As a Christian, I'm all for traditions and the church as long as they are consistent with and do not violate Scripture.
The RCC traditions that are commonly discussed - Tradition, Canon, Papacy, Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences - didn't come into being overnight.
I liken it to an aircraft making a trans-oceanic flight, and at a certain point during the trip the navigator makes an error - perhaps a half a degree - in the plane's course. The longer the plane is in the air the further off course it becomes. The problem isn't the map.
But here's the take-home: It doesn't take a ThD. to figure out that the RCC has mandatory doctrines that are contrary to Scripture once the source documents are consulted.
Ex: Read Hebrews and then tell me that there is a need for a propitiatory sacrifice and a priesthood to make the sacrifice. The whole point of the letter was to tell the Hebrew Christians, who were still offering propitiatory sacrifices through priests at the Temple that they didn't need to do that any longer. Christ is the ultimate and final Priest and sacrifice. They were free from further sacrifices because His work is done - so done that "He sat down at the right hand of God". (Heb 10:12)
You completely misunderstand the Catholic position on the Mass. We agree wholeheartedly that Christ is the ultimate and final Priest and sacrifice. The Mass is not a new sacrifice but the making present here and now of the one sacrifice of our Lord on the cross. If you are going to disagree with Catholic teaching, please disagree with what we actually believe and not with a mischaracterization of Church teaching.
That is the best and most coherent analogy I've ever seen posted by someone opposing the Church on this board. I completely disagree, but it's a good one!
Read Hebrews and then tell me that there is a need for a propitiatory sacrifice and a priesthood to make the sacrifice. The whole point of the letter was to tell the Hebrew Christians, who were still offering propitiatory sacrifices through priests at the Temple that they didn't need to do that any longer. Christ is the ultimate and final Priest and sacrifice. They were free from further sacrifices because His work is done - so done that "He sat down at the right hand of God". (Heb 10:12)
We completely agree that Christ completed the sacrifice, for time eternal. However, I'm curious how you reconcile the teachings regarding the Eucharist that existed for 1500 years in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches? Were these Churches in error regarding the Eucharist the entire time? If yes, how do you reconcile that with Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?
The Mass is not a re-sacrifice, in the sense that Catholics do not re-crucify Christ. The Mass is a re-presentation of Christ’s one, all sufficient sacrifice, which is shared with all (and done in the way He instructed at the Last Supper).
At least that is what I have come to understand.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!