THE BLASPHEMY OF THE MASS

When sharing with catholics the wonderful news about the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of the world, one of the most tragic and miserable deceptions that many of them have blindly bought into is their worship and idolization of the eucharist.

Breaking bread is something that all Bible believers cherish and take very seriously, especially after reading Paul's solemn admonition not to come to the Lord's table with any unconfessed sin in our hearts (1 Cor. 11:23-34). However, communion is only for those of us that have already been saved from all of our past, present, and future sins; and as such we do so in gratitude for and remembrance of the terrible price that Christ paid for us in dying for our sins to save us from the wrath of God, not in order to 'be saved' or to 'stay saved.'

For catholics, however, it is something they must do in the 'hope' of being saved and staying saved. So, for them it's rather simple: no priest, no mass. No mass, no salvation! And it's also something that they must continue to do right up until they die, otherwise all the 'good' that they've done in their lives will be wiped away upon death. Without meaning to sound crude, it's a bit like a 'pay-as-you-go' situation, a bit like buying 'credit' for their phone in order to use it. Translated, this means that they have to keep going to mass in order to 'stay saved.'

In John 6, which I covered point by point in another article, Jesus makes it very clear that when a person eats His flesh and drinks His blood, they have (present tense) everlasting life.

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

The above verse proves that eating the Lord's body means one already has everlasting life (present tense) and affirms that this is no mere reference to sitting down and breaking bread each week (I’ll have more to say on this later).

"In ancient ritual blood sacrifices (in pagan religions) the worshipper must consume the blood of the victim as a sacrifice. This idea was incorporated in such manner that now the communing believer takes the bread (the body of Christ) into his own flesh in this the supreme and highest moment of Christian worship. This becomes the central mystery of the Christians’ faith and practice eating the body of Christ."

Up until the 12th century, many popes and church councils had differing views as to the necessity of the mass. For example, Gregory I placed an anathema and automatic excommunication on anyone who didn't participate in this unbiblical and non-bloody sacrifice. Yet Innocent III said that all those who taught that it was necessary and essential to attend mass would be excommunicated. (Also, some church "fathers," like the above popes, believed in the eucharist being literal, divine and essential to salvation, while others considered it only to be symbolic, and no more than that.)

Catholics believe their priests have magical powers to change a wafer and wine (not unleavened bread and fruit juice, both being Scriptural) into the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ before 'crucifying' Him afresh, and the Scripture that is commonly misused and misunderstood to 'affirm' this is John 6:51-63:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

This kind of Biblical interpretation is called letterism. The concept is quite simple: every passage in the Bible (if one is not careful) ends up being interpreted literally, resulting in many problems, if this is taken to the extreme.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have also fallen prey to this theological blunder!

For example, in the above piece of Scripture, the Jewish Messiah is speaking to His Jewish disciples and others present (never forget the historical and religious context) in their Jewish synagogue, and He tells them:

"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath (present tense) eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

According to catholic teachings, no catholic is entitled to have any assurance of salvation, much the same way that Muslims don't either have any assurance that their sins are forgiven. Should they die at any moment, their religion offers them no guarantee that they will go straight to be with the Lord, even though the above text is crystal clear that salvation is eternal and given to those that eat His flesh and drink His blood. Once again, Rome is proven to be teaching falsehoods on matters of one's eternal and unconditional salvation.

May I also take a moment to remind the reader that Jewish culture forbade the drinking of blood (animal or human) before the law, during the law, and after the law (Lev. 17:11-14.) So, obviously, Jesus would not teach against His own law while the Jews were still living under the Jewish law (Acts 15:28-29).

Some years after this event, Peter would say: "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14). Yet, according to Rome, he had done this but didn't know what he was talking about!

As catholic doctrine desperately needs to affirm John 6 as being literal, I find it rather odd that other verses, such as Matt. 5:29 "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee," are not interpreted literally, but only metaphorically. (One church leader, Origen, did foolishly mutilate himself, when reading this Scripture.)

So, how should Matt. 5:29 be correctly understood and interpreted? Jesus is warning His Jewish audience about the drastic consequences of unrepentant sin (Rom. 12:1 should be cross-referenced here). Correctly, nobody within catholicism or Biblical Christianity would take this verse to be literal but metaphorical, which of course is the only correct way to exegete it.

And what about John 6:54? Well, Scripture with Scripture, and we read how some of the unbelieving Jews, when hearing about eating and drinking Christ's body, later complained (vs. 61). This is reminiscent of what happened with Moses and his followers, when they were still wandering in the wilderness (Ex. 16:2). Also from the same chapter, we read about the "Bread of Heaven," which God gave as a test to Israel to see who would obey His laws or not.

John 6 comes to its natural completion, with the false disciples departing from Jesus, even though He made it clear in vs. 63 that His words weren't literal. They had already made up their minds, however, and "walked no more with Him," and with this, Christ allowed them to depart permanently (John 6:66; 1 John 2:19).

So then how should one understand what Jesus means when He says they must eat Him and drink Him? The most sensible and logical conclusion for any honest and open-minded person to come to would be to understand this as being metaphorical. Therefore, the Lord was underscoring the fact that He would soon die and taught His followers that they would need to partake of this spiritual memorial, i.e., believe in Him and on Him, if they wanted to be saved (John 1:12).

1) If receiving it (pre-Vatican II) warrants eternal life, then grace through faith alone is thrown out and works for salvation is taught alongside it, something that the cults believe. Please also remember that communion hadn't yet been officially instituted by Christ.

2) Today's catholic church (post-Vatican II) no longer holds to the urgent need for catholics to take communion in order to be saved; for they state that Muslims and Jews can be saved without any faith or repentance in Christ.

No sane person would take a literal interpretation of other Scriptures such as "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst" (John 4:14); "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" (John 6:51); "I am the door" (John 10:7), and finally, "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler" (Ps. 91:4). This is known as letterism. Rather, these verses are understood figuratively, based on the loving understanding that God does and will look after His own and will feed those that believe in Him literally and spiritually.

Thus, redeemed sinners will never thirst again if they feed on Him and His word daily. And we know that God is not a bird (Ps. 91:4), but is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is also invisible (Col. 1:15).

Later in the Bible we read how Paul ridiculed his pagan audience in Acts 17:25, when he totally dismantled their nonsensical belief:

"Neither is [God] worshipped with men's hands [out goes transubstantiation], as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

One should also read Acts 19:26-27 where Paul once again reiterates this position, and what follows from his pagan crowd? Much persecution and violence. Why? Because they, like Rome, know, that Paul's rebuke of their foolish notion of creating gods, i.e., statues, etc, etc, is very bad for business (like church membership and attendance is for Rome). How times never change!

Lastly, on this note, 1 Cor. 8:8 is the final clincher that eating food (the wafer miraculously becoming 'the body of Christ') doesn't save sinners:

"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse."

Each of these verses totally obliterates the warped view of the catholic eucharist being a Biblical doctrine, let alone being able to save lost, ignorant sinners!

May I say the reason why I have titled this article, "The blasphemy of the mass" is not only in remembrance of the following victim of this cruel and heretical belief of a wafer being transformed into the literal body of the Lord Jesus, but because the church of Rome have created yet another idol and stumbling block to catholics all over the world, something God detests and will judge them severely for.

Before I move on, I wish to share with the reader, the following and most profound statement made by an Anne Askew, whilst been tortured to death for Christ by a catholic bishop, for failing to submit to the mass:

(Anne was 25 years old when she was tortured and later taken out and burnt alive!)

One writer had the following to say about the madness of how Rome deals with a wafer:

"If a Catholic gets the wafer (not the Biblical unleavened bread) stuck in his false tooth, he is to scrap "Jesus" out of his mouth with a knife or finger, dip Him in water and drink Him...If a person vomits up the wafer, they must pick up their vomit."

One last example of this type of wooden and woolly interpretation would be when the Mormons take 1 Cor. 15:29 literally:

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?

(The Mormons have been known to baptise dead people at random, regardless of their religious backgrounds, and then add their names to their own private computer, which incidentally has billions of names of people from around the whole world and dating back many years in their many underground secret tunnels in Utah).

1 Cor. 15:29 simply means that if Christ had not died and then been raised from the dead, our baptism and faith in Him would be totally in vain.

For non-catholics, the whole concept of what the mass is was clearly defined and explained by an archbishop, John F. Whealon:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation [continuing] of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained."

This part of Scripture is partially true, apart from the perpetual aspect. And then Whealon goes on to say:

"What makes the mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and death. Jesus then, is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice. The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering himself in the Mass."

(Note: The mass is performed around 200,000 times a day, all around the globe, meaning Jesus, according to catholic belief, is continually being 'summoned' down from Heaven like a bellboy, to be repeatedly 'sacrificed' afresh for the sins of catholics. 'Salvation' at best is only temporary and most certainly 'conditional', and as such, catholics are constantly in limbo and fear of dying outside their so-called 'state of grace.')

One of the greatest blessings for people that had been trapped in organized religion was the protestant reformation of the 16th century. Much to their credit, the reformers re-discovered how sinners are saved solely and exclusively by their faith alone in the shed blood of Christ.

By Christ's precious and divine blood, anybody who believes on Him and in His substitutionary death on the cross for their sins can be totally forgiven and pardoned, regardless of anything they do to 'help' them earn 'favour' with God!

Of course, such an amazing re-affirmation of God's incredible grace was met with absolute fury from the priests of Rome because, for them, only they could act as little 'mediators' between God and man. To cut them out of the equation meant the end of livelihoods and strongholds over members of their religion.

So, Rome launched a counter-reformation movement, and one of the first things they did was to convene in Trent, northern Italy, where they issued over 100 curses on worldwide non-catholics, which in essence meant eternal Hell fire upon death!

The council of Trent and its many curses, which is still binding on non-catholics to this present day, had the following to say to anyone who didn't agree with them on this:

"If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most Holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the mass let him be accursed."

Well, before I respond to the curses promised by Rome, may I remind the reader of one very important point: if the mass is a continuation of the work of Calvary, than catholicism has a rather difficult problem. For the Bible says, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).

The mass is a non-bloody sacrifice. The sacrifices in the Jewish temple were bloody. Jesus' death was bloody. The mass is not. Therefore according to Biblical theology, the mass is totally nullified, and subsequently worthless!

Now as far as the 100+ curses, which have so 'lovingly' been placed on all non-catholics are concerned, all I would say is this: I shall return such curses back to Rome via FedEx! Because as far as I am concerned, the mass is not needed at all. For we read the following in the book of Hebrews:

"But this man [Jesus], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore" (Heb. 7:24-28).

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12).

This monumental Scripture, which the apostle Paul also affirmed in his epistle to the Romans (6:10), has a most beautiful connotation to it. Such verses would echo the words of the Lord as He hung naked on Calvary's cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30).

And before I move on, please permit me to share what a real curse is, when concerning false teachers and their teachings, from a true servant of God:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9).

So, it appears the Rome has actually cursed themselves, when seeking to curse true Bible believers!

To the observant student of Scripture, none of the above verses state that works of any kind are necessary for salvation; it's simply by one's faith alone in Christ alone!

So, what further need do we have to emphasise that the sacrificial aspect of the catholic mass is a farce and blasphemy in the eyes of God. Jesus has paid the price for the sin of the world (John 1:29), and no church, group, priest, vicar, guru, prophet, or god has the right or even the audacity to say or teach otherwise.

I know that Paul used the Old Testament frequently, and that the Septuagint is quoted in places in the New Testament, but each apostolic writing is also God-breathed, as much as anything written for the Old Testament, and so needs to be interpreted, i.e., understood, by anyone who would govern their lives according to the will of God. This includes the book of Hebrews.

But you appear to be saying that there is no need to interpret the book of Hebrews, because it is itself an interpretation of the Septuagint. I see that as nothing but an ingenious way to avoid having to tell us what the official position of Rome is on this passage of apostolic revelation.

But this is an untenable position. One cannot engage in conscious thought without interpreting. I looked at your Catholic RSV version and find it says virtually the same thing as my KJV. How does that help me understand the distinctives of the Roman position? It doesn't. Using your logic, one could argue that every book after Moses was just an interpretation of Moses, and so needed no further commentary from Rome on any of those either.

(Interesting sidebar: The Sadducees of Jesus day did in fact take a position quite like that (IIRC), that only the Pentateuch was revelation, the rest just interpretation. It is how they were able to deny the resurrection. At least until Jesus used Abraham to show God was God of the living, not the dead, from the Pentateuch. It really flummoxed the Sadducees. And it embarrassed the Pharisees, because they'd had that proof available to them and never saw it until Jesus revealed it!)

In any event, if you are not actually interested in showing what your denomination believes about this passage in Hebrews at an official, infallible level, you should just come out and say so. I can understand your apparent disinterest in doing so. You probably do not know where to find it. This is why we keep asking. We are confident there is no official, infallible Roman interpretation of Hebrews 10. Your apparent refusal to answer is only helping our position. But you are free to do as you please. We are happy to take the de facto concession.

Peace,

SR

Apparently, you have not seen the Gospel yet. So here it is in the simplicity your Catholicism religion cannot use:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whomsoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting Life. John 3:16

And again, when the 'leadership' of Judaism in His day asked Jesus what work God required for salvation, Jesus answered simply:

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29

When Jesus asked the disciples whom the people said He is and then 'but whom say you that I AM', Peter's Holy Spirit inspired response is so true, so complete, so absolutely based upon God's Promise that Jesus expounded on the process to come (you know, the keys and the foundation rock):

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16

And in his letters Paul echoed this same simple formula and not anything else:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Roman 10:9

And Peter echoed this same simple Gospel when he preached in the home of Cornelius:

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly ... And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:38 - 44

And we see how God affirmed this Gospel immediately, even before Peter finished his sermon!

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

And that, dear Catholic is the Gospel of Salvation, complete, not needing anything else to be real and immediate. Believe that Jesus is the one God has sent for our Salvation, believe God has raised Him from the dead as your Savior, and you are then IN eternal life, by the Promise of God, not some man-made institution. Your eternal life with God begins with that utterance/confession of faith, because it is at that moment that God's Holy Spirit enters to indwell you and as far as you let, he changes you into what He finds 'comely'. For it is God Who is in you, both to will and do of His good pleasure, from the moment of your profession onward.

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.

Demonstrably false; OSAS is a teaching of the Gentiles who abandoned the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Hebrews contradicts it; those who enter into the new covenant, Jew or Gentile, and sin willfully afterward can expect judgment, fiery indignation, and being devoured (imagine that for "the rapture").

As for Paul, he did not sign that letter, and he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Do you think Paul lied to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, all Israel. and sinned in the temple here ?

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

No. Not false. I understand some think the description of Paul's temple event negates the entire sense of the book of Hebrews, but the Temple sacrifice system has been ended, both by fact of history and by apostolic revelation in the book of Hebrews. This is really beyond contest. As I have a real job that demands my attention and don't have time to do a full exposition of Hebrews for you, I recommend you reread the entirety of the book in one sitting, takes notes, and make an outline of the development of the message, and see if the theme of the superiority of the New Covenant, especially with respect to the change in the sacrificial system, does not come through for you. In that New Covenant, there remains no other sacrifice besides Christ whereby we may seek forgiveness of sin. This is entirely consistent with the language of Chapter 10 as I and others here have proposed it to be understood.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, if you are only offering me your own personal reconciliation between Paul's temple event and the subject matter of the book of Hebrews, I do not see how this advances my understanding (or yours) of the official, infallible Roman position, as it appears to be absent from the discussion altogether. I would wager there is a diversity of opinion and that the matter of how to interpret this passage has not been rendered dogmatic.

For example, your private solution just offered (if I understand it correctly) is defective because it works too well. Tell me of any sin that isn't willful? Sin by definition is an act of will to run against the will of God. Anyone who knows the truth about Jesus and still sins is meeting the criteria stated in Hebrews 10. Any sin at all. A momentary flicker of lust. A split second of unjustified anger. Sin is sin, and all of it is done with consent of our will, or it wouldn't be sin. If you're driving a car and the brakes fail and you run over and kill a child, you didn't commit first degree murder, because your will was not involved. So everyone, upon committing their first post-conversion sin, would become irreversibly apostate, by your use of this passage. No confession, no seeking of forgiveness, can be allowed, if your private interpretation is correct. Nothing but judgment ahead, after the tiniest sin. An extremely fragile salvation indeed. Basically, Heaven will be a very lonely place. No one will make it. A "solution" that works too well.

Which is why it would then be necessary to massage it into something that works for Rome. And who knows how they might try to do that. I can't imagine any solution that would work under those terms. This is why it would be necessary to know the full, official, infallible, dogmatic position of the Roman magisterium on the matter. I am interested in your private views, but they don't inform me concerning the Roman solution to these problems. If we are going to have a meaningful contest between Rome and Biblical Christianity, Rome needs to show up.

BTW, this is no small matter to me personally. This passage in Hebrews has been greatly abused by some in my experience, leading some tender, Christ-loving souls to grave despair over sins they thought made them lost and unsaveable, based on this passage. It is a wretched thing to see, and such as feel the worst pain of it are often those most disposed to want desperately to please God. Like the apostles at the Lord's Supper, where Jesus tells them one will be a traitor, and those who loved Christ deeply felt great anxiety that they might be that traitor, whereas the actual traitor, Judas, just calmly did his evil deed. Those who would teach in the body of Christ have a serious obligation to not mess this sort of thing up. It can be devastating to the weak of conscience and ill-informed. Anyone with true pastoral love for the flock of Christ will not settle for a sound-bite solution to this problem.

Which again is why I am insisting on an official position that I can rely on as Rome's claimed infallible interpretation of this passage. Once I have that, then I will know whether and in what way it conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God. I will not be holding my breath while I wait.

Peace,

SR

The book of Hebrews argues against the theory that the audience were other than holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, and Paul did not sign that book. Paul's temple event was apostolic obedience in the unity of the Paraclete among the Jewish Apostles, which argues strongly against the Paul sinned in his return to Judaism sermon. The language is so powerful against OSAS that it is generally avoided by those who follow that tradition.

Catholics have no problem integrating Hebrews into the faith once delivered to the saints. I don't know who the human author was.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to four,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to four,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter three, in its entirety,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Tell me of any sin that isn't willful?

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Leviticus, Catholic chapter four, in its entirety,
Luke, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses thirty five to forty eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Yes, some sins are committed in ignorance. For example, there could be a Muslim man raised to believe honor killing is virtuous, and so he kills his daughter for becoming too western. He sincerely believes he is right. Did he sin willfully? That is, was his will involved in his sinful act?

Again, to restate my earlier question, can there be any such thing as a sin that does not involve an act of the will?

But let's now say our poor Muslim friend makes a profession of Christian faith, learns that honor-killing is actually murder, but goes ahead and kills his second daughter because he doesn't like the way she is dressing. What then? Can he be forgiven? He had some knowledge of the truth, and sinned anyway. Your use of Hebrews 10:26 does not allow forgiveness for a willful act of sin after conversion. As I understand what you have said, any such act results in permanent exclusion from the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.

So let's say the now ex-Muslim professing Christian comes to you as his pastoral adviser and repents in sincere grief that he has done wrong, and now wishes to be restored. What would you tell him? No? You had knowledge, and you did a terrible, sinful thing anyway, so too bad, story over, go home and wait for hell? Is that your position?

BTW, I notice that your response here is still just your own private interpretation. No infallible Roman source cited. How do you know, for example, you are using the official, infallible definition for "willfully" as it is used in this passage? More importantly, how do I know I'm not dealing with your own, personal, eclectic view of this passage (the AF Church of One Willful Sin Damnation - great name for a denomination, don't you think?) versus the official, infallible view of Rome?

Peace,

SR

I do not recall a single case where the lawyers that posed these types of questions to the Messiah profited thereby. My advice, is to take these scriptural warnings to heart, so to speak, and profit thereby.

Jesus didn't avoid answering any lawyerly questions by saying they were useless. Rather, He leveraged those questions into startling new insights. He is the best lawyer (and teacher) ever, and he out-lawyered the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer. In that regard, and in every other way possible, He is my role model.

As for my question to you, I ask you to answer rather than avoid, because I believe it will lead to insight. The bottom line is, it has dawned on me I am not up against just one Roman heresy, but every FR Catholic who expounds their own private views as if they were speaking for Rome, but are in effect being their own little mini-me RC popes. This comes home to me when I can't seem to get you to give me anything remotely like an authoritative, infallible interpretation of this passage in Hebrews 10. Am I really expected to argue these things with all of you individually, only to find out at the end of the day that Rome has no official position on the matter? What a monumental waste of time and effort. At my age time is precious. I truly do not want to waste a second of it. If your position isn't even demonstrably the Roman position, why would I care about it?

But of course I do care about it. I care because I know the damage false guilt from dire warnings can produce when they are unfounded. It is precisely because this is such a terrifying warning that it's exact application must be made certain. Again, I am asking you most sincerely to consider the question I posed as if you were in a role of pastoral care. Real pastors do have to answer these questions for real, troubled souls. Those pesky lawyers Jesus confronted only wanted to confound Jesus. They had no care for the people in their charge. But I've seen the damage misapplied "warnings" can do, up close and in person. This is serious business. I wish I could convince you of at least that. We don't have to agree. But the word of God can be seriously misused. Don't you suppose the "circumcisionists" Paul fought in Galatia were running around quoting dire warnings at people who were not the proper object of those warnings? You see Paul's pastoral instinct come out strong against those folks, not because he wants to out-lawyer them, but because he cares about the damage they are doing to precious souls for whom Christ died.

That's where I'm coming from. That's why the question needs to be answered. Better if you can get an official, "infallible," dogmatic answer from Rome. But I'll take your private interpretation too. Equal opportunity apologetics. But I would like some truth in labeling. If it's just your personal opinion, better if everyone knows that up front.

Peace,

SR

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.