THE BLASPHEMY OF THE MASS

Ex Catholics for Christ ^ | Circa 2014 | unknown

[elcid1970]

Well, gee, it’s like this: in 1302 A.D. the Catholic Church AND the Greek Church in schism (salvation in one still recognized by the other) were the Christian church.

The Church had by then experienced a number of heretical breakaways. Pope Boniface invalidated them with his statement.

BTW, there were no Protestants then.

[paladinan]

That a pope may be as evil as Satan, but may, in another altered state, declare infallible Church doctrine, is the epitome of error.

"Altered state"? Where in the Catechism did you find THAT?

As for the idea of infallibility being "error"--that's raw opinion, and one would need to PROVE it in order for anyone to take it as anything other than raw opinion.

[fwdude]

This is very simple - anyone who professes belief in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost is saved forever. The Eucharist at every mass is acknowledging the sacrifice Christ made for us. That’s it.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not Catholic doctrine. In fact, you are risking eternal damnation by spouting heresy.

[fwdude]

So, “Ex Cathedra” is a personal opinion?

[HangnJudge]

This seems confusing to me, I must ponder on it
Thank You for the attempt at clarification

[fwdude]

"Altered state"? Where in the Catechism did you find THAT?

Let me ask you this: When a pope IS speaking "Ex Cathedra," where does that come from? Himself?

The concept itself infers a divided mind. That he cannot speak truth any other time, other than "on the Seat of Peter," is what this teaching is all about.

[FreshPrince]

Correct interpretation of v 63:

“Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.”

Given the Eucharist was believed from the very beginging of the Church, I will run with that interpretation.

Speaking of “letterism” kinda funny how taking the Creation story in Genesis literally results in many problems when compared to science.

[Marcella]

“I'm sorry, but that is simply not Catholic doctrine. In fact, you are risking eternal damnation by spouting heresy.”

Then I should tell our Father Pastor at my Catholic Church that he is wrong thinking believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, saves a person, gives a person eternal life.

He has been a Priest for many years. Before becoming a Priest, he was a sniper in our military. When hunting season comes around, he's out there with the guys hunting.

There is always a church barbecue during hunting season, and he makes barbecue if he has hunting success, which he always does. He says he has a new barbecue grill for this year.

[paladinan]

Let me ask you this: When a pope IS speaking "Ex Cathedra," where does that come from? Himself?

Yes, it comes from himself. Infallibility is what's called a "negative" protection, in the sense that it only PREVENTS things. The charism of infallibility, as understood by the Catholic Church, is the special protection by which the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) prevents the pope (or any official action of the Magisterium, such as a Church council ratified by the pope) from teaching any error as an article of the Faith. It's not any sort of "positive" grace (such as "inspiration"); the Holy Spirit doesn't "give" the pope words to say; the Holy Spirit merely prevents the pope--who might (God forbid) have many erroneous beliefs, even about the Faith--from DEFINING any of those errors as "dogma" (i.e. all Catholics would be bound to believe/accept it, on pain of heresy)

. To put it another way: if the pope doesn't do his homework, the Holy Spirit won't do it for him... and infallibility might result in the pope "staying home" and saying nothing at all. Infallibility is designed to PREVENT error from being introduced into Church dogma; it doesn't ADD anything to it. Think of the "automatic shut-off" on an electric blanket, when it gets too hot; the auto-shutoff doesn't ADD heat to the blanket; it just prevents any heat from getting out of bounds.

[kinsman redeemer]

This debate comes up every week... like clockwork.

As with every other such thread, I will read the comments with interest - some for the pertinent comments, some for the entertainment alone.

This time, I will be playing a new game I'll call: "Transubstantiation BINGO"

Here are the words that will "fill the card":

"Body" - "Vine" - "Door" - "Finished" - "Priest" - "Sponge" - "Catechism" - "Presence" - "Luther" - "Tradition" - "Eucharist" - "Magisterium" - "Interpretation" - "Literal" - and of course "Mary"

Also, I give a "FREE" space in the middle of the card for the inevitable list of prepared, unrelated links.

[StormPrepper]

After reading this passage, the founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, (who was also a freemason and witch) started baptising dead people. This form of exegesis is sheer madness, for when did a dead unrepentant person ever benefit from being baptised after they died?

What a ridiculous statement. Joseph Smith was never a witch. Nor did he ever baptize a dead person.

Your total lack of understanding of God's plan of salvation for the whole of humanity is staggering.

Baptism for the dead is one of the most important signs of the true Church of Christ. As Paul briefly mentions that this was performed in Christ's original Church.

God sees both living and the dead equally. God gave the law that all people must be baptized. Since He obviously knew that millions and millions of people would die without ever hearing of Jesus Christ or able to be baptized by someone with authority.

It was His plan from the beginning to provide a way that they all might be baptized. The living would do a work of faith for the dead.

1 Peter 4
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

The gospel is preached to the dead because every person that has ever lived must have the choice to accept or deny the truth if they never had the opportunity in this life.

Baptism is the essential for salvation.

[rwa265]

What I find puzzling is that many Catholics concede that Protestant Christians CAN be saved and are genuine Christians, while being without that core teaching of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist for salvation.

I’d like a lurking Catholic to explain this. Are these ecumenical Catholics just being devious, or do they not believe Catholic doctrine?

---

You might want to do some research on exactly what Catholic doctrine is regarding those Christians who are not Catholic but have been justified by faith in Baptism. It may be different than what you think.

[ctdonath2]

Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.

Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF. They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ, that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him). I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof. Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.

[safeasthebanks]

Matthew 22: 37-40

Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

[ctdonath2]

We have. If you’re not under the auspices of the Catholic Church in its physical form, yer toast. (...at least until you’ve gone thru the Purgatory-brand Spiritual Washing Machine for a few thousand years, at which point everybody gets cleaned up and into Heaven without any involvement of Christ or His church. Except really bad people, ‘cuz they’re evil, unlike the rest of us slightly-stained folk.)

[FreshPrince]

Please do tell him he is wrong. He spouting the heresy called Sole Fide “Faith Alone”

[ctdonath2]

Went from denouncing heresy to a new barbecue grill in 6 short sentences. Impressive!

[ctdonath2]

“The Eucharist at every mass is acknowledging the sacrifice Christ made for us.”

There’s quite a difference between acknowledging what was done (Protestant doctrine), vs insisting Mass is in fact a literal physical participation in the actual sacrifice, right down to drinking actual transubstantiated literal blood (Catholic doctrine).

[paladinan]

Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.

My point was this: merely taking technical terms, and running off with them in a half-understood way, doesn't lead to anything reasonable. More on that, below.

Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF.

Minor correction: the bread and wine have ALREADY BEEN transubstantiated (i.e. changed in substance) from "bread and wine" into the "Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ". The change happened before the consumption.

They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ,

Depending on whether you mean those terms in the way that I do: yes, that's true. Every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (a.k.a. "Mass", for short) is a literal "re-presentation" (in an unbloody manner) of the death of Our Lord on Calvary. Our redemption was an eternal act, done by the Eternal God, Who is beyond time and space; it's no more strange to think of us "being literally present at Calvary" (albeit sacramentally) than it is to think of Jesus' death saving the lives of people who lived 2000+ years BEFORE and AFTER He died.

that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him)

I'm not sure who told you that; at best, it's misleading and inaccurate, and it's very casual/sloppy with important technical terms. In one sense, we "killed" Jesus, because it was our sins for which He died (no Protestant would argue against that point, I think); but it would be incorrect (and bizarre) to say that the Mass is any sort of "new participation in killing Him".

I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...

I'm not sure what you're regarding as "actual teachings"; can you give me links to (or quotes from) the Catechism of the Catholic Church which say exactly what you said?

at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof.

Well... one has the responsibility to double-check one's data, to be sure that one isn't accepting a straw-man as "true". I think the people who wrote your sources were a bit confused, at very least.

Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.

I can't speak for what private individuals write, about the Church; I (personally) have read many bizarre, and even heretical, things which purported to explain "Catholic teaching"--but which a 2-minute search of the Catechism would prove wrong.

[paladinan]

Er... FRiend: is that really all you can offer? Nonsense, wrapped up in snark, which is wrapped up in straw-men?

It's helpful to make up one's mind as to whether one really wants the answer to a question, or whether one merely wants to cling to prejudices and to hear oneself talk.