[Havoc]

I'm not playing with secondary issues here. It doesn't get any more central than salvation and where it comes from. And this is a central issue of division. Christ died on the cross and arose from the dead to pay the cost of our salvation. It is done, over with. And per Hebrews, he sat down next to the Father in Heaven when it was finished. One sacrifice, as Hebrews states, for all time never to be repeated - in contrast to the repetitious sacrifices of the old covenant that covered; but never cleansed. Rome teaches a different Gospel. And that is the point I'm making that they don't like.

[dangus]

Rome teaches a single sacrifice accomplished the JUSTIFICATION of all men. The mass is not a repeat of that sacrifice; if it were, we would be CAUSING the suffering of Christ by subjecting him to that sacrfice again. The mass brings that sacrifice, which happened once for all, into the present time, and presents it to us here and now, as if we were there experiencing it with the disciples. This is all very, very basic to Catholic liturgy.

[B-Chan]

Brother:

First: With deepest respect, who are you to teach anything? Why should any of us trust your interpretations and teachings over any other? By what authority do you deem one doctrine the Truth and another error?

Unless you are claiming to be infallible, as is the Pope, you have no credibility as a teacher.. You are simply expressing your personal beliefs and claiming them to the identical with the Truth. You will forgive me if I prefer the Truth as taught by the Church for the past twenty centuries to your own home-brew version.

Second: One sacrifice, as Hebrews states, for all time never to be repeated - in contrast to the repetitious sacrifices of the old covenant that covered; but never cleansed. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for our sins is precisely what the Catholic Church has always taught. The idea of somehow crucifying the Lord over and over again is, frankly, silly, and has no place in either Catholic liturgy or doctrine.

Third: Rome teaches a different Gospel. And that is the point I'm making that they don't like.

Rome teaches the Gospel handed down in unbroken succession from the lips and quill of Saint Peter, who was given the Keys of Heaven and Earth by the Lord Himself. Yours is the novel doctrine; it has neither history nor Scripture to support it. As for your “disliked” point, I and the other Catholics here will be happy to lovingly point out the errors in your teaching any time you feel like it, because we believe in the teaching of the Church, which is the Truth, and the Truth neither fears nor is threatened by error.

Lastly: Please do not take my criticisms of your doctrines to be personal attacks. I realize that your contention is born from a genuine concern for the salvation of your fellowmen, and thus is (despite its erroneous nature) a virtue rater than a vice. I appreciate your concern for our eternal destiny, and I pray to you for your intercession on my behalf.

Yours in Christian fraternity,

B-Chan

[cupcakes]

That is a good point that even the likes of Martin Luther would agree with you on. Like I already posted, he was willing to conceed the details if the pope(of that time) would AFFIRM the Gospels. Not get rid of Catholic tradition or popes or any of that, just affirm the Gospels and he would not do it.