"But Tim, there are real Christians in the Roman Catholic Church!"

For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:13, 14

Ideas have consequences. So does doctrine. That there are true Christians who trust the blood of Jesus Christ alone to make their garments white who worship in the Roman Catholic church is no less extraordinary for being true. They are the exception that proves the rule. They go against the grain of their entire doctrinal system and many Anglicans and Protestants across the centuries put their life at risk to recover Biblical doctrine, calling to those in the Roman bondage to repent and believe. Those who imply that Luther and Calvin and Knox were fools for doing so are ignorant of what Scripture and Rome teach, or they are opposed to the very idea that ideas have consequences and that it is the job of the Church to make disciples of all men, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything He commands.

But really, we do run into the most basic failures of logic in our blind world. Systems of doctrine which are heretical (of which Rome is our primary example, here) are generally held by those who align themselves with the churches who claim that system of doctrine. What a world we live in that we must say such an inane thing!

This is the primary duty of their ordination. They are priests, after all—not pastors—and they preside over the sacrifice of the Mass. This is contrary to the "once and done" teaching of Hebrews (e.g. Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:10).

Luther and Calvin and Knox thought it does. And you? Or are generalizations so distasteful to you that you will never allow that any system of doctrine can be denounced as heretical, nor that any person who is a member of the communion holding to that system of doctrine can be expected to hold to that heresy and be in spiritual jeopardy because of their membership in that heretical communion?

Ideas have consequences. Doctrine has consequences. Rome has anathematized my faith and doctrine for over half a millenium, now, and they're right to do so if their dogma is what Scripture declares. So I reciprocate and anathematize their system of doctrine (as they have mine) because I know their system of doctrine is a fulsome denial of Romans and Galatians, for starters. But I don't stop there: I go on to the work of warning Roman Catholics to leave the dead to bury their dead, to turn away from the dead and enter Christ's true church where the doctrine of salvation has not been (and is not) corrupted by the systematic monetization of justification-not-by-faith-alone which is the heart of their error and which, tragically, their purported "ecumenical council" of Trent deposited permanently at the center of their church.

Do we really care for souls? Do we really love anyone? Do we really see deceptions and grieve over them, or are we simply committed to the laissez-faire spirituality Rodney King summarized best when he spoke for a decadent age, asking "Can't we all get along?"

The Apostle Paul writes the book of Galatians defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone and we respond, how? "Oh, Paul, there you go again getting on your high horse! Don't you know how many sincere and well-meaning Judaizers there are? And how can you know men's hearts? How harsh you are, Paul, telling them that, while they're at it, you wish they'd just go ahead and cut it all off. Grow up, Paul; are you a misanthrope? Take a chill pill, dude! I mean, really!"

Now you might resent my putting it this way, but in every discussion with weak and sentimental moderns we find that the exception to the rule is all that matters—never the rule.

Roman Catholicism is a heresy and its main heretical dogma is most clearly seen in the Tridentine documents which, according to church law, can never—may never—be repealed. Which is to say the magisterium is stuck down a mine shaft they can never escape without denying one more false doctrine which is the authority of church tradition.

And their false doctrine really does lead most of the souls under the care of those defending and teaching and preaching and practicing that false doctrine to Hell.

If all we ever feel compelled to say is that there are some people who are real Christians in the Roman Catholic Church and some parish priests who don't sodomize little boys, what have we said that anyone needs to hear?

A true Christian shepherd says to Rome and her shepherds what the Apostle Paul says in Galatians: if you continue to trust your sacraments and good works to save you, there is no hope for you of eternal life.

We need to keep in mind the statement that we moderns are given over to the morbid habit of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal. Rome is blind masters leading their blind subjects further into their blindness. That is the norm with Rome and unkindness is not saying it, but failing to say it.

The abnormal is Roman priests and parishioners who reject Rome's heresies and truly believe in the work of Christ alone for their salvation; souls who trust in Jesus Christ and, therefore, love God and their neighbor. Faith working through love. But such souls are the exception to the rule and we must not focus on these abnormalities so we may not have to blow the trumpet warning of the normalities of the false doctrine Rome is steeped in to her neck.

Hmmm, is that the only thing Paul said abut preaching the Gospel? I don't think so:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
(2 Timothy 4:2-4)

.. among many other things. So you see here how it is disobedience to apostolic testimony to preach the word in a manner unwilling to "reprove, rebuke and exhort." A "Thumper Gospel" is what has helped produce for us our present moral crisis as a nation. Thumper was the Disney character in Bambi, remember? "If you can't say somethin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." That's just another path to a false Gospel, false for it's incompleteness. So while we must always point out the affirmative truth of the Gospel, we must also stand against error. It is an explicit apostolic command.

Furthermore, the "Thumper Principle," while it may be a good rule of social etiquette, is hardly a principle of love. You want people to preach the Gospel from good motives. Good. So do we all. But the best motive is love, and love does not enable addiction to falsehood. Love speaks the truth. Love seeks the well-being of the other. Living in error is not a path to well-bing. So long as there is error, whether propagated by Rome, or Mormonism, or Islam, or whoever, those who have the Gospel must, if theyy have any love at all for God and for others, confront error with truth. It is the truth that sets one free. If you love someone, you want them to be free in Christ. It is the best thing that can happen to someone. Why would we tolerate darkness, when the light of Gospel truth is so much better for everyone?

Peace,

SR

Thank you for posting what you did here xzins. I’ve pinged some others from another thread where the words of John O’Brien were being debated. I believe your post from Catholic Answers provides enough insight to shed some new light on this issue. ( http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass ). I think those pinged might be interested in this find too.

First, some relevant bibliographic information: MGHinTN is correct when he says there was more than one edition of the work “Faith of Millions” printed, however it must be noted that the paragraph you (xzins) and he has posted are not the same. What he posted comes from (apparently) pages 255-256. What you posted comes from page 306.

Point being that what xzins posted is not “proof” that the Catholic Church “changed” the words “hoping no one would notice” as you, MHGinTN and RnMomof7 later allege on this thread. The two paragraphs are different because simply they are two different paragraphs.

Now about the controversial paragraph in question, the one MHGinTN keeps posting. It is below for convenience:

“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of men. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors; it is greater than that of saints and angels, grater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. 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.”

Don’t you, the reader of this post, think it’s remarkable that the author of the above also would write what xzins posted, in the same work? Doesn’t it give you pause to consider, that perhaps there’s a more subtle teaching going on here than a blatant “fit” with the typical anti-Catholic claim that we “re-sacrifice” Christ at each Mass? Again, what xzins posted from Catholic Answers:

“The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary”

Again, that’s from Faith of Millions page 306.

Does that paragraph (the one from p 306) sound like a man who believes we “re-sacrifice” Christ at every Mass? I simply submit a reasonable person must answer “no”.

In case the question does remain: So what does the phrase “...upon our altar to be offered up again...” and/or “...enders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! “, if not a blatant admission from a Catholic priest that we do indeed “re-sacrifice” Christ “..not once but a thousand times”! It’s right there in black and white, right?

I submit the answer to this objection is found ironically in the same work used to impugn the author and by extension the Church. Again, from the Catholic Answers article posted earlier, which also quoted O’Brien:

“The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary”

The words speak for themselves to the reasonable reader. The “...offered up again....not once but a thousand times” is in THIS sense, the sense that “The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls”.

It’s clear! O’Brien himself is explaining his earlier words, and they this do NOT conflict with the same centuries old Catholic teaching that the Mass is NOT a “re-sacrifice” but a “re-PRESENTATION” of the same ONE Sacrifce at Calvary.

I appreciate you posting this xzins and also exhorting your fellow Christians to allow us Catholics to explain what we believe rather than teling us what we believe. We say that all the time though and it goes unnoticed, by those too concerned with our souls to see this plain truth. No matter, I find their love for me, no matter how misplaced, to be touching, at times.

My only regret now is that I ordered the book off Amazon to read for myself. Oh well, it looks like it should be an interesting read! Thanks MHGinTN, for leading me to what appears to be a forgotten gem of early 20th century Catholic apologetics!

SR,

I have been reading and/or participating in forum theological debates since the time when FR was started, here and elsewhere. I have read a LOT of them and still do. What you say is so true. And no single side never goes without crossing the line at times. Even the most Godly get petty from time to time. It is our sin nature rearing its ugly head.

But what I have seen though, is the preponderance of rational and loving posts of the "side" which has the right doctrine. And by loving, not just brotherly love, but sometimes the hard love of preaching the gospel when it is not welcome, especially after having to hit hard at exposing heresy and error that leads away from salvation. But, that is what we are called to do.

It is through such debates that I came to reject some false teachings that I heard at the church I attended, and elsewhere. It was as much by the consistent overall attitude and godliness as by the biblical arguments, ones that did not stoop to ad hominem and straw men. Ones that hit hard, but with love and grace and always the gospel.

When I get drawn into one of these things, it is always a mixed set of feelings. On the one hand, it turns my stomach. I hate fighting. I’d rather be singing praise songs. Preferable with someone else’s voice, as mine is hardly a singing voice at all.

I don't post much because I know it is too easy for me to get petty and snarky. I did that way more than I ever care to admit over the years. I do pray for all as I read the debates. I learned the hard way that we just need to be obedient and willing vessels, ready to do what we are called to do, no matter how many stones are thrown at us. And to do it with grace, as much as we are able, knowing we will stumble and get petty from time to time.

One the other hand, I will testify that I have also learned a great deal in these conflicts. And I have come to moments of such deep appreciation of what God has done for me in Christ it has given me a blessing of praise and giving glory to God.

Like Jacob, it is a struggle and a wrestling to give up our man centered beliefs, but it is a loving God who wrestles with us to bring us to truth. I was no exception. watching how others reacted during the debates was a way in which I saw my own constant pettiness and realized that I was knee deep in sin, somewhere. The other "side" was not that way, although, with my cohorts, they were rational, biblically founded, Godly, and loving. I thought that they were petty and unkind, but only because they didn't think like "we" thought. Instead, it was God, in His infinite grace that was convicting me of my sin and error and lovingly bringing me to truth. Oh, how marvelous He is!

So I think if all you are seeing is bitterness and acrimony, you may be missing some important aspects of what goes on here.

So true! He is growing many people in grace, is bringing some to salvation, but is also pronouncing judgment on those whose hearts are hardened. And the Holy Spirit testifies to those who have Him of these things. And our hearts go out to them because they don't, yet they think they do. But more than that, we have no idea who is reading and will not post, and how the Lord is working in their hearts.

Paul spent significant time preaching the real gospel. Around here, all we get is the acrimony.

Great post xzins!

While your post reminds me why I typically avoid the Religion Forum these days, it also reminds me what I miss about it.

That there are thousands of posts on here every day that involve Catholics and Protestants basically slinging mud at each other saddens me.

I wish that the participants these days could learn from you, when you and I debated these issues in the past there was disagreement, but I always knew that we respected each other and listened to what the other was saying.

All I see today is people pulling posts that fit their agenda and ignoring factual evidence to the contrary. As I've said before, I will never cease to be amazed that conservatives you have never trusted publications like the NYT will blindly accept whatever they say about the Catholic Church if it fits their agenda.

The day is fast approaching when devout Christians, Catholic and Protestant, will be facing persecution that hasn't been seen since the days of Nero and his successors. It might be time for us to start figuring out what we can do together to make sure we survive. I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, but I also understand that this means that Christianity WILL be brought right up to the gates of hell and I don't think many of us are prepared for that.

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.