THE BLASPHEMY OF THE MASS

Ex Catholics for Christ ^ | Circa 2014 | unknown

[Elsie]

You probably haven't.

You have tried to present data that would help illustrate the point you try to make.

But there are SO many of your fellow Catholics who must think that You are Wrong! wins the hearts and minds of their readers.

Shall I sift through just THIS thread for examples?

[Elsie]

“if they then commit apostasy”

Wat due dis meen?

[Elsie]

indeed

[Elsie]

It's a LONG list of threads posted BY Roman Catholics that proclaim the RC doctrines of the Mass and the Eucharist and many (most) of them are specifically designed to tell non-Catholics why we are wrong about it all and Catholics are right.

HMMMmmm...

[metmom]

File not found.”

Care to try again?

[kinsman redeemer]

Good Morning!

It didn't work for me either. See THIS POST.

The site is like a "mother load" (intended) - although I never found out if a glass chalice is okay or not.

hee hee

[G Larry]

>https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/biblesearch.asp<

[RnMomof7]

Yes I’m aware some Catholics here sneer at what they deem as Protestants and proclaim we live outside salvation
I don’t think it’s a majority of Catholics

Actually every pope affirms that protestants are damned to hell ... and so that is the official position of Rome.. it does not matter what "individuals" think

[metmom]

And we are constantly reminded of that when we state something that Catholics we know believe or practice and and we are told *You are wrong* because it’s not an *OFFICIAL* teaching of the Catholic church.

And we know that the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic church teaches that it is the way of salvation and there is no salvation outside of it. And while Catholics point out that the church has *officially* made *exceptions* It’s common knowledge that none of the people the RC’s are talking to fit those exceptions.

[metmom]

That is a link to a Bible search page.

I have plenty of those already.

What I asked for was the *OFFICIAL* interpretation of that passage, done and sanctioned by the church itself.

Where is it?

[rwa265]

No, thank you, I’ve seen them. It’s not just Catholics that do it, though. I don’t like to see it from anyone.

[boatbums]

Yes I’m aware some Catholics here sneer at what they deem as Protestants and proclaim we live outside salvation I don’t think it’s a majority of Catholics But that misbehavior by those few doesn’t give me cause to condemn their mass which they hold dear

I readily agree with you that there is a vocal minority on Free Republic who do not represent the entire RC community. I know many genuinely loving and caring Catholics who seek only to know Christ and help others see Him and His power to save and transform their lives. I see the threads that RnMomof7 and others post here that are critical of Roman Catholicism (not Catholics) as a necessary addition to counter the multiple daily threads on the Religion Forum by Catholic Freepers that, without them, would make Free Republic appear as a Roman Catholic only site to the public.

It would be nice if the RF was used specifically for current events and news of a "religious" nature and the respectful discussion of it by those interested - something I get the impression was what the RF was originally supposed to be about. The addition of "prayer requests" and "devotional" threads contribute to the convivial and caring family atmosphere represented by fellow Freepers. But, as long as I have known and participated on Free Republic, there have been confrontational and provocative threads that present an exclusive religious preference for Roman Catholicism and that vocal minority that defends it at all cost (strangely, I don't seem to find many of their screen names on the lists of regular donors).

Consequently, as a former Roman Catholic, I appreciate the counter balance and defense of disagreements with "Rome" as necessary to ensure a fully informed lurker is aware that Free Republic is not a subsidiary of the Vatican and that Christians-not-Catholic are well represented here. The "condemnation" that you see here is NOT against Catholics but an explanation of why non-Catholics do not agree with one of the major dogmas of Catholicism and which they use to condemn to hell those of us who dispute it. For all practical purposes - like you mentioned, there ARE several here who long for the Inquisitions and the return of temporal power to Rome to enforce their view of the Christian faith upon all of Christendom. Thanks be to God, they no longer have that power.

[G Larry]

IMPRIMATUR

[metmom]

A link to a Bible search engine is NOT an interpretation.

[Springfield Reformer]

Imprimatur on what?  The RSV translation of Hebrews 10:14-39?  Because I went to your link, and entered the reference to the passage in question, and all I got was the Biblical text.  Now that is not what we are asking for.  We have the text. What we need to know is what is the official Roman interpretation. Back at post 177, MHGinTN offered an interpretation that is excellent, and accords well with my own belief on the matter.  

Simply put, Paul there is describing the cessation of the Mosaic system of sacrifice, and if those Jews who had come to be among the Christians for a while, and had ample evidence of the truth of the faith, but at some point couldn't put up with the persecution, and opted to return to Judaism, the message is grim.  If they go back to the shadow world of Moses, there is no further sacrifice they can look to for forgiveness of sin.  Jesus is it.  Like the last chance gas station at the edge of the desert, if they miss this, they will not make the crossing.

However, this is not apostasy as defined by the "we'll pencil you in" crowd (like the song says, "there's new name written down in pencil, and it's mine, oh yes it's mine ...").  The idea that one can have all their sins paid for, be sealed by the Spirit of God as a promissory note on our making the whole journey, be predestined by God, elect, determined by God's eternal decree to be sons and daughters unto Him, raised from spiritual death to a new and eternal life in Him, and yet be lost, is an idea not taught in Scripture.

For example, the Apostle John, when given a chance to explain those who have fallen away, does not say they were ever recipients of the new birth, or had the seed of God in them, or had been drawn and taught of the Father, or were in true possession of eternal life as those who believe in Jesus are, all of which he could have said, as those were all identifiers of true salvation he himself raised in other places. Instead, what does he do?  How does John explain apostasy?

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(1 John 2:18-19)

So for John, apostasy is revelation of preexisting truth. The antichrists among them left them in order to reveal their true status, not to lose a status they once had, a status that elsewhere we find is permanent because it is in God's hands:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(John 6:37-40)

We who believe are gifts the Father gives the Son, and just as the Father has power to give us to Christ, He also has the power to determine that Christ will lose none of us.  We are the beneficiaries, but God the Father is the guarantor.  That is what makes the conclusion certain.  It's not about us.  It's about Him.

But what we lack from you is any definitive, guaranteed infallible discussion of what this passage in Hebrews 10 specifically means.  It would also be interesting to know the official, infallible, Roman position on 1 John 2:18-19, as shown above.  Your link does not point us to such official statements of Rome, Imprimatur not withstanding.  If the trumpeter blows with an uncertain sound, who can follow that? (1 Corinthians 14:8)

Peace,

SR

[G Larry]

WRONG.

It is the Ignatius Bible with an imprimatur.

The “interpretation” referred to ARE the words in that Scripture as opposed to the watered down KJV.

[G Larry]

The words ARE the interpretation from the Septuagint.

[MHGinTN]

Here's is a commentary which might help you to understand the section from Romas 11 from which you lifted a single passage:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:11-21 The gospel is the greatest riches of every place where it is. As therefore the righteous rejection of the unbelieving Jews, was the occasion of so large a multitude of the Gentiles being reconciled to God, and at peace with him; the future receiving of the Jews into the church would be such a change, as would resemble a general resurrection of the dead in sin to a life of righteousness. Abraham was as the root of the church. The Jews continued branches of this tree till, as a nation, they rejected the Messiah; after that, their relation to Abraham and to God was, as it were, cut off. The Gentiles were grafted into this tree in their room; being admitted into the church of God.

Multitudes were made heirs of Abraham's faith, holiness and blessedness. It is the natural state of every one of us, to be wild by nature. Conversion is as the grafting in of wild branches into the good olive. The wild olive was often ingrafted into the fruitful one when it began to decay, and this not only brought forth fruit, but caused the decaying olive to revive and flourish.

The Gentiles, of free grace, had been grafted in to share advantages. They ought therefore to beware of self-confidence, and every kind of pride or ambition; lest, having only a dead faith, and an empty profession, they should turn from God, and forfeit their privileges. If we stand at all, it is by faith; we are guilty and helpless in ourselves, and are to be humble, watchful, afraid of self-deception, or of being overcome by temptation. Not only are we at first justified by faith, but kept to the end in that justified state by faith only; yet, by a faith which is not alone, but which worketh by love to God and man.

Just remember please that when God says NO MAN can take the Saved from His hands, that includes any man confessing The Lord Jesus, that includes you and me if we have the simple profession found in John 3:16 and echoed in Matthew 16:16 by Peter, and in the House of Cornelius, and by Paul everywhere on his mission trips, and most importantly by Jesus speaking to those of the scribes and Pharisees who asked Him what is the work of God that they must do to be saved (Believe on Him Whom He has sent)..

[G Larry]

This is your convenient Protestant commentary.

It just happens to be wrong.

[metmom]

What you said.

Thanks, brother, for putting it so eloquently, as usual.