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.