roman Catholic apologist and it's worth the 3-minute listen (from 16:30-19:48). Protestants engaging with Roman Catholics are continually faced with, on the one hand, someone who says "We aren't like Protestants.
LIVE & BREAKING: Pope Releases Doc on Papacy!
2
4
15
16
24
110
It's intriguing to me that Roman Catholics think Protestants are afraid of James 2:24. For my part, I only wish Roman Catholics would act like they believed James 2:24 instead of just saying so. It is they, not we, who ought to fear James' obvious meaning. 🧵
14
12
102
Taylor Marshall's argument for universal ancient devotion to Mary, based on a medieval fragment of parchment, is akin to claiming the French, from the founding of the Republic, have loved the Eiffel Tower, based on in this sketch from 1884. It's a grotesque anachronism.🧵
A question for protestants:
How is it that all ancient Christians honored and prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Was it a multi-continental conspiracy that spanned over nations and languages?
All Christians in Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Persia, Greece, India, Italy,
716
493
4K
9
8
103
As fascinating as Viganò's trial is, what must not be overlooked is first, that he thinks he is simply saying what the Apparitions of Mary revealed, and second, how common that is in Roman Catholicism. It is truly the religion of Marian Apparitions, not the religion of Christ.🧵
Archbishop Viganò: I accuse Bergoglio of heresy and schism - LifeSite
196
742
2K
15
9
97
Have you noticed the evidence for Mary as Ark of the Covenant is forged, fraudulent, spurious and doubtful until ...wait for it... the late 4th century? Here's a fun compilation of "ancient" sources proving that the early church fathers were UNANIMOUS on Mary as the Ark:🧵
23
13
94
This Roman Catholic's attempt to interpret the Magisterium is illustrative of the larger problem facing Roman Catholics: the Magisterium is supposed to prevent private interpretation of revelation; but in doing so, it necessitates private interpretation of the Magisterium.🧵
@whpub
@MilitantThomist
Let’s see, an infallible Ecumenical Council or an encyclopedia, which should a Catholic defer to?
2
0
3
25
13
86
In Roman Catholicism, Jesus is said to have a "Sacred Heart," Mary to have an "Immaculate Heart," and Joseph to have a "Pure Heart." All three are alleged to have lived sinless lives, but the only one Who did is Jesus. Today is the "solemnity" of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.🧵
Happy Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus!
50
592
4K
14
5
80
This priest says the "the mass" predates the Bible by 350 years, and that the councils of Hippo (AD 393) & Carthage (AD 397) determined the canon. He thus illustrates his ignorance of "the mass" as well as the charism of infallibility with which he thinks the Church is endowed.🧵
“The mass predates the Bible by 350 years. It was the mass that carried the faith for the first 3 centuries, before the canon of the Bible was even put together.”
108
458
2K
9
8
83
This week
@Burgess7281975
illustrates the fact that each Roman Catholic must fashion a religion of his own imagination, and then defend THAT religion as if it is the version of Roman Catholicism that dropped out of heaven to the apostles. But he's just making it up as he goes.🧵
Oh Tim,
I forgot you were out there.
Your claim of Marian Veneration starting in the late 4th Century is demonstrably false as anyone with a Bible and a calendar can show.
(1) Marian Veneration starts in the Old Testament:
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between thee and the
27
37
264
20
4
82
Nothing makes me more Protestant than the Scriptures & (in distant 2nd place) the early church Fathers, & (a consolation prize honorable mention), reading Catholics endlessly disputing among themselves over how to interpret “correctly” allegedly infallible Magisterial teachings.
Nothing makes me more Catholic than reading sola-Scriptura Protestants endlessly dispute among themselves over how to “correctly” interpret the Bible.
37
71
580
9
11
78
7. These visions are plainly demonic, as they come bearing a different gospel; Paul warns that we must not accept them (Gal 1:8). It would be bad enough at that, but the popes are the apparitions' biggest fans! Pope John XXIII considered it his bounden duty to proclaim them!
4
2
78
12. Makes me grateful for the truth! "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, ... and such were some of you: BUT YE ARE WASHED, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, and by the Spirit of our God." (1Cor6:9-11). Can I get an Amen?
16
3
78
4. Jesus claimed, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). But the visions of Mary say, "My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God" (p 84). That is "pointing us away from Christ."
6
2
74
2. First, the defense is plainly unbiblical. In Acts 16:16-17 a demon-possessed woman follows Paul, Timothy & Luke around saying "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." Obviously demons can do this if it serves their purpose.
5
2
73
April 1, 2024
Because Pope John XXIII really taught as pious belief that John the Baptist was assumed into heaven, I present "proof" from the Apostles' "clear" & "direct" claims, that John the Baptist is the TRUE Ark of the New Covenant.
(Mind the fine print, please).
20
8
75
Here is a typical attempt by an apologist to justify the vain repetitions of the Rosary, a mode of prayer in which the Roman Catholic seeks to obtain something, not by actually asking for it, but by repeating words unrelated to the request. It's exactly what Mt 6:7 prohibits.🧵
Protestant Friends: were you told that Catholic prayers, especially in the Rosary, are vain repetitions? Do you know the biblical context of “vain repetitions?” Let’s dive deeper so we can have a better dialogue:
0
11
60
24
9
74
@SuperMarioJumps
Oh great, now Mary is the Mother of the Father, the spouse of the Son and the daughter of the Holy Spirit, making Jesus the Holy Spirit’s grandson and Mary Jesus’ grandmother.
Thank you for proving how futile it is extrapolate the parallels.
7
2
73
The Roman Catholic claim to be Deep in History is just a substitute for being truly deep in history. A Protestant, citing Clement (191 AD), correctly observes that he took a symbolic reading of John 6. "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood."🧵
Clement Of Alexandria (The Instructor of Children)
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor
25
24
192
25
7
72
The propensity of ostensibly thoughtful Protestants to dabble in soft Romanism as unwitting apologists for idolatry is fascinating theater. Here is such an example.
@goinggodward
seems like a nice person, but her post is full of typical erroneous Roman Catholic talking points.🧵
Me, a Protestant, talking to my mother, a Protestant, about the Catholics & Mary.
Mom: They worship Mary.
Me: They venerate Mary.
Mom: Hmm.
Me: You know in the OT how the Ark of the Covenant carried God’s Word, the Ten Commandments? Mary carried the Word; is she the new Ark?
385
100
2K
10
7
69
Anyone with a Bible & a calendar can disprove the Catholic apologist's claim that Marian Veneration is witnessed by Scripture and "throughout the Early Church." His "early church" testimony is late-4th century and beyond, and the Scriptural testimony does not imply veneration.🧵
If you’re not finding Marian Veneration in Scripture and throughout Early Church “witness” you’re missing more than a few chapters (how’s the Holy Spirit and Saint Gabriel the Archangel for witnesses?).
(1) Ave Maria
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (Luke 1:28).
30
64
260
10
9
69
In the ancient church, the Eucharist (thank offering) included oil, flour, wheat, berries, plumbs, corn, honey, milk, bread, wine, pomegranates, dough and other needful things because "the Eucharist of the oblation ... is collected to the bishop for the entertainment of all
As we approach Sunday I would like to remind everyone that this is NOT the Lord’s Supper as practiced by the early Church. See 1 Corinthians 11
49
5
196
22
9
71
No, we do not need more of this. They are crumbling under the millstone of secular Roman Catholic culture, and cry out, “Ave, Ave, Ave Maria!” for help.
“And [they] blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds” (Rev 16:11).
Thousands of Christians in France gathered together in a breathtaking display of faith and unity.
Who else thinks we need more of this?
The mainstream media does not want you to SHARE this!
4K
36K
144K
10
9
67
This is the predictable “a-ha”moment at which Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism inevitably arrive when they realize there is as much division within Roman Catholicism as without. Joshua Charles experienced the same thing after converting.
The rivalry between Traditional Catholics and Contemporary Catholics has always been disappointing to me as a convert. I came into the Church in 2000, as a former Evangelical having come through Anglicanism.
In every expression of Protestantism I’ve encountered in my life,
137
46
513
19
7
67
RC says rejection of Mary’s sinlessness originated with the Reformation. History says otherwise:
Jesus abjured her—Tertullian, Flesh of Christ 7
& died for her sins—Origen, Hom 17 on Lk
She doubted Christ—Basil, Ep 260
& was sinful—Hilary, Tract. in Ps 118
&
This is false: The Bible even gives evidence Mary is, in fact - without sin !
Here's reasons as to why Mary is without sin:
First, I want to tap into the Scriptural Basis
1. Luke 1:28
- The Angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee."
The
136
65
455
11
5
67
There is a 4th century inflection point at which many objectionable novelties began to flourish. Roman Catholic sources implicitly concede this, if you pay attention. The claim, "As early as the 4th century" may be roughly translated, "we wish it was apostolic, but it's not."🧵
Heard on the radio this morning:
"Evidence for this church practice exists as early as the 4th century."
Me, talking back to the radio: "The 4th century is not the early church. It's pretty far removed from the apostles."
21
5
91
6
3
67
To understand Roman Catholicism one must understand how pervasive the cult of Marian Apparitions is. It is sewn into the fabric of what it means to be "Roman Catholic." This is why I say the RC Mary is the Mary of Apparitions, not the Mary of the Bible.🧵
22
11
65
How can I read this from Justin Martyr and say the Roman Catholic Church isn't the one true Church? Let me count the ways. First, because I have read Justin Martyr. Second, because I have read Justin Martyr. BTW, William Jurgens' translation (cited here) is morbidly deceptive.🧵
How can anyone say the Catholic Church isn’t the one true church after reading this quote from Justin Martyr?
It sums up Baptism
It perfectly sums up the Eucharist
St Justin the Martyr
AD 151
First apology, 66
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to
86
138
833
5
13
65
@ISPuuuv
@PatakiCharlie
What did they think the LeftCaths were doing the entire previous pontificate? “Just wait it out and ignore him. A more earth-friendly Marxist moral-relativist will later undo all of the B16 damage.”
2
0
63
@TheocratMonarch
All I said was Catholics worship Mary. It's true. Until September 2023 the Vatican website said exactly the same thing. EWTN still has the original 1953 version: "there is nothing more sweet ... than to worship ... the Mother of God." Tolle lege.
7
3
60
11. Oh, and about that statue. If it was just a statue of Mary, the veneration paid to it might simply be idolatry—worship offered to the idol. But it's not. That's a statue of a demon masquerading as Mary, which means the veneration rendered to it is demonolatry, as I once did.
5
2
63
10. What do you call a religion whose highest ranking cleric teaches a gospel of demons, listens to demons, considers it his duty, and that of all his successors, forcibly to proclaim their messages, and to obey their commands? It's not the religion of Christ, that's for sure.
3
2
62
2. It is not a statue of Mary. It is a statue of something that claimed to be Mary in a vision to Catherine Labouré in Paris (1830). The thing appearing to Catherine said that she must have a medal struck, and those who wore it would receive graces. She even designed it for her:
3
2
60
I'm going to raise the bar a little and say 100% of Catholics don't know the origins of the Mass. Spoiler alert, fellow Protestants—once you discover how the Mass began, not only will you gleefully offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, but you'll also wish Catholics knew about it.🧵
90% of Catholics Cannot answer the question: Why do we go to Mass
Priest's Powerful Message To All Catholics! This Will Change Your Life!
0
1
2
20
7
60
A common attribute of Roman Catholicism is to demote the Word of God as the instrument of regeneration and replace it with a work of men. Baptism is no exception, and I unashamedly insist that the ancient writers did not affirm baptismal regeneration. Laugh all you like.🧵
@whpub
The bible
Ch 61 and 66 of Justin's apology
Theophilus of Antioch in To Autolycus (Ch 16)
Irenaeus Against Heresies explicitly Book 1 ch 21, also in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching Paragraph 3
Clement of Alexandria to Paedagogus book 1 chapter 6
1
1
10
22
6
59
Tell me more about authority, please. Popes Eleutherius (174 – 189 AD), Victor (189 – 199 AD), Zephyrinus (199 – 218 AD), Callistus (218 -223 AD) and Stephen (254-257 AD) were all accused of maintaining and advancing error, division and heresy.
Christianity could survive without a Bible (It did 400 years, while being persecuted & martyred), it could not survive without a church.
All you need to know about the topic of authority.
112
65
700
9
1
57
5. OT sacrifices didn't take away sins. "But this man ... offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:11-12). But the visions say "make sacrifices...many souls go to hell because there are none to sacrifice themselves & to pray for them" (p 93). That points away from Christ.
4
2
58
To the Roman Catholics who are shocked, shocked! to discover that Roman Catholicism alleges that Joseph lived a sinless life, meet your Magisterium, which alleges that Joseph led a sinless life, using arguments similar to those used to support Mary's Immaculate Conception.🧵
25
10
56
The Roman Catholic says Theotokos just means God-bearer (I agree), and that nobody claims Mary "generated" God.
John Cassian (AD 430): "then she who bore God is Theotocos, i.e., Dei Genitrix." (On the Incarnation Book II.5 (Migne, PL 50, col 43).
This is precisely why I
1 Theotokos means “God-Bearer” and 2) nobody is claiming that Mary “generated” God
1
0
1
8
6
58
Here is typical Roman Catholic argument for Mary's perpetual virginity, in which a precocious young Mary knows very well where babies come from, yet even as she is betrothed still wonders how she will conceive. See? She must have already taken a vow of perpetual virginity.🧵
@MatthewShe39543
@whpub
Catholics don’t add or take away from scripture. Mary asks the angels how this can be, she has not known man. This shows she was concerned for her virginity. After all, she was legally married, a few months away from moving in his home. She knows how babies get conceived.
2
0
2
7
7
57
An interesting example of a Roman Catholic confidently expressing his private interpretation of Scripture even as he confesses that he does not know what his Church teaches. Even the Pope acknowledges that the "good thief" died under the New Covenant and is a model believer.🧵
Protestant accounts keep posting about the good thief as a proof against either (a) faith and works or (b) the sacraments.
But the thief dies under the Old Testament, yes?
When he died, he didn’t go to heaven but Abraham’s Bosom with Christ.
Also, things that hadn’t happened
104
56
613
10
3
55
Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Hilary, Chrysostom & Athanasius thought Mary was sinful based on Scripture. “Between Nicaea and Ephesus... where the literature touches the sanctity of Mary, it ...borders on discourtesy.” — Juniper Carol (RC Mariologist). Get angry at them, not me.
9
10
56
In these trying times, it is easy to be distracted by the cares of this world and forget the important things: like, that nobody thought Peter was the first bishop of Rome until ... the late 4th century! Fortunately😇, I'm here to help everyone stay focused on what matters.🧵
3
7
56
The early writers taught me that Mary lost her physical virginity in childbirth due to the painful delivery she and Christ experienced, thus compromising her virginal integrity in partu, and thus that the doctrine of her "perpetual" virginity is an impossible novelty.
4
10
55
The below is a Catholic response to my insistence that bind/loose be interpreted thru Isaiah 61 & Ezekiel 34 rather than rabbinical legal theory. Asking a Protestant to "Now do The Canon" is intended (so far as I can tell) to cut Protestant epistemology off at the knees. Ok.🧵
13
8
51
8. I have maintained and maintain now that those apparitions were demonic, not "pointing us to Christ," but viciously pointing us away from Him. I regret the years I spent on my knees praying to that demon and offering my own suffering as reparation to "her," as "Mary" requested.
3
1
54
@SimonSays_blog
Can we agree, then, that the scriptures do not describe David’s mother as “Queen”?
4
0
53
This is why I say the Roman Catholic's claim to be "deep in history" is a substitute for actually being deep in history. Sardica (342 AD) affirmed the limited jurisdiction of Roman Bishop, but not his primacy. Primacy did not even enter the collective mind of the council.🧵
@faithwillsaveu
@RyanWycuff
Also, St. Athanasius took part in the Council of Sardica, which directly re-affirmed the Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome/Pope:
"Canon 4: if a bishop is sentenced with deposition in a case by a verdict "of those bishops who have sees in
1
1
3
11
11
55
I believe they saw the Fátima miracle. I just don’t think it was Mary.
What's interesting is how Orthodox and Protestants act like Atheists.
When 500 people see the resurrected Jesus.
"There's no way they would all lie!"
When 100000 people see the Our Lady of Fatima miracle.
"It was a hallucination! A fraud! Lies! Lies! Lies!"
89
56
655
6
1
52
3. But do the visions of Mary really point us to Christ? No, they most certainly do not! Here I will be using the eye-witness account of Lucia, the chief visionary of the apparitions of Mary at Fatima (1917) from her book: Fatima In Lucia's Own Words (Free link provided at end).
3
1
52
As is typical, when asked to provide evidence from the ancient church, the Roman Catholic provides late 4th century data, or "earlier" data that is known to be erroneous. Maggie brings forward Hippolytus, Gregory, Athanasius, Cyril and Ambrose. Let's take a look.🧵
@Dejmien23
@whpub
early church
St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth,
2
1
3
3
3
53
Basil: "...virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation ... her subsequent virginity had no great importance in regard to the mystery of the Incarnation.” Homilia in Sanctam Christi Generationem 5
So, no.
Any protestant who believes Mary had other children is believing something that was deemed heretical in the early Church.
Helvidianism is a theological doctrine named after the Roman jurist, Marcus Antistius Labeo, who was also known as Helvidius Priscus.
Helvidianism was a
274
85
905
7
5
52
In response to my observation that the ancient "evidence" for Mary's sinlessness is so sketchy, a Roman Catholic rushes in where scholars fear to tread, validating my observation by providing even more sketchy "evidence" of Mary's sinlessness with "two famous Church fathers."🧵
@whpub
@peace_got
Here are two famous Church fathers speaking about the fact that Mary is Sinless
2nd Century:
4
2
29
8
7
53
@AllSouls00
If bishops, then successors to the apostles. If successors, then bearers of the traditions of the apostles. Thus, Mary’s sinfulness is an infallible oral apostolic tradition. (Wow, I guess I am becoming Catholic!)
Just kidding. They concluded from the scriptural testimony that
3
1
51
6. The visions also replace Christ, as if He was angry at sin and Mary suffers for it. E.g., LaSalette (1917) "This is what causes the weight of my Son’s arm to be so crushing...How long I have suffered for you!" and Medjugorje (1981+): "I am a Mediatress between you and God."
4
2
52
7. Jesus glorified His Father: "I honour my Father ... I seek not mine own glory" (Jn 8:49-50). The apparitions seek their own glory: "Jesus wishes to make use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart" (p 177).
3
1
51
11. For some reason (an obvious reason), Roman Catholicism is all in on those visions & has bought into them hook, line and sinker. In fact, they consider the apparitions of Mary to be Roman Catholicism's divine seal of approval. Don't be fooled. "Mary" can't do what it claims.
3
0
48
When asked for an infallible canon of Scripture prior to Trent (1546), Roman Catholics confidently fall back on Florence (1442), completely unaware that Florence "did not formally pass on their canonicity" (Catholic Encyclopedia). The Archbishop of Florence can help us here.🧵
@gaithelos45
@_Felicitas12
That’s a common misperception. Even after the council, the archbishop of Florence—who was instrumental in conducting, and concluding, the council—still did not consider the apocrypha as part of the canon. If you study further, you’ll find Florence did not address *canonicity*.
1
0
5
10
11
51
@RussNRoses
Dennis, will you join me in proclaiming Stephen’s immaculate conception? He was “full of grace,” too, and the Bible never says he sinned. Don’t you agree that it was “fitting” for the first martyr be immaculate? Since it’s “logical”?
"Full of Grace" (gratia plena Lk 1:28)) isn't "uniquely titular". In the Vulgate—the official RC Bible—Christ is called "full of grace" (plenum gratiae Jn 1:14) while Stephen is called "full of grace" (plenus gratiam Acts 6:8). Stephen's "title" is more like Christ's than Mary's.
2
2
31
4
4
51
Brian's infallible authority—Popes Pius IX, X, XII & Leo XIII all took Gen 3:15 as "unmistakable evidence that she crushed the serpent's head." Only for JPII to admit that it's not: "Exegetes now agree [it] does not attribute action against the serpent directly to the woman."
How do I know Genesis 3:15 is a reference to Mary?
Because I have an Infallible Authority to interpret Scripture that has interpreted it:
⁃1 Timothy 3:15 “Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.”
⁃Matt 10:40 “who receives you received me, and receives
33
32
236
7
6
49
Interesting interaction with a Roman Catholic. I don’t mind the insults. It’s the double standard that bothers me. This is fundamentally about epistemology. When hers was challenged, she went ad hominem on me. I simply produced known facts that a) a provincial synod is not
@whpub
@TheosophicalW
@RobertWeidner11
@JoelWBerry
What a twisting of what I said. Such a slimy thing to do. And you know exactly what you’re doing.
I pray the scales fall from your eyes and you can see the fullness of truth. Pax.
2
0
0
9
5
49
Gabe is asking the right questions. When did "the Church" start incorporating priestly vestments into the liturgy? Predictably, reverting to Old Testament liturgical vestments occurred when the Eucharistic oblation reverted to an Old Testament sin offering: late 4th century.🧵
Wait, so let me get this straight...
Do RCs believe the apostles wore vestments, not their casual clothes, when they baptized 3,000 people in Acts 2? Or when Peter baptized the house of Cornelius in Acts 10? Or Paul baptized the house of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16?
60
4
127
8
6
49
13. The list goes on, and on. From the papal throne in Vatican city to the back pew in the local parish, the Roman Catholic—whether he knows it or not—stands ever ready to do the bidding of the Apparitions of Mary. That is not a religion of Christ. It is a religion of demons.
3
4
48
Please show me an infallible pre-Tridentine canon that included the deuterocanon. Take all the time you need. Rome (AD 382) was a provincial council, which according to the Catholic Encyclopedia is “not competent to deal directly with matters of faith, by defining or condemning.”
@whpub
@peace_got
@RussellThen
@CatholicWarrio2
Please show me a pre reformation bible that does not include the dutrocanon. I’ll wait
3
0
10
15
2
43
Here a Roman Catholic claims there is a Biblical tradition of the politically powerful office of "Queen Mother" of the Davidic Dynasty. The technical term is Gebirah. Thus, Mary is said to be the Gebirah, making intercession to the King. That is a myth. 🧵
@Kris03719679
@marcjune23
You're the one who is wholly dependent on Scripture Alone. That is your challenge, not mine. Besides, if Jesus is the King, Mary is Queen Mother, and in the Davidic Dyansty, the Queen Mother is "The Queen" making intercession to the King, who honors her requests.
WANNA SEE?! 😃
13
0
1
7
7
46
@Fignys1
I am a saint. (Col 1:12)
My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19)
Jesus is born in me. (Gal 4:19)
Therefore this temple that birthed Jesus is not sullied by material desires & carnal urges.
Which is why, last month, I decided to announce my immaculacy publicly.
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
36
22
243
1
2
46
9. Jesus' suffering ended the need for reparation! "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). Those apparitions are wicked demons of the worst kind, and would deceive even the elect if it were possible.
3
0
46
Here is a typical Roman Catholic attempt to read into the Scriptures what they do not say. Namely, that Jesus "gave Mary to John" at the cross, because He was an only child, and "if Mary had other children, they certainly would have cared for her at that time and place."🧵
@RC_UTSA
@peace_got
@whpub
@pathforward327
@Burgess7281975
@Cording_Guy
If you are right, Paladin, explain why Christ gave Mary to John as he was dying on the cross. If Mary had other children, they certainly would have cared for her at that time and place. Christ was giving her to the whole world as it Mother.
3
0
9
23
1
46
5. This vision, and others like it, magnify Mary of above God, as in LaSalette (1846): "I gave you six days for working. The seventh I have reserved for myself," and La Laus (1664): "the priest can make God come down from Heaven ... but has no commands to give the Mother of God!"
2
2
47
Here’s an example of how a Roman Catholic’s confidence becomes a substitute for knowledge. Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Basil & Athanasius all read John 6 figuratively. Yet
@CatholicASAP
insists the literal reading of “eat my flesh” was universal until the Reformation.
@JamesWashngton
@urokwme
@jordanbpeterson
And again the entire witness of the church for 1500 years disagrees with you. To believe this you must believe the entire Christian church was wrong for 1500 years and you somehow got it right.
3
0
2
19
3
46
Here is great illustration of a Roman Catholic finding something "explicitly" in Scripture that just isn't there. Mary is not the Davidic Queen Mother, Matthew does not introduce her as such, Elizabeth did not give her a title, and Mary is not the Woman of Revelation 12. 🧵
Is the Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven and Earth? Yes!
Is it in scripture? Yes!
First of all, as we all know, Jesus was part of the Davidic line. He was a direct descendant of King David himself. That being said, within the Davidic kingdom, it was the mother to the king who
69
41
376
2
6
46
24. So here is "Infallibility" in a nutshell: The Ordinary Magisterium is theoretically infallible but no one even knows what's in it. The Extraordinary Magisterium has provided neither an infallible list of Ecumenical Councils nor such a list of ex cathedra papal statements.
2
1
41
6. The Bible shows Jesus suffering for our sins with "a crown of thorns" (Jn 19:2). The visions show Mary doing that: "[In] Our Lady’s right hand was a heart encircled by thorns...the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by the sins of humanity, and seeking reparation" (p 177).
3
0
45
Here the Roman Catholic thinks it impossible to take John 6:53 except in the literal medieval sense of eating transubstantial flesh & blood. But the early Church didn't embrace a medieval view. Early writers took the preached Word to be the meal & bread to be the figure for it.🧵
@whpub
If you truly believe you are "close" to the Apostles, how are you going to reconcile John 6:53 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
2
0
1
12
3
44
@Magister_Mondo
Great, I’m dumb. Now can you provide reliable, unforged, unredacted, nonspurious evidence of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant that predates 350 AD?
6
2
44
3. Catherine recalled: "At this moment...an oval shape formed around the Blessed Virgin, and on it were written these words in letters of gold: ‘O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.’" You can see them around the oval, above, as Catherine described.
2
2
45
Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Smyrnæans, AD 107) states something profound about the ancient Eucharistic liturgy, something Roman Catholics use as a throwaway line, thinking it is a "Protestant killer" in debates. But the RC misuse of Ignatius is easily rebutted.🧵
@whpub
@ReformedToRome
We know from St. Ignatius of Antioch how the Eucharist was viewed around the late 1st century.
1
0
0
5
3
45
@AndrewL00383235
Thank you for your personal opinion on which councils were ecumenical. Since the Magisterium has been unable to provide this list to you with infallible certainty, what is the source of your confidence that you have the correct and complete list?
6
2
44