Posted on 02/22/2018 8:33:27 PM PST by ebb tide
The Francis Effect meeting the German Heresiarchy leads to an explosive decision of cataclysmic consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
Perhaps he understands Roman Catholicism better than you.
John A. O'Brien Papers
Origination : O'Brien, John A. (John Anthony), 1893-1980. Extent : 34 linear feet. 2 audio tapes. 2.5 linear feet of photographs. 32 linear feet of printed material. Repository : University of Notre Dame Archives Address : Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Research Professor of Theology at Notre Dame and prolific author of books and pamphlets.
Born 20 January 1893 in Peoria, Illinois, John A. O'Brien attended St. Patrick School, the Spalding Institute, Holy Cross College (Worcester, Massachusetts), and St. Viator's College (Bourbonnais, Illinois). Bishop Edmund M. Dunne ordained him as a priest of the Diocese of Peoria and he celebrated his first Mass 18 June 1916. He served as chaplain for the Catholic students at the University of Illinois and earned a Ph.D. in psychology there. He started the Newman Foundation at the University of Illinois. He began his career as an author of Catholic books by organizing symposia (Catholics and Scholarship and The White Harvest) and writing about Evolution and Religion.
In 1938 he published a book about Catholicism called The Faith of Millions which became a best seller (200,000 copies by 1945), was reprinted in 27 editions, and was translated into 10 languages. [IIRC, the book has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamped in the front.
From ewtn..."The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed nihil obstat and imprimatur ]
He remained at the University of Illinois for twenty-two years. In 1939 he spent a year at Oxford University and produced a book about communism, Thunder from the Left.
For the rest of his life he taught, and wrote, at the University of Notre Dame. Father O'Brien believed that Catholics ought to work actively to convert others to the Catholic faith; he participated in crusades to that end, organized campaigns in 50 American dioceses, spent his summers preaching in the streets of southern cities, published articles in popular magazines, and wrote pamphlets to promote missionary efforts and explain the doctrines of the Catholic Church. He continued to consider issues involving conflicts of secular and Catholic beliefs -- anti-Catholicism, birth and population control, priestly celibacy, communism, evolution, science, sex education -- and participated in friendly discussions with Protestants, Jews, Masons, and other non-Catholic groups. He wrote 45 books and hundreds of pamphlets and articles. In 1973, the University of Notre Dame awarded him the Laetare Medal. He died 18 April 1980 in South Bend, Indiana.
Again, a Roman Catholic priest, one who has been ordained by the Roman Catholic church, who has taught at ND, who has had a best selling book published with the approval of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, disagrees with your position.
Once again, from the Faith of Millions....
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times!
The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
I understand why Roman Catholics do not like this statement from O'Brien.
The term rendered is used by O'Brien as noted below:
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times!
Again, an ordained Roman Catholic priest, says Christ is brought down from Heaven [in contradiction of Hebrews] and is rendered present on the altar.
Are you suggesting that O'Brien doesn't understand what is happening at the Mass?? Isn't this what Roman Catholic priests are trained to do??
Have you gone to the Catechism links yet?
If he says He is sacrificed a thousand time, he is wrong.
Fr. O'Brien's statements may be, in some cases, ambiguous or invite erroneous interpretation.
Perhaps for Roman Catholics....but it is not Scripture.
We sometimes see this: a person who claims to be dialoguing, but actually refuses accurate information about Catholicism.
The quotes form O'Brien are presenting information deemed to be accurate ....by Roman Catholicism.
Have you gone to the Catechism links yet?
Yes...and I see confirmation of what O'Brien is saying.
If Fr. O'Brien--- I presume his earthly life is decades past, and may he rest in peace --- says that Christ is rendered present on the altar, not once but a thousand times, he is right.
If he says He is sacrificed a thousand time, he is wrong.
Fr. O'Brien's statements may be, in some cases, ambiguous or invite erroneous interpretation.
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times!
The Catechism calls it a sacrifice in multiple places.
"And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner," (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1367).
This statement from Rome is contradictory.
At the Lord's Supper, Jesus had not yet been crucified.
You're going to have to explain how the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper were His actual flesh and blood while He was still alive.
Fr. O'Brien's statements may be, in some cases, ambiguous or invite erroneous interpretation.
Yet his works are credited with being accurate. His statement on the Mass was crystal clear. He was not ambiguous.
Again, you're suggesting a Roman Catholic ordained/trained priest doesn't understand what's happening during the Mass.
(But we've already had a fruitless go-around about "presence," so let's leave that alone for now, shall we?)
So yes, it's possible for a priest to write ambiguously, or even ignorantly. Or even heretically --- what? Don't you even watch the news? I'm on the warpath against one right now, currently resident in Rome.
2. For the, what is it, 4th time in the past 2 or 3 days: HAVE YOU READ THE CATECHISM LINKS I SENT YOU ON "ONE SACRIFICE" YET?
OK< now I'll lower my voice. Read that. It will help.
What is it authoritative on is, precisely, what Catholicism believes and teaches.
It seems you don't care much for an accurate account of Catholicism, and would rather discuss O'Brienism.
Don't waste my time with this otiosity.
Really? John O'Brien, an "obscure and oddly misspoken" priest?
I read The Faith of Millions back when I was a catechumen. I doubt I would have joined without his comforting words.
Fr. O'Brien believed in total Biblical inerrancy. He believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch. He did not subscribe to any modern historical criticism, unlike less "obscure" and "oddly misspoken" priests. Our official catechetical text was Chr*st Among Us by Anthony Wilhelm, which was horrible. It was almost pure Marxism mixed with Teilhardianism new age nonsense.
Fr. O'Brien's church no longer exists. Only Anthony Wilhem's exists now.
At any rate it's good to know your commitment to evolution and historical criticism are so complete that you are willing to "excommunicate" a priest who doesn't agree with you.
I've given an accurate account of Roman Catholicism based on the words of a Roman Catholic priest.
Again....O'Brien was an ordained Roman Catholic priest.
He was trained in how to administer the Mass.
His book was given the "thumbs up" as far as content from the local Roman Catholic bishop.
The man taught at Notre Dame.
He understood Roman Catholic teaching on the topic.
I don't see how you can get any more authoritative, for a Roman Catholic, than the man's credentials.
That you don't like his work is understandable.
Regarding the Catechism ...yes it explains Rome's positions....but the Catechism is not authoritative as it is not Scripture.
As noted before....what Roman Catholicism teaches regarding the Mass is in contradiction of what is revealed in Scripture.
That may explain why so many Roman Catholic churches depict Christ still on the Cross.
He is continually re-sacrificed over and over again in Roman Catholicism.
That is patently obvious from reading the Catechism.
1. I have never read this flippin' O'Brien's book nor even heard of him.
Well, I know this is not true as I have referenced this quote numerous times in discussions regarding the Mass to which you and many other Roman Catholics have been a part.
The portions you read apparently were somewhat ambiguous, because you misinterpreted him as saying Christ is sacrificed over and over --- which, if he said it, would be heresy--- when what he said was that Christ is "rendered present," which is a different matter.
I've given you the quotes straight out of his book. The only misunderstanding it seems is on your part....or rather, should a say a not wanting to understand.
(But we've already had a fruitless go-around about "presence," so let's leave that alone for now, shall we?)
Yes...and the Bible teaches that when a person places their faith in Christ, He is in them as is the Holy Spirit. They don't come and go from the believer. Roman Catholicism though, teaches that can happen.
So yes, it's possible for a priest to write ambiguously, or even ignorantly. Or even heretically --- what? Don't you even watch the news? I'm on the warpath against one right now, currently resident in Rome.
His book was given the "thumbs up" by the local bishop.
To date, I am not aware of any Roman Catholic that has said his book contains false teachings...save for you.
2. For the, what is it, 4th time in the past 2 or 3 days: HAVE YOU READ THE CATECHISM LINKS I SENT YOU ON "ONE SACRIFICE" YET?
For the umpteenth time, if you will see my posts I've said I've read the Catechism on this. I've also read various opinions of the ECFs.
I will ask the question again....
"And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner..." (CCC 1367) [note...this is from the Catechism].
This statement from Rome is contradictory.
At the Lord's Supper, Jesus had not yet been crucified. You're going to have to explain how the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper were His actual flesh and blood while He was still alive.
1) O'Brien does not argue that Christ is repeatedly re-sacrificed, as your assert. He says that Christ is repeatedly rendered present.
2) To be rendered present is not the same as being re-sacrificed. As an analogy, to be present as Mayor on a hundred different occasions is not the same as being elected Mayor anew a hundred times. A man may be brought into our presence "as Mayor" without being, each time, elected over and over.
3) I do not understand your refusal to refer to the Catechism. It contradicts any claim that you are interested in an accurate account of Catholicism.
Your argument, though lengthy, fails because you are asserting something that isn't true: this idea of a repetitive re-slaying of Christ, which no competent Catholic believes, not even your O'Brien.
Read the Catechism. Then get back to me.
I object, not to O'Brien as an individual, but I object to the refusal to advert to the Catechism as a source of reliable information about what the Catholic Church teaches.
Even if a person does not regard the Catechism as being an authoritative guide for himself, he must reasonably regard it as representative of Catholicism.
Chasing after O'Brien while obstinately ignoring the Catechism is just a red herring. Ir distracts from a reasonable discussion of Catholicism. and I won't do it anymore.
I do not understand how you are not seeing my posts where I've said I've read the Catechism....I've even posted from it.
What you want me to say is I agree with you on the Catechism.
O'Brien notes: When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens [not supported in anyway by the New Testament], brings Christ down from His throne [not supported in anyway by the New Testament and is in contradiction of the NT], and places Him upon our altar[sure sounds like what the Romans did in nailing Christ to the cross] to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.
This is where the position of Rome is false.
Christ is not offered up again.
It was a one time event that is not repeated....except in Roman Catholicism.
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Hebrews 9:24-25 NASB
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times![sure sounds repetitive to me AND in contradiction of Hebrews 9:24-25n] The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.[not supported by and stands in contradiction of the New Testament]
Read the Catechism. Then get back to me.
You're getting a little snippy there, mrs.d.
I could say read the Bible and get back to me.
Come on mrs.d....be honest on this. You did so a couple of posts ago!
"Offered up" does not mean, in this context, re-sacrificed, as on Calvary. Christ is eternally offering Himself to His Father. The action of an eternal Divine Person is eternal.
I am sorry if I became impatient, but it seems to me that you are just refusing to engage in the implications of an "eternal" action.
The problem with this discussion is not that I don't read the Bible (I do, several times a day) but that you don't read the Catechism, or at least don't read it with comprehension. If you did, you'd see that there's no multiple sacrificing going on. It is one eternal action. One. Eternal. Action.
Who is our One priest? Christ.
Who is the One Lamb that was slain? Christ.
Who, principally, is acting in the Mass? Christ.
To whom are the words and the actions of the Mass addressed? To God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
Your ability to look-without-seeing is puzzling to me, but I ought not to get impatient because it may be something you can't help at the present. A large set of elaborate preconceptions can get in the way of new learning.
Well, I was trusting what you claimed about O’Brien saying Jesus was being re-sacrificed. I revised my view when I saw that he said no such thing.
The CCC says otherwise.
"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,"
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross,"
And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner,
Roman Catholicism is misunderstanding what happened on the Cross....where Jesus said, "it is finished" which stems from their misunderstanding of John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse.
His sacrifice is not repeated as noted in Hebrews. He is not being offered up again and again....either bloodied or not.
The New Testament is clear on this. The problem with this discussion is not that I don't read the Bible (I do, several times a day) but that you don't read the Catechism, or at least don't read it with comprehension. If you did, you'd see that there's no multiple sacrificing going on. It is one eternal action. One. Eternal. Action.
The Catechism is the source of much bad theology. I would advise any Roman Catholic to ditch it and just focus on the Bible.
Eating the wafer at the Mass is not what saves you.
The New Testament is clear on this.
Faith in Christ is what saves you....or else Paul and Silas lied to the Roman jailer and Luke recorded it incorrectly.
25But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. Acts 16:25-34 NASB
Me, quoted: "Offered up" does not mean, in this context, re-sacrificed, as on Calvary. Christ is eternally offering Himself to His Father. The action of an eternal Divine Person is eternal."
You, commenting: "The CCC says otherwise."
Catechism, quoted: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice."
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross.""
Excuse me, but nothing in the first quote (from me) contradicts the other quotes (from the CCC.)
This must surely be a reading comprehension problem.
The CCC says this is "one single sacrifice." Go back to the beginning of this thread and see if I didn't say "one sacrifice" about a dozen times.
It "re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross" ---the word,"re-presents," used by CCC. That's just what I said. It makes this one sacrifice present.
You quote things from me and from the Catholic Catechism that confirm the same view, sometimes with the same words, and say they are contradictions.
This is futile. I'm going to have some cookies and sing. I think it might be a good idea for you to do the same.
However, we have yet to address the Roman Catholic position that one is saved, or regains salvation [but which neither are a NT position], through the eating of the wafer.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God. CCC 1414
Eating the wafer is no where in the NT ever noted for salvation.
I'll repost the passage from Acts where Paul answers the jailers poignant question...what must I do to be saved.
Paul and Silas replied:
31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31 NASB
They did not say, as a Roman Catholic might, that you have to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
They offered the same answer Jesus told the unbelieving Jews...one must believe in Him:
28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” John 6:28-29 NASB
It's the same message Jesus told Nicodemus:
15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. John 6:15 NASB
It's the same message Paul told the church at Rome:
8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Romans 10:8-13 NASB
It's the same message Peter and the disciples understood:
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6:67-69 NASB
Even if a person does not regard the Catechism as being an authoritative guide for himself, he must reasonably regard it as representative of Catholicism.
The Catechism you mention represents modern, post VII Catholicism. To insist that nothing changed at VII, that the church before is identical in every way to the one after, is to deny the obvious.
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.