Tim Kauffman

@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.

@ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 @Cee10William Did Cyprian write “on both sides of death” in that paragraph?

Read his argument saying it wasn’t referencing those in heaven vs what it says: “that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy”

@ReformedToRome @Cee10William @ChristySimm23 Hey, RTR, what is the Latin word Cyprian used for “death” in your citation below? Or did someone just edit it into the original to make it support your position?

@Cee10William @whpub @ChristySimm23 Not that Timmy here would *ever* edit out the end of the section he cited ;)

In typical fashion, @ReformedtoRome attempts to rebut @ChristySimm23 by establishing prayers to saints and angels from antiquity (without citations), none of which hit the target. Keep in mind, Christy's objection was to "invoking the saints" in prayer to ask them to pray for us. None of RTR's claims overturn her observation that praying TO SAINTS came centuries after the apostles. What she said is true. CLAIM 1: Lot prays to an angel for intercession In Genesis 19:2, Lot says "Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house." Yes, they were angels, yes he "prayed" to them. They had presented themselves as humans, and Lot interacts with them as human visitors. In the same context, Lot "prays" to sodomites just a few verses later, "I pray you, brethren" (Gen 19:7). Lot was talking to men and angels, but it is ridiculous to apply the passage as evidence of "praying to angels." Does Lot therefore provide ancient evidence of praying to sodomites? 🤣 CLAIM 2: Paul prayed to other believer for intercession "Brethren, pray for us." (1 Th 5:25). Not exactly praying to the departed and to angels, but ok. CLAIM 3 :Jews already held to intercession of those in heaven Perhaps RTR speaks of Tobit 12:12-15 which has the angel Raphael presenting prayers to God and being sent to Tobit and Sarah to answer their prayers. Nothing objectionable here, as angels offering prayers of the saints (Rev 8:4) and angels being sent to answer prayers (Dan 9) is Scriptural. Importantly, however, while Tobit 12 has Raphael saying he brought their prayers before the Lord, neither Tobit nor Sarah had prayed TO RAPHAEL. Here are their prayers TO GOD that Raphael was sent to answer: Tobit: "You are righteous, Lord, and all your deeds are just..." (Tobit 3:2) Sarah: "Blessed are you, merciful God! Blessed be your holy and honorable name forever!" (Tobit 3:11) There was no prayer to Raphael. The prayer was to God alone. CLAIM 4: Hermas was said to have sought and received intercession from an angel No. In Book 3, Similitude 5, chapter 4 of the Shepherd of Hermas, he did not "seek" intercession from an Angel. Hermas received intercession from an angel who strengthened him (just as Elijah received "intercession" from a raven (1 Kings 17:6)). Neither Hermas nor Elijah (in these examples) had 'sought' such intercession. Hermas had not prayed to the angel, and Elijah had not prayed to the raven. 🤣 Notable in Similitude 5 all actual prayers are addressed SOLELY to God: "Every one who is the servant of God, and has his Lord in his heart, asks of Him understanding, and receives it." "Those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord." "the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him." "having been strengthened by the holy Angel ... why do not you ask of the Lord understanding"? "if I were to see or hear these things without you, I would then ask the Lord to explain them." (Similitude 5). None of these are "prayers" to an angel, and the "intercession" described is God sending an angel to help, but not someone praying to an angel to come help him. CLAIM 5: Origen noted you receive angelic intercession via prayer as you pray RTR refers to Against Celsus Book 5, paragraphs 4-5, proposing this as if it were some profound insight from Origen on the ancient Church's knowledge of angels, as if Christians did not already know from the Scriptures that they are ministering spirits sent forth to minister to us (Hebrews 1:14), a verse that Origen cites in that section. But Origen's conclusion based on his Scriptural knowledge of angels is that we are therefore not permitted to pray to anyone else but to God alone: "Then this knowledge, making known to us their [angels'] nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things" (Against Celsus 5.5). CLAIM 6: Cyprian agrees with John that we continue to intercede on our behalf in heaven RTR is referring here to Epistle 56 in which Cyprian is alleged to have said, "Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another." Cyprian uses two terms for the death of the saints in his writings—dormition, or “falling asleep” for saints who die of typical means, and gloriosae mortis, or “glorious death” for martyrs. If you wonder which word he used here for "of death", you'll be sorely disappointed: he does not use any word for "death" at all. The edited citation from Cyprian is a typical Roman Catholic ruse, inserting the words "of death" to create the impression that Cyprian believed saints prayed for each other on both sides of death. In reality, Cyprian's use of "both sides" is always in reference to two parties or two opposing thoughts, as in "the divine Scriptures being brought forward on both sides, we balanced the decision" (Epistle 51.6). In Epistle 56, Cyprian is writing to the congregation in Rome, saying the congregations "on both sides" (in Rome and in Carthage) "should not cease to be instant with all the people in fastings, in watchings, in prayers ... with constant groanings and frequent prayers." Why? So if anyone dies, the prayers of the brethren will go on on earth, and "our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy." As Cyprian elsewhere writes, all our prayers ON EARTH are made in the presence of the Father: the Lord has bidden us to pray in secret .... that we may know that God is everywhere present" (Treatise, On the Lord's Prayer, 4) It's a request that the churches "on both sides" (Rome and Carthage) never cease to be in continual pray for each other in the presence of the Father. It is not a teaching that prayers of the saints continue "on both sides [of death]"! 🤣 CLAIM 7: [invoking the saints] was also part of early Christian liturgy Well, mentioning the departed saints was part of the ancient liturgy, but invoking them to pray for them and seek their prayers was not. The Martrydom of Polycarp mentions gathering "in memory of those who have already finished their course" (ch 18), and Cyprian refers to mentioning the names of the dead in the liturgy by way of remembrance, but not in terms of offering prayers to them or invoking their intercession on our behalf (Epistle 33). In sum, all 7 claims fail to address Christy's objection, and some of them even support her position: that we should pray to God alone. RTR may have other evidence to bring forward, but none of the seven above answer the mail.

@Cee10William @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 Where does he affirm intercession of the saints?

@whpub @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 St. Cyprian was a Latin Catholic Bishop, nothing remotely close to an Evangelical Reformed Baptist. Anyway, he clearly believed in the intercession of the Saints.

@GentJim_US @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 You said, The real debate is not whether we “pray to saints as gods.” That’s not the point I addressed in the OP.

Let’s me continue since you asked and since you never in all your work actually touched upon what the Church actually teaches. Why you’re failing to address the “dulia” or “latria” distinction matters and why it was the heart of the critique. Catholic teaching has always been crystal clear: latria (worship) belongs to God alone. What we offer the saints is dulia; the honor and request for intercession that is fitting for creatures who are now perfected in Christ. We ask them to pray for us, just as we ask living Christians on earth to do the same (2 Thess 2:15; Jas 5:16; Rev 5:8, 8:3-4). The real debate is not whether we “pray to saints as gods.” No Catholic has ever taught that. The debate is whether the communion of saints in heaven is real and active, and whether Scripture and the Fathers support asking those in glory to join their prayers to ours. The evidence says yes: the great cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1), the elders presenting the prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8), the angel offering the prayers of the saints before God (Rev 8:3-4), and the consistent patristic witness from the Shepherd of Hermas, Origen, Cyprian, and the early liturgy all point to a living communion where the saints intercede. You don’t have to agree with the Catholic conclusion. But to be taken seriously in this debate, you must engage what we actually teach instead of repeatedly framing it as creature-worship. Serious scholarship steel-mans the opposing view first. That’s what elevates the dialogue. What your post did was pretend scholarship while starting with a straw man. That’s not the work of an honest and faithful contender for the faith. The Church has nothing to fear from honest examination of her teaching on the saints and it flows directly from the Incarnation and the victory of Christ over death. Deo Gratias #ByTheirFruits #CatholicTwitter #Catholic #Apologetics #Faith

@GentJim_US @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 I feel like we’re talking about different things. My original post said absolutely nothing about dulia vs. latria. Why do you say that was the heart of the critique?

Your latest reply actually provides another example of the very logical fallacy you deny: a classic motte-and-bailey / procedural dodge. Your reply narrows the target to a single phrase (“equate… with direct worship of creatures”) in order to deny the strawman, while the original post repeatedly framed Catholic invocation as “praying TO SAINTS” and treated the practice itself as a late, unbiblical development. This avoids engaging the actual distinction (dulia vs. latria) that was the heart of the critique. Do better and elevate the dialogue. Using logical fallacies isn’t a good look. Matthew 12:37-38 reminds us we are accountable for our words, and when you consistently misrepresent and offer false narratives it destroys not that which you disagree with but yourself. I pray that you start operating in charity and truth. You are not required to agree with our positions, but you are required to operate in charity and truth. Do not misrepresent your opponents. Hear what they actually believe and ensure you are not using disingenuous methods to win an argument that doesn’t even represent what we believe. Or don’t. My advice is that you invite Christ into every conversation and ensure it’s His voice you are aligned to, not your personal hangups. Deo Gratias

@cyntiajr once informed me that "EVERY INFALLIBLE STATEMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS IMMEDIATELY PUT IN THE CATECHISM AND CANON LAW." Catechism of the Council of Trent: “according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.” (Article 3). The teaching of the Roman Catechism, compiled on the authority of the Council of Trent, was that we sinful humans are only ensouled at some finite point after conception, while Jesus Himself was immediately ensouled at conception. Delayed ensoulment has since been rejected as error, and the Catholic Church currently teaches that human life and ensoulment begin at the moment of conception. So, was the Catechism of the Council of Trent infallible when it taught delayed ensoulment? Or is the current teaching of the church fallible when it denies delayed ensoulment? Or perhaps @cyntiajr is wrong to say every infallible statement is immediately put in the catechism (while failing to acknowledge that some fallible statements immediately put in there, too). Or maybe he now acknowledges that not every statement in the catechism is infallible, and (in his kindness) will tell us which ones are the infallible ones.

@YeFutureSaint @whpub @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 People who don't know Catholicism are going to run into this wall every time. People like @whpub know more about anti-Catholic cliche than real Catholic theology. Zero of them have any real education in Catholic theology

@Aquinas5621 @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 Love you back.

@whpub @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 You're a liar and a fool.

@GentJim_US @ReformedToRome @ChristySimm23 Where in my post did I equate Catholic invocation of saints (“ask them to pray for us”) with direct worship of creatures? I made no such allegation.

And as usual your post demonstrates building a strawman by equating Catholic invocation of saints (“ask them to pray for us”) with direct worship of creatures. Guilt by association/overgeneralization takes specific interpretive disputes and presents them as decisive proof that the practice is absent from antiquity. It also deploys appeal to ridicule, using sarcasm and laughing emojis to dismiss the Catholic position rather than refute it on its own terms. And tops it off with false equivalence, treating Protestant private judgment of the Fathers as the neutral standard while ignoring the living Magisterium that preserved those same texts. These tactics are fairly standard for this account. If you want to ever be taken seriously then you should actually attempt to steel-man your arguments. Here’s an example of an actual argumentative essay that first takes a deep dive into the Protestant position then exposes its flaws systematically: x.com/gentjim_us/sta… Until then you just haven’t done your due diligence. And your account is fundamentally unserious. Deo Gratias #ByTheirFruits #CatholicTwitter #Catholic #Apologetics #Faith

An interesting question. When Lot sees them at the city gates, they have not identified themselves. He interprets them as travelers in need of food and shelter. They decline his invitation and insist that they'll be fine in the street, but he presses them and they give in (Gen 19:1-4). But they have not yet identified themselves or their mission. His actions are that of a host. His "prayer" is not evidence of praying to angels for intercession. Only in verse 13 do they identify themselves and their mission: "we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it" (Gen 19:13). Only after he learns of their power, and their mission from God, does Lot ask for a favor, and again, they grant it. But at this point, it's a guy talking to two individuals who have come to rescue him and give a warning, and so he explores the limits and bounds of their mission. He's having a conversation with them. He presses them for something and again they say yes. Is this "prayer to angels" or is it ancient evidence of God's people praying to angels? Or perhaps it is ancient evidence of angels being given a mission from God and knowing in advance the limits and the latitude of their mission? When Daniel prayed to God for understanding, God sent an angel, and any further questions from Daniel were addressed to the angel. It this evidence of "prayer to angels"? Daniel was without strength and told the angel he could not go on. The angel strengthened him. Is this evidence of "praying to angels" and angels answering prayers or is it evidence that Daniel understood that he was having a conversation with someone powerful? At the end of the conversation, Daniel has one more question: "O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?" (12:8). Is this evidence of prayer to angels, or is it evidence of Daniel having a conversation with someone clearly sent to instruct him with information? The request is denied (12:8). Is this evidence of an angel refusing to answer prayers, or is it evidence that the angel knew very well the limits and bounds of his mission, and not stepping outside of them? If we use these as evidence of "prayer to angels," would we not also have to acknowledge that Jesus "prayed" to Legion when He asked, "What is thy name?" and Legion answered Jesus' "prayer"? Or God prayed to Job, saying, "Who laid the foundations of the earth?" or to Adam when He asked, "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" or to Cain when He asked, "Why is thy countenance fallen?" Or that the Lord prayed to angels when he said, "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?", and an angel answered God's "prayer," saying "I will persuade him"? (1 Kings 22:20-21). At some point we have to accept that personalities in the Scriptures have conversations, and those conversations are descriptive, but hardly prescriptive instructions on to whom we should address ourselves when we seek the Lord's help.

@ChristySimm23 @whpub @ReformedToRome I am actually doing a more limited analysis for my purposes of the Lot incident. Lot was miraculously brought out of a city by strangers. He then asks for more. Is this prayer to God (maybe), or a request to someone demonstrated to be capable (maybe), or a prayer to angels?

@trad_layman You just won free tuition to attend infallibility school. x.com/whpub/status/1…

@whpub There’s so much wrong with this run-on sentence but it just boils down to you not understanding what papal infallibility is

In Roman Catholicism, you can use your fallible private interpretation to argue for why an ecumenical council was not ecumenical, why a formal excommunication was not valid, why an official canonization was not legitimate, why a papal statement was not really ex cathedra, why an unpublished papal decree can supersede a published papal statement or council, why a regional provincial council counts as ecumenical, why an apparition of Mary can add to the deposit of faith and help us understand apostolic tradition, why an infallible statement can be immoral but still infallibly true, why an ancient tradition is invalid while a late breaking tradition is apostolic, and why losing track of an oral apostolic tradition is proof of apostolicity. All while claiming to submit unreservedly to the magisterium.🤣😂

@MiscreaRichard I feel condemned and criticized.

@whpub Tim? What kind of theology is it, the entire purpose of which is condemning and criticizing others? I'm not sure of the answer, but it isn't from Christ.

This man could earn a Ph.D. in missing the point. The examples I provided were Catholics appealing to non-magisterial and extra-magisterial authorities in order to “fully submit to the magisterium” of their imagination. To argue, for example, that an unpublished draft a 1938 papal document corrects the formal infallible promulgation of a decree of a later Ecumenical council is an implicit rejection of the authority of that Ecumenical council, an acknowledgement of an extramagisterial authority. Have I really submitted to the authority of the Constitution if I reject it on the authority of an unpublished draft of the Articles of Confederation? Have I really submitted to the Magisterium if I reject its decisions based on my private interpretation of what the Magisterium ought to have done instead? If I decide for myself that such and such papal statement was not ex cathedra, it is not a material confession of the authority of that papal statement—it’s a rejection of its authority.

@Sacramentshow If the magisterium is the final authority, why do sincere Catholics reach opposite conclusions from the same magisterial pronouncements while all claiming the Holy Spirit guided them?

Serious question If the Bible alone is the final authority, why do sincere Christians reach opposite conclusions from the same text while all claiming the Holy Spirit guided them?

@kwsargent @GryphiusEitel @F3_Haskell But why should I follow the pope, a mere man?

@GryphiusEitel @F3_Haskell @whpub Men are fallen, we agree. So why follow Luther? Don't you know his history? King Henry? Calvin? Knox? Why follow such men? All while you have faith in Scripture, the Trinity, dual natures, etc., due to Christ's Church, which you reject. Prayed at Mass today for your conversion.

@AN1Guitarman What did I say that is untrue?

Hey man no hate here, I just hate what you’re doing. These are outright demountable lies, and you’ve received direct correction and have instead doubled down with special pleading. It’s outright blatant dishonesty. You should stop if you want to even consider yourself a Christian.

This is a hilarious AI response, considering that there is plenty of evidence in support of every allegation in my OP. Here's a thread you can tug on when a Roman Catholic denies the obvious: that each Catholic's understanding of the Magisterium relies on his fallible attempts to interpet it.🧵

@joshbing @HwsEleutheroi Here you go.

@whpub @HwsEleutheroi I’d love to see details and explanation of each of your statements