“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.”
That paragraph from a book which carries the RCC nihil obstat --meaning it had been approved officially to not deviate from RCC teaching on faith and morals-- has several items which illustrate the drastic differences between RCC dogma and Christian faith. To help sort it further, I'll make a partial list of things asserted that ought to be objectionable to Christians but so far appear quite the truth to RCC apologists:
1 - the priest is said to bring Christ down out of Heaven
2 - the priest puts The Christ upon the catholic altar
3 --the Christ is, by the power of the priest, continuing to be the victim sacrifice at thousands of locations, daily
4 - the 'sacrifice' is a repetition, since the priest supposedly is bringing Jesus Christ back to the catholic altar from where He, Jesus arose to enter His Father's presence
5 - The priest speaks and Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command
So far, not one catholic has objected to any of the assertions found in the paragraph. A couple have actually stated that they gladly affirm the assertions as facts by the RCC religion.
Blasphemy or heresies should not be thought of as games. They are serious eternal destiny issues.
So far, not one catholic has objected to any of the assertions found in the paragraph.
Do you not consider Mad Dawg’s response in post 176 to be an objection?