TDB 4 The Conversions of Jeff Cavins and Dr. Joseph Johnson

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the ear and combating the ear.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion. It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

The Podcast’s Purpose and the Deep in History Theme

Welcome back to everyone. We're glad to be back in the new year. And for those of you new to the Diving Board podcast, this is episode four of the Diving Board. It is part of Simple Riff Armando radio and focuses on the conversion testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism.

In particular, we focus on the arguments of Protestants who thought they were so deep in history that they couldn't be Protestant anymore. That catchphrase deep in history comes from a statement that Cardinal Newman once made about his own journey from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

He is arguably one of the most famous converts to Roman Catholicism because of his high position prior to and after converting. He was an Anglican priest until his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1845.

He was ultimately elevated to the Pope's College of Cardinals and wrote prolifically as an apologist for Roman Catholicism. His famous saying was, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

And it comes from his introduction to what is arguably his most famous work on the development of Christian doctrine. He wrote, whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.

If ever there were a safe truth, it is this, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. That statement is the inspiration for the deep in history comment made by so many Protestants who convert to Rome thinking that they too are deep in history.

It is an appeal to the pride of the intellect, but it is a surprisingly shallow claim in its substance because those who make it, including Cardinal Newman, are notoriously and demonstrably shallow in history.

Our first three episodes deal with the comments of Father Ray Ryland, also a former Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism, and we encourage our listeners to start there first. He spoke at the 2004 Deep in History Conference about his journey to Roman Catholicism, and we spent three episodes showing him just how shallow his grasp of history was.

In any case, our episodes are intended to be self-standing, so the listener is free to start here, but we might make occasional references to previous episodes, so it is good to be caught up on all of them.

So, go take a listen to the first three episodes of The Diving Board. This week we are focusing on the conversions of non-denominational pastor Jeff Cavins and another convert who we featured in our most recent episode of The Danielic Imperative, Dr. Joseph Johnson.

Even though they converted to Roman Catholicism 20 years apart, we are focusing on these two because the Roman Catholic Eucharist, that is, the Lord's Supper as interpreted by Roman Catholics, was so significant to them in their conversion.

We are going to be referring to an article published at the Trinity Foundation called Recovering Irenaeus, dealing with the Eucharistic liturgy of the early church, and we encourage our listeners to download it and take a look at it for reference.

That article goes into a lot more detail than we will here, but it will serve as a helpful summary for us and a detailed resource for those who want to dig deeper into the liturgy of the Lord's Supper in the early church.

It was much different from Roman Catholicism than even Roman Catholics realize, and these Protestant converts departed for Rome in painfully shallow ignorance, precisely where they thought they were deep in history.

The Eucharist is not the only topic of conversations, but the work on Irenaeus will be enlightening, at least on that topic. Okay, so let's start with the summaries from Jeff Cavins and Joseph Johnson, in their own words.

These testimonies are from the Coming Home Network, a Roman Catholic ministry that welcomes prodigal Protestants back to the fold of Roman Catholicism. And listeners are encouraged to take in their whole testimony, which they can get online.

Due to time constraints, we'll only be able to listen to a portion of their respective testimonies, so here is Jeff Cavins.

As a young pastor of an interdenominational church, I studied a lot, and I started studying the early church fathers. As I started to study those church fathers, I started to realize that there was a whole world that I was unfamiliar with.

And as I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself. And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church.

And when I made that decision to become Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together, with the papacy and the Blessed Mother and tradition and the Eucharist.

So, we're going to come back to Jeff Cavins' reversion story. After all, he started as Roman Catholic, and the Eucharist brought him back, especially after he'd studied the early church fathers. But now let's move on to Dr. Joseph Johnson, for whom the Eucharist was everything.

We joined Dr. Johnson during his interview on the Coming Home Network, where the host, Marcus Grodi, has asked him what he would tell the Protestant who might be in the audience. Dr. Johnson tells the Protestant that he ought to be deep in history, and once he is, he too will cease to be Protestant, just like Dr. Johnson.

Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were.

Where I was.

Why should they make the same journey home that you made?

I would say, for me, the Eucharist was everything. Jesus' words, if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have eternal life. You don't have to sit there and worry whether or not I meant it the first time.

You have eternal life. I would say, investigate the history for yourself, because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me.

So I would say, take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you, and maybe it would end up in the Catholic Church.

Again, that is Dr. Joseph Johnson, being interviewed by Marcus Grodi on the Coming Home Network. Notice that Cavens and Johnson appeal to the Eucharist, and believe me, they are not the only ones to do so.

This is extremely common. In fact, in a moment you will hear Johnson's recollection at being frozen in his tracks when confronted by the ostensible, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But let's listen closely to what they both said about the Eucharistic liturgy.

Notice that both men had an encounter with the Eucharist, and both assumed that if they just joined the Roman Catholic Church, they would be going back to the ancient apostolic liturgy, worshiping God just the same way the early church did.

Incense and Sensory Worship in Jeff Cavins’ Conversion

Here is Jeff Cavens talking about how the Eucharist and the incense brought him back.

My whole journey actually, toward the Catholic Church, actually began, the first thought of ever even maybe returning to the church, or even being Catholic in any way, or any fond thoughts of the past, started when I walked into a retreat center in Dayton, Ohio, a Catholic retreat center, Bergamo, I believe it was called, and we walked in there just about an hour or so after there had been a mass, and incense was in the mass, and I walked in and I smelled the incense, and it brought me back.

It brought me back. And that's the sacramental dimension of Catholicism, is that God speaks to us in and through the things of this world. We are creatures who are created to experience the world with our senses, touch, smell, taste, we hear, we think.

We're very, very complex beings. And in Catholicism, we experience Christ in so many different ways. We hear, we smell, we taste, we see. And it's an absolutely beautiful way to experience the Lord. Every part of my being can cry out and experience Christ in one way or another.

What I was involved in before, the type of church that I was involved in, was limited somewhat to what you think and the things that you're learning, concepts. And it's been so refreshing to be able to genuflect.

It's been so refreshing to gaze upon the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. It's been so refreshing to have incense and so forth. It's a feast for the senses.

Okay, let's take these one at a time. Incense, genuflection, the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass, and sensory worship. So, let's see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about incense. Now citing the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia on incense.

When exactly incense was introduced into the religious services of the church, it is not easy to say. During the first four centuries, there is no evidence for its use. Still, its common employment in the temple and the references to it in the New Testament would suggest an early familiarity with it in Christian worship.

The earliest authentic reference to its use in the service of the church is found in Pseudo-Dionysius. Okay, that's the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. Now, just keep in mind that the Pseudo-Dionysius, who provides the earliest authentic reference to the use of incense, was from the late 5th century.

But what did the early church fathers have to say about the use of incense in worship? Let's see. From the Epistle of Barnabas, dating to the late 1st or early 2nd century. This is quoting from the Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 2.

Tread no more in my courts, not though you bring with you fine flower. Incense is a vain abomination to me, and your new moons and sabbaths I cannot endure. He's quoting from Isaiah 113 there. He has therefore abolished these things, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation.

So again, that's the Epistle of Barnabas saying that God has abolished these things, including incense. How about the 2nd century with Justin Martyr? Now citing from Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapter 13.

Worshipping as we do the maker of this universe, and declaring as we have been taught, that he has no need of the streams of blood and libations and incense, whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied.

Again, Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 13, from the 2nd century. That doesn't sound like the early church was using incense at all. How about Lactantius in the early 4th century, who noted that even a wise pagan prophet, Trismegistus Hermes, knew better than to offer incense to the living God.

Trismegistus Hermes utterly rejected incense and said,. And what does Lactantius say about that? Lactantius says,. That's from Lactantius' Divine Institutes, book 6, chapter 25, saying that even the pagan prophet spoke correctly when he acknowledged that we ought not be offering incense to the living God.

In light of that explicit testimony from the early church rejecting the use of incense, and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia conceding that there is no evidence for the use of incense until the late 5th century, just listen again to Jeff Cavins talking about how he discovered a whole world of history when he studied the early church fathers.

As I started to study those church fathers, I started to realize that there was a whole world that I was unfamiliar with.

He might have found incense in the later medieval fathers, but he did not find incense in the apostolic and sub-apostolic church. For four centuries, the church had known nothing of the use of incense in its weekly worship.

Kneeling, Genuflection, and Eucharistic Adoration

Okay, let's talk about genuflecting to the Eucharist. This one is fascinating, and Cavins is just way out of his depth. When Cavins is talking about the freedom to genuflect and gaze upon the Lord in the Eucharist, he is talking about worshipping the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

In Roman Catholicism, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are allegedly changed into the body and blood of Christ and his soul and divinity as well, and therefore the bread and wine are to be worshipped.

It is called Eucharistic Adoration, and the appropriate body posture for such worship is to bend the knee. That's what genuflection means, to bend the knee before the bread and wine to worship it. So what drew him back to the Mass was the freedom to genuflect to the Eucharist.

But what did the early church have to say about this? Well, nothing directly, because Roman Catholics cannot find any direct evidence of adoring the Eucharist in the early church. There's nothing to be found, and the reason is pretty simple.

Imagine for a moment that you are a Roman Catholic desiring to find your current practice of Eucharistic Adoration in the early church. You would be very interested to find that in the early church they were always kneeling and bowing to the bread during the Lord's Supper, right?

And what day is the best day to bow down to the bread to adore it? Well, the first day of the week when Christians got together to celebrate the Lord's Supper, of course. So the eager new Roman Catholic goes back to the early church expecting to find everyone kneeling toward the bread because the early church heard directly from the apostles that we are to worship the consecrated bread and wine, right?

And to the surprise of the Roman Catholic, there's just nothing there. And that is because the early church did not worship the Eucharist. In fact, not only did they not bend the knee on the Lord's Day, they forbade bending the knee on the Lord's Day.

It was explicitly prohibited on the very day that a Roman Catholic would have expected to find that it was required. I want to begin first in the catacombs, not for any appeal to authority, but to register the shocked disbelief of the Catholic Encyclopedia when it is discovered that the ancient church's practices were at variance with Rome's current modern norms.

Pay special attention as Rome dismisses the standing posture of prayer as merely symbolical of actual kneeling. So desirous is Roman Catholicism to find evidence of her modern practices in the early church.

Now citing from the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia on genuflection. It is remarkable that the orantes, or praying figures, of early Christian art are in the catacomb frescoes invariably depicted as standing with arms extended.

Some remarks of a Roman Catholic archaeologist suggest that a probable explanation may be found in the view that these orantes, or praying figures, are merely conventional representations of prayer and of suppliance in the abstract.

They are symbols, not pictures of the actual. Again, that's the Catholic Encyclopedia on genuflection trying to understand why the early representations of the praying posture in the early church was standing and not kneeling.

So there you go. The early depictions of prayer in the catacombs have the Christians standing rather than kneeling to pray. And in order to make it fit Roman Catholic practice, the standing posture depicted in the catacombs is understood to be symbolic of actual kneeling.

That's quite a bit of a stretch. But those standing depictions were quite actual indeed since Irenaeus in the 2nd century wrote in his treatise on Easter that we do not bend the knee on Pentecost because it is of equal significance with the Lord's Day.

That's Irenaeus fragment 7. That's right. We don't kneel on the Lord's Day because kneeling on Sunday was prohibited in the early church and we don't kneel on Pentecost either because it is of equal significance with the Lord's Day.

Fast forward to the 3rd century and we find that Tertullian considered it unlawful to pray kneeling on the Lord's Day. He wrote,. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's Day to be unlawful.

We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday, that is, from Passover to Pentecost. That's from Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 3, from 204 AD. Note well that kneeling was considered unlawful not only on Sundays all year round but also on every day from Resurrection Sunday to Pentecost.

A little more than a century later and the prohibition against kneeling on the Lord's Day would be codified into law. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD the 318 assembled bishops declared that some people had been found to be kneeling on the Lord's Day and the bishops insisted that such kneeling must cease in order to bring the church into uniformity of worship.

Now citing from Canon 20, the Council of Nicaea from 325 AD, For as much as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere in every parish, it seems good to the Holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

Notable, at least because of its relevance to our current topic, is the fact that the bishops of Nicaea did not require kneeling in order to bring everyone into conformity with those who knelt. Rather, they forbade kneeling in order to bring everyone into conformity with those who stood.

In light of the frescoes in the catacombs and Irenaeus and Tertullian's objections, we suspect that Nicaea thought standing to pray was the standard. It was not a new practice at Nicaea. It had already been the norm for centuries.

We, of course, have no problem with kneeling for prayer. We merely wish to highlight the fact that the early church was against it and the bishops assembled at Nicaea did not think it was appropriate to genuflect in worship and especially not on the Lord's Day.

Fast forward to 374 AD and we find Basil the Great explaining why Christians do not kneel on the Lord's Day. Now citing from Basil de Spiritus Santo, chapter 27. Again, Basil de Spiritus Santo, chapter 27.

Fast forward another 77 years to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD and the very first canon reaffirms all the canons of Nicaea, including the prohibition of kneeling on the Lord's Day. We deem it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.

That's Canon 1 from the Council of Chalcedon. Though prohibition against kneeling on the Lord's Day was not rescinded. Fast forward another 102 years to the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD and the bishops gathered there restate their affirmation of the four preceding ecumenical councils emphatically condemning those who do not agree with what was defined by them.

We repeat our formal confession that we accept the four holy synods, that is, of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Our teaching is and has been all that they have defined concerning the one faith.

We consider those who do not respect these things as foreign to the Catholic Church. Again, that's the Second Council of Constantinople. The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord's Day was not rescinded and anyone who knelt on the Lord's Day, contrary to Canon 20 at Nicaea, was foreign to the Catholic Church.

Fast forward 123 years to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 AD and we find the bishops there reaffirming the divine tenets of piety of the Council of Nicaea in all respects unaltered. Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, following without deviation in a straight path after the holy and accepted fathers, has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods, that is to say, with the synod of the 318 holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea against the madman Arius, and etc., etc.

Reaffirming the divine tenets of piety in all respects unaltered. Again, that's the Third Council of Constantinople. And take note, without deviation, in all respects unaltered, the prohibition against kneeling on the Lord's Day was not rescinded.

Fast forward 11 years to the local council of Trujillo in 692 AD and the council explicitly affirms that Canon 20 of Nicaea is still to be honored. The council prohibited kneeling from Saturday evening until the following evening in recognition of the resurrection.

Canon 90 of Trujillo says, We have received from our divine fathers the canon law that in honor of Christ's resurrection we are not to kneel on Sundays. Fast forward 95 years to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD and we find the assembled bishops emphatically reaffirming everything taught by the preceding councils, especially that which was decreed at Nicaea.

Here is the Second Council of Nicaea. Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the truth, we diminish not, we add not, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the six ecumenical synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nicaea.

Just listen to that language. We diminish not, we add not, but we preserve all things unchanged. Late in the 8th century, and they are still not genuflecting on the Lord's Day, Pope Hadrian I, who was pope during Second Council of Nicaea, in his letter to Tenacius of Constantinople, affirmed the six ecumenical councils to date, and included the Council of Trujillo in that list.

The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord's Day was not rescinded. So fast forward 87 years to the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870 AD, and we find the bishops emphatically reaffirming all the canons of the previous councils.

Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of Orthodox, and even by any inspired father or teacher of the Church.

That's Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon 1. So we are late in the 9th century, and kneeling on the Lord's Day is still prohibited. And just think about this. In light of nearly a thousand years of testimony from Antonicene and Postnacene fathers, popes, and local and ecumenical councils, that bending the knee on Sunday is prohibited, it is absolutely stunning that Jeff Cabans can walk into a chapel where they just celebrated Mass,.

And quote,.

Feel the freedom to genuflect and gaze at the Lord in the Eucharist, unquote, as if this practice somehow connects him to the Apostolic Church. To the early church, the celebration of the Lord's Supper was an occasion for standing, not kneeling, and that is why on the first day of the week, kneeling was prohibited.

Imagine that. The one day the Roman Catholic would have expected kneeling to be required in the early church, in order to show reverence to the Lord in the Eucharist, is the day upon which the early church forbade it.

Fathers, councils, and popes maintained that prohibition repeatedly and emphatically until the 11th century, which is when Eucharistic adoration really began, and when kneeling was actually added to the liturgy.

And to show that, all we have to do is go to the Catholic Encyclopedia. On genuflection, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says, the practice of kneeling during the consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the elevation, which originated in the same period.

By elevation, the Encyclopedia refers to the practice of elevating the consecrated bread for people to worship, immediately following the consecration. Regarding that practice of elevation, the Encyclopedia concedes, what we now know is the elevation of the Mass is a rite of comparatively recent introduction.

Again, that's the Catholic Encyclopedia on the practice of elevating the Eucharist during the Mass for worship. And thus, kneeling, or genuflecting, or bending the knee in adoration of the Eucharist, is a comparatively recent introduction, not in the least connected to the practices of the Apostolic Church, and certainly not even introduced to Roman Catholicism until late in the 11th century.

This inconvenient reality is plainly evident in the halting attempt Roman Catholics make to convey the allegedly ancient origin of Eucharistic adoration in the Church. I am summarizing this, but I am here referring to the history of Eucharistic adoration, as related by Father John Hardin, a Jesuit priest.

But first, I want to introduce you to an important concept called reservation. In the context of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, reservation refers to the practice of keeping some of the consecrated bread for later use, that is, reserving it for later.

This was common in the early Church. Now, it is important to notice that the practice of keeping some of the bread for later is not worship. It is reservation. It is just keeping some of the bread for later, and transporting it to someone outside of the normal liturgy.

But when a Roman Catholic tries to showcase the history of Eucharistic adoration, he has to talk as if reservation is adoration, because without that connection, he cannot find any Eucharistic adoration in the early Church.

So, with that information on reservation, here is a summary of Father John Hardin's history of the worship of the Eucharist. And notice, for the first thousand years, the only evidence he has of Eucharistic adoration is Eucharistic reservation.

Now citing John Hardin, and again, this is abbreviated. Early hermits reserved the Eucharist in their cells. From at least the middle of the 3rd century, it was very general for the solitaries in the East, especially in Palestine and Egypt, to preserve the consecrated elements in the caves or hermitages where they lived.

This practice certainly goes back to as early as 120 AD. Already in the 2nd century, popes sent the Eucharist to other bishops as a pledge of unity of faith, and on occasion, bishops would do the same for their priests.

As monasticism changed from solitary to community life, the monks received something of the same privilege of carrying the Eucharist with them. They would have it on their persons when working in the fields or going on a voyage.

As early as the Council of Nicaea, 325, we know that the Eucharist began to be reserved in the churches of monasteries and convents. As far as we can tell, the Eucharist was originally kept in a special room, just off the sanctuary but separated from the church where Mass was offered.

Certainly by the 800s, the Blessed Sacrament was kept within the monastic church itself, close to the altar. The practice of reserving the Eucharist in religious houses was so universal that there is no evidence to the contrary even before the year 1000.

Toward the end of the 11th century, we enter a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. The churches of Europe began what can only be described as a Eucharistic Renaissance. Processions of the Blessed Sacrament were instituted.

Prescribed acts of adoration were legislated. Visits to Christ in the picks were encouraged. The cells of ankeresses had windows made into the church to allow the religious to view and adore before the tabernacle.

From the 11th century on, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle became more and more prevalent in the Catholic world. Okay, so that is John Harton's history of Eucharistic adoration.

Some people kept the consecrated bread and wine, and sometimes they took it with them, and sometimes they kept it in their caves and convents and things like that. And then in the 11th century, Eucharistic adoration was taken to a whole new level.

Translation? We can't find any evidence of Eucharistic adoration prior to the 11th century, so we have to sell reservation as if it was adoration. Just keep that in mind as you hear Jeff Kamen talking about gazing adoringly at Jesus in the Eucharist.

It's a practice that is 1 ,000 years old, not 2 ,000 years old. And remember this when Jeff Kamen finds it refreshing to smell the incense and genuflect before the bread and gaze adoringly at the Eucharist.

They are all novelties, completely foreign to the early church and utterly absent from the early church fathers with whom he thinks he is in unity. Okay, so next we want to talk about his comment on the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.

And I want to return as well to Dr. Joseph Johnson and his claim of the continuity of the liturgy since the days of the apostles. Again, here's Dr. Johnson.

And thinking about the Eucharist, I remember coming through and I, because it wasn't Presbyterian to dip your fingers in the holy water and cross yourself, so I avoided such nonsense. But I, my eye caught the tabernacle and I thought, is that really you?

And I got this, I mean, just beads of sweat on my forehead tears streaming down my face. I was stuck in one spot, couldn't move. And I thought, oh my goodness, what am I willing to admit to myself? You know, it just struck me.

You know, nobody else was there, nobody looking around. It's just a moment that struck me. And, but just the beauty of the liturgy, the consistency of the liturgy, the historicity of the liturgy where its origins go all the way back to the synagogue.

We learned all that in church history. I knew all that when I got there, you know. But just seeing it before my eyes, there was a consistency that made me think of a, that I'm standing in a long continuity of God's faithfulness.

Just by way of reminder, we are highlighting these two conversion stories because both of these Protestants decided to go back to the Catholic Church after some kind of mystical, historical, sensory encounter with the Eucharist.

And both assumed that they were just going back to the ancient liturgy instituted by Christ and his apostles. So let's just think about that liturgy for a minute. Modern Roman Catholics think the kneeling part of the liturgy connects them with the early church.

But we have shown that to be false. They think the incense part of it connects them to the early church. But that is demonstrably false too. They think the adoring part connects them with the early church.

But that is false as well. What about other parts of the liturgy? Let's first talk about the Roman Catholic practice of mixing water with wine during the Lord's Supper. We covered this in a lot more detail in our episode on the mingled cup and we'll provide that to our listeners in the show notes.

But here's a brief summary. According to the Roman Catholic Catechism, during the Lord's Supper, the priest is to add some water to the wine at the altar prior to consecrating it and administering it to the people.

But what is the origin of that part of the liturgy? We covered this in a previous podcast and you can get some of the details on this from our article in the Trinity Foundation called Recovering Irenaeus.

But the short story is this. The early church did not mix its wine during the liturgy. There are multiple references in the early church to the use of mixed wine but those references are to the standard agricultural practice of mixing water with fermented grape juice or what is called mirum to make wine and those references are often in the same context as mixing water with flour to make bread.

Both refer to secular manufacturing processes and neither refers to a liturgical practice of mixing water with wine or water with flour during the supper. But Roman Catholicism has read into that historical curiosity a liturgical step and has even assumed that Christ must have mixed his own wine at the table during the Lord's Supper about which there is no mention in the scriptures or in the early church.

In fact, the first actual reference to a liturgical mixing of water with wine at the altar does not occur until the late 4th century with Ambrose of Milan who explained why water is poured into wine at the altar.

This is quoting from Ambrose of Milan concerning the sacraments, book 5, chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 3. We said, therefore, that the cup and the bread are set on the altar. What is poured into the cup?

Wine. And what else? Water. But thou sayest to me, how then did Melchizedek offer bread and wine? What means the mixture of water? The priest touches the cup, the water streams in the cup, springs up to eternal life, and the people of God drink, who have obtained the grace of God.

That's, again, Ambrose of Milan concerning the sacraments, book 5. There is nothing in the first three centuries of the church indicating a practice of having water and wine at the table and mixing it as part of the liturgy.

And certainly no evidence to suggest that Christ had mixed the water and wine himself at the Last Supper. Just keep that in mind as Jeff Cavins and Dr. Johnson tell you that they converted to Roman Catholicism because of its liturgical connection with the early church.

The current liturgical practice of mixing water with wine during the Lord's Supper is a novelty of the late 4th century and cannot be traced back to the apostles. And yet, it is a critical part of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

Along those lines, we'll spend a little time on the sacrifice of the Mass. And again, we'll defer to our article on Irenaeus for those who would like to explore this further. But here is a quick summary of the sacrifices the early church offered.

And make no mistake about it, the early church offered sacrifices, but they did not offer what Rome calls the sacrifice of the Mass. Through the prophet Malachi, the Lord condemned the unacceptable burnt offerings of the Jews and foretold a day when in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering among the heathen.

That's Malachi 1 .10 -11. Indeed, the apostles left instructions that sacrifices must and would continue under the new covenant, but these sacrifices would take the forms of praise, the fruit of our lips giving thanks, Hebrews 13 .15, doing good works and sharing with others, Hebrews 13 .16, spiritual sacrifices, 1 Peter 2 .5, providing for those in need, Philippians 4 .18, and your body is a living sacrifice, Romans 12 .1.

Such sacrifices are holy and acceptable, Romans 12 .1, 1 Peter 2 .5, and well-pleasing to the Lord, Philippians 4 .18 and Hebrews 13 .16. The spiritual incense that accompanies these spiritual sacrifices is the prayers of the saints offered on an altar in heaven, Revelation 5 .8 and Revelation 8 verses 3 -4.