Answering chalcedon451, of All Along the Watchtower, on the Church of Rome

 


Luke 10:21

NASB

At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.”


1 Timothy 3

14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 


.4. We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head – it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed there could be no salvation.

Waldenses Confession of 1544


chalcedon451, all that I know about you is that you are a convert to Catholicism, a father, and that you write about the early Church. I’m a former Catholic who after being raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools came to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and faith in 1979.

A few weeks ago I wrote in a comment at your blog, All Along the Watchtower, that Jesus did not found the Church of Rome. You replied that this was merely an assertion without proof. Below is a link to the post where our discussion happened, followed by some comments for context, and after these I’ve given reasons for my assertion. As a scholar you’ve heard these before, but contending for the faith is worth the best effort of every Christian. My desire is to warn God’s sheep, protecting them from harm. (Hopefully too, please, our discussion doesn’t have to be continued.)

The Miracle at Fatima: the centenary

chalcedon451: “Jesus did not leave us without a guide. He founded a Church that is with us still. Do you believe he founded a Church, Maria?”

Maria, a gentle iconoclast: “The Lord gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us. Yes, He built His Church and it is still with us. It is not the Church of Rome.”

chalcedon451: “Maria, I think such a statement requires an argument with some evidence, otherwise it remains an assertion without any evidence.”

Maria, a gentle iconoclast: “I agree with you and will attempt to give a reason for the hope that is in me at my own blog.”

This what I believe: It is impossible for the Church of Rome to be “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:1). The Word of God, Rome’s fruits, and history disprove her claim to be the Church founded by Jesus.

To begin, Rome believes and promotes deceptions such as the Fatima Apparitions. I say this upfront because we began this discussion on your post about the Centenary of the apparitions. The Apparitions often contradict the Bible and glorify Mary.

Words spoken by Mary at Fatima

“Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners?”

Jesus wants to use you to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish the devotion to My Immaculate Heart throughout the world. I promise salvation to whoever embraces it; these souls will be dear to God, like flowers put by Me to adorn his throne.”

“No, my daughter. Are you suffering a great deal? Don’t lose heart. I will never forsake you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.”

Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

Theotokos Catholic Books: Fatima Books and Information: Nine Major Approved Apparitions

But the chief reason that I and many other Christians believe that Rome is not the Church Jesus founded is that Rome does not preach the Gospel. For, though she seems to offer Christ, it is the Christ of the Eucharist not of the Bible, and in this way she actually keeps people from coming to the Lord. Additionally, Rome’s focus on “mystery” acts as a smokescreen under which errors are brought forward. Here are errors Rome teaches.

Transubstantiation. Among the many problems with this doctrine is that Jesus Christ – the Son of God, God in the flesh – has a human body, and although it is a glorified body it cannot be in multiple places simultaneously. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is Omnipresent for He is Spirit, but Jesus cannot be at the same time at the right hand of the Father, waiting until His enemies be made His footstool (Hebrews 10:12-14), and present on every Catholic altar in the world. You will say, But this is a Mystery, Maria, but I must answer that the Lord Who is the Truth desires truth in our innermost being (Psalm 51:6). chalcedon451, you realize, don’t you, that men and women have been killed for refusing to worship “the Host”? 

Rome’s teachings about Mary, Jesus’ Mother, aren’t Biblical. For example, Divine titles have been given to her, such as, Mediatrix of all graces (Mediator), Conciliatrix (Conciliator, Counselor), Co-Redemptorix (Co-Redeemer), Advocate, Helper. Also, to encourage Catholics to come to the Lord through her because she is His mother (and therefore more approachable) contradicts and undermines:

The Lord’s testimony that He is “the only way to the Father” (John 14:6),

Paul’s teaching that Jesus is “the only Mediator between God and man” (1 Timothy 2:5), 

And, the true comfort found in the Lord’s promise to sinners recorded in Matthew 11:

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

We do not need a mediator to bring us to Him.

The dogma of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”:

In the constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Society of Saint Pius X

But Mary the mother of Jesus testified to her own need for a Savior: 

Luke 1:47

“And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Since Jesus died for sins, “once for all,” why would further sacrifice be needed? I realize that Rome claims that the Mass is in reality the same sacrifice, but if so then still why would it be needed? Here is Rome’s answer, with an important admission upfront:

“It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say, with greater certainty by means of the Old Testament than by means of the New. . .

“. . .Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.”

New Advent

Also, among the many difficulties with the Mass are the teachings that it is an “unbloody sacrifice,” which contradicts the truth that “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22); and, that it actually deals with sin (is expiatory) beyond what the Lord did “once for all” on the Cross, contradicting His declaration from the Cross,

John 19

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Rome believes and teaches that “The Sacrifice of the Mass” was not only instituted on the night before He died, but that Christ’s sacrifice of Himself began then (“the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice”), and that not only was it a true  and real sacrifice but that “the ‘shedding of blood’ spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross,” that,

“. . .Christ, therefore, at the Last Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’ (Luke 32:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).”

New Advent

This view contradicts the Epistle to the Hebrews:

Chapter 9:15-17

 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

These verses prove that the New Testament in His blood could never have been inaugurated on the night before He died, because He had not died yet.

Rome’s teachings about the Sacrifice of the Mass also contradict Hebrews 9: 

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

One death, one sacrifice, was all that was needed, chalcedon451! 

The Temple sacrifices (God-ordained sacrifices) ended with Christ’s atoning death for sins. The Temple was then destroyed. Why is Rome continuing to sacrifice? Rome and pagans continue to sacrifice.

The priesthood. Here is the testimony of Hebrews 7 about the Lord, our great High Priest, Who holds His priesthood eternally in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood (human priesthood), followed by John’s statement in Revelation 1 about Christians being a kingdom of priests, that is, that Christ’s kingdom is comprised of priests (“the priesthood of all believers”).

23 The former priests [Aaron and his descendants], on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

(Please notice that it is the Lord Jesus Christ Who “always lives to make intercession” for us, not Mary.)

Revelation 1

4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen

We need no other priest than Jesus Christ! chalcedon451, God’s Word is clear. You believe you need a priesthood because you believe that you must continue to offer sacrifice, when:

Psalm 51:17

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

And when, the “pure oblation” of Malachi 1 is not the Sacrifice of the Mass, as Rome claims:

10 “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. 11 For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts

As a kingdom of priests, Christians offer the incense of prayer and thanksgiving, not the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. I’m not a scholar but know that the origin of the word “eucharist” has to do with feeling and being joyful and thankful. I’m not going to convince you, I know, if the wisdom of Christians through the ages can’t convince you that we need no priest to mediate for us with God, only Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself “once for all.”

Rome teaches that we are justified by Baptism. We are justified by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:4-10

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Rome’s teaching on Baptism: 

1227 . . .Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1266 . . .The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”81 “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”82

The Catechism of The Catholic Church, The Sacrament of Baptism

Under the headship of “Peter”, the history of the Papacy is one of scandal, treachery, and immorality. For example, contrary to the teaching of God’s Word, Rome insists that the great majority of her clergy be celibate, when marriage is the God-ordained remedy for sexual immorality.

1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 

The Office of the Papacy robs God of His glory by, among many other things, usurping His Names, one of the most tragic usurpations being “Holy Father” (John 17:11). 

Rome’s rationalization of her use of images of God and of Christ demonstrates that she delights in what God has forbidden. Please take this link to view the lengths to which her idolatry goes, stripping an image of “Jesus” nearly bare:

Portrait of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI 
“The Truth, The Way and The Life”
Collection:  Vatican, Rome ©Studio Babailov 

Again, we Christians affirm that it is impossible for the Church of Rome to be “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). 


 

Because confessions of faith are truly helpful, and because no individual should try to reinvent the wheel, I’m including the following links on the Church from Protestant or Evangelical confessions:

Westminster Confession of Faith.

Savoy Declaration (1658), Chapter 26, Of The Church

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

The Augsburg Confession

..

Here is a video about Fatima with which I agree:

.

.


 

François Fénelon, understanding who he was – final part

.

Cambrai - Cameracvm vulgo Cambray - Kamerijk (Atlas van Loon).jpg Public Domain, Wikimedia CommonsPictures of Fénelon may limit our understanding of him by making us chiefly remember his remarkable appearance. Because of this, I’ve removed the image and posted a map of his episcopal domain.

This final post contains a link to a post by a blogger who respects Fénelon, a portrait of Fénelon in words, an analysis of issues, and Fénelon quotes.

First, for some helpful background and insights into Fénelon’s character, take the link below to Learning To Be Full Of Grace blog. Dan Ledwith believes that if someone else had served instead of Fénelon, things would have been worse for French Protestants than they were.

Should a Reformed Protestant Such as Myself like a Catholic Bishop like Fénelon?

.

A portrait in words (from NNDB – taking on the whole world):

Saint-Simon Mémoires courtesy of http://www.recherche-fenelon.com/page-10011-portrait-fenelon-saint-simon.htmlSaint-Simon, a famous Frenchman who knew Fénelon, described him in this way:

Still better is Saint-Simon’s portrait of Fénelon as he appeared about the time of his appointment to Cambrai [1696] – tall, thin, well-built, exceedingly pale, with a great nose, eyes from which fire and genius poured in torrents, a face curious and unlike any other, yet so striking and attractive that, once seen, it could not be forgotten. There were to be found the most contradictory qualities in perfect agreement with each other – gravity and courtliness, earnestness and gaiety, the man of learning, the noble and the bishop. But all centered in an air of high-bred dignity, of graceful, polished seemliness and wit – it cost an effort to turn away one’s eyes.

[Original French: PORTRAIT DE FENELON PAR SAINT SIMON, published at François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon

“Ce prélat était un grand homme maigre, bien fait, pâle, avec un grand nez, des yeux dont le feu et l’esprit sortaient comme un torrent, et une physionomie telle que je n’en ai point vu qui y ressemblât, et qui ne se pouvait oublier, quand on ne l’aurait vue qu’une seule fois. Elle rassemblait tout, et les contraires ne s’y combattaient pas. Elle avait de la gravité et de la galanterie, du sérieux et de la gaieté; elle sentait également le docteur, l’évêque et le grand seigneur; ce qui y surnageait, ainsi que dans toute sa personne, c’était la finesse, l’esprit, les grâces, la décence et surtout la noblesse. Il fallait effort pour cesser de le regarder.”]

From this description, Fénelon was charismatic and charming, and humanly speaking possessed worthy traits – such as decency, the original says. However, Saint-Simon said nothing in this particular description about Fénelon’s well-known devotion to God and those he served.

An important statement from NNDB – is it true?

Fénelon remained at Saint Sulpice until 1679, when he was made “superior” of a “New Catholic” [“Nouvelles-Catholiques”] sisterhood in Paris – an institution devoted to the conversion of Huguenot ladies. Of his work here nothing is known for certain.

This statement is important because this episode of his life is troubling, and NNDB is saying that no one can know about it for sure.

But is it true that we can’t know? According to Timothy Kauffman, at Out of His Mouth blog, this part of Fénelon’s life was dealt with in a 19th century work by O. Douen. I hope to read portions of this with help.

The Intolerance of Fénelon, historical studies from documents for the most part unpublished. (L’intolérance de Fénelon; études historiques d’après des documents pour la plupart inédits, par O. Douen

From NNDB, more along this line (link to the edict added):

Presumably it [his time at “New-Catholics”] was successful; since in the winter of 1685, just after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Fénelon was put at the head of a number of priests, and sent on a mission to the Protestants of Saintonge, the district immediately around the famous Huguenot citadel of La Rochelle. To Fénelon such employment was clearly uncongenial; and if he was rather too ready to employ unsavory methods – such as bribery and espionage – among his proselytes, his general conduct was kindly and statesmanlike in no slight degree. But neither in his actions nor in his writings is there the least trace of that belief in liberty of conscience ascribed to him by 18th-century philosophers. Tender-hearted he might be in practice; but toleration he declares synonymous with “cowardly indulgence and false compassion.”

So here is partial applause along with a snippet from Fénelon that shows that at least in principle he didn’t believe in religious tolerance. Freedom of conscience isn’t a Catholic (Papal) tenet – rather the opposite is. I’ve read that Louis IV’s France was so intolerant that Fénelon stood out as a model of tolerance when he wasn’t. French intolerance can be seen in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (toleration) which simply used initials for the Reformed faith – R.P.R. (Religion pretendue reformée, “the religion called the Reformed,” or alleged Reformed religion.)

More from NNDB, this time about Fénelon’s mysticism. Because of the age in which we are living, when Contemplative/Mysticism Spirituality (CSM) and Catholic Ecumenism are everywhere, his mysticism is a grave concern. 

… Fénelon had been appointed archbishop of Cambrai, one of the richest benefices in France. Very soon afterwards, however, came the great calamity of his life. In the early days of his tutorship he had met the Quietist apostle, Mme. Guyon, and had been much struck by some of her ideas. These he developed along lines of his own … His mystical principles are set out at length in his Maxims of the Saints, published in 1697. Here he argues that the more love we have for ourselves, the less we can spare for our Maker.

The rest of this excerpt purports to show how Fénelon viewed his relationship with the Lord.

…[For Fénelon] Perfection lies in getting rid of self-hood altogether – in never thinking of ourselves, or even of the relation in which God stands to us. The saint does not love Jesus Christ as his Redeemer, but only as the Redeemer of the human race.

This kind of “love” for Jesus goes beyond selflessness – it’s not really human. It isn’t found in the Bible and goes against the simplicity that is in Christ; it doesn’t echo the definitions of love, and declaration that we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19), that we find there.

Recently I bought a copy of Fénelon’s Maxims of the Saints and read his warnings against too much introspection, which he said shows a lack of true love for God and forgetfulness of ourselves. However, there is still too much self-examination for me, perhaps because of having been a Catholic and preparing for Confession to a priest through self-examination. We are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) – yes! But the Lord told us to come to Him for rest (Matthew 11:28). Fénelon’s zeal demanded delving even if he didn’t realize this was so. Also from his statements, it’s clear that he believed that the Lord comes to live within those who have already tidied themselves up inside (see quotes below), when God’s Word states this about sanctification:

1 Corinthians 1:30-31

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:31 that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

What I’ve concluded about his spirituality:

His mysticism and delving and self-sanctification are my chief concerns about reading his works devotionally. But of greater importance is the fact that as a Catholic priest he celebrated Mass, believing that Mass is a true sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, and efficacious for the removal of sin. This destroys the usefulness of his works devotionally. Can his judgment on spiritual matters be trusted when he received as truth what is in reality blasphemy?

.

References to the Word of God in Maxims of the Saints (emphasis added)

(Caution: From all that I’ve learned over the years, the Bible and the Word of God aren’t equivalents in Catholicism.)

ARTICLE SEVENTH.

… Again, the persons who have, or are supposed to have, the visions and other remarkable states to which we have referred are sometimes disposed to make their own experience, imperfect as it obviously is, the guide of their life, considered as separate from and as above the written law. Great care should be taken against such an error as this. God’s word is our true rule.

Nevertheless, there is no interpreter of the Divine Word like that of a holy heart; or, what is the same thing, of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the heart. If we give ourselves wholly to God, the Comforter will take up His abode with us, and guide us into all that truth which will be necessary for us. Truly holy souls, therefore, continually looking to God for a proper understanding of His Word, may confidently trust that He will guide them aright. A holy soul, in the exercise of its legitimate powers of interpretation, may deduce important views from the Word of God which would not otherwise be known; but it cannot add anything to it.

ARTICLE TWENTIETH.

… The Holy Ghost, operating through the medium of a purified judgment, teaches us by the means of books, especially by the word of God, which is never to be laid aside.

How he speaks of Jesus Christ in the Maxims:

ARTICLE TWENTY-EIGHTH.

Christ is ” the way, and the truth, and the life.” The grace which sanctifies as well as that which justifies, is by Him and through Him. He is the true and living way; and no man can gain the victory over sin, and be brought into union with God, without Christ. And when, in some mitigated sense, we may be said to have arrived at the end of the way by being brought home to the Divine fold and reinstated in the Divine image, it would be sad indeed if we should forget the way itself, as Christ is sometimes called. At every period of our progress, however advanced it may be, our life is derived from God through Him and for Him. The most advanced souls are those which are most possessed with the thoughts and the presence of Christ.

Any other view would be extremely pernicious. It would be to snatch from the faithful eternal life, which consists in knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ His Son, whom he has sent.

More of what he says about Christ there:

ARTICLE THIRTY-FIRST.

… The wisdom of the truly holy soul is a wisdom which estimates things in the present moment. It judges of duty from the facts which now are; including, however, those things which have a relation to the present. It is an important remark, that the present moment necessarily possesses a moral extension; so that, in judging of it, we are to include all those things which have a natural and near relation to the thing actually in hand. It is in this manner that the holy soul lives in the present, committing the past to God, and leaving the future with that approaching hour which shall convert it into the present. “Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.” To-morrow will take care of itself; it will bring, at its coming, its appropriate grace and light. When we live thus, God will not fail to give us our daily bread.

Such souls draw on themselves the special protection of Providence, under whose care they live, without a far extended and unquiet forecast, like little children resting in the bosom of their mother. Conscious of their own limited views, and keeping in mind the direction of the Saviour, Judge not that you be not judged, they are slow to pass judgment upon others. They are willing to receive reproof and correction; and, separate from the will of God, they have no choice or will of their own in anything.

These are the children whom Christ permits to come near Him. They combine the prudence of the serpent with the simplicity of the dove. But they do not appropriate their prudence to themselves as their own prudence, any more than they appropriate to themselves the beams of the natural sun, when they walk in its light.

These are the poor in spirit, whom Christ Jesus hath declared blessed; and who are as much taken off from any complacency in what others might call their merits, as all Christians ought to be from their temporal possessions. They are the “little ones,” to whom God is well pleased to reveal His mysteries, while He hides them from the wise and prudent.

An interesting fact:

T.C. Upham, who translated the version of the Maximthat CCEL used for its text-only version, appended this note:

In the preceding view I have omitted a number of passages which were exclusively Roman Catholic in their aspect, in being of less interest and value to the Protestant reader than other parts.

.