RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

Thank you for locating that..... And now they say that despite the pontiff quoting it and affirming it he was "not speaking infallibly."

You are committing an error. It's called quoting out of context. Pius XII did not teach what you claim. He taught only ONE infallible ex cathedra item in Munificentissimus Deus:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the
course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

You will notice in the document that this is the ONLY infallible, ex cathedra definition made by Pius XII. Read the context in the document. Pius XII quoted St. John Damascene to support ONLY the above: the doctrine of the Assumption. He did not use it to support any such teaching about the "painless childbirth".

But you conveniently glossed over that, didn't you? So very DISHONEST of you.

Hardships, yes but if we consistently follow the teaching of the Roman church she has not experienced corruption or death (even Christ had to die!) so to be consistent, she must have escaped the consequences of Gen. 3: 15.

You really know nothing about Catholic doctrine. The Church has NEVER taught that Mary could not have died. It has NO teaching on that at all. It only teaches that she passed from this earthly life and that her body did not experience corruption. Most likelly, however, she died. It is quite irrelevant and has no bearing on Catholic doctrine. But now you are MAKING UP a "catholic" doctrine that the Church has NEVER defined: that Mary could not have experienced pain. What shameless dishonesty!!!

Nope it is the apostate church. I've proven from Scripture many times in here, and in this thread's locked and buried predecessor.

Your "proofs" were YOUR WACKO PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS which have been refuted over and over. Please repeat them here so we can have fun poking holes in them again!

I'll even give you a chance by helping you. Kindly show me even one verse in the Bible that says the Bible itself is the SOLE and FINAL authority for Christians. That should prove that the Catholkic Church has no authority whatsoever. Oh... but you can't seem to find that verse now, can you?

What about that pre-existing complete biblical canon I've been asking from you for a couple of months now? You know, the one you claim existed in complete form and was in use by the early Christians before the Catholic Church defined the canon of the Bible? You rememvber that, right? Hmmm... but it's been months since I've asked you and you just can't seem to produce it! How so very odd!

The truth of the matter is that you can't seem to prove anything. Except, perhaps that you have this penchant for coming up with some really wacko interpretations of scripture. I can recommend a medical professional to help you remove that habit if you like.

[mannyamador]

Since cardinalbunal has been trying to confuse readers as to what is an infallible ex cathedra teaching by the Pope, here is the definitive meaning:

From: The Catholic Encyclopedia, article on Infallibility.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

• what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
• the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
• infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
  
  • The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
  • Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
  • Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
  • Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

Also, the section below is very important as it directly deals with some of the LIES cardinalbunal has been peddling. See the bold text for those parts:

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

From the above, it is quite clear that the insinuations of cardinalbunal are LIES: He claims the Church has taught that Mary never experienced trhe pains of childbirth, but this has NEVER been a Catholic doctrine. His citations of the Papal Bull of Pius XII do NOT fall under infallible ex cathedra teaching. In fact, they were even quoted out of context!

In other words, cardinalbunal is, as sual, MISREPRESENTING the teachings of the Catholic Church. What DISHONESTY!

[Cardinal Bunal]

Â* Â*that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the
Â* Â*course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Even then, we know that Mary and Joseph offered the animal sacrifice in the temple for atonement. She wouldn't have done that if she was sinless...... If that is not enough of a convincer, she even called the Lord "My Saviour". Anyone who is sinless does NOT need a Saviour.

The church teaches that because Mary was to be the vessel of the Messiah come to earth, she had to be without stain as not to effect the child Jesus she was to bear. It is easy to see the fallacy of this logic because all her parents, her grand parents, and her great grand parents would also need to be sinless!!!!!!!

I was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Roman church to create an opponent made of straw that I can attack, I was merely bringing them into a new light.

For instance, both devotionals the Dulia and the Hyperdulia do NOT in any way teach that we are worshipping the figures that we course intercession through, but if you take a look at the hyperdulia - we see many prayers that clearly defy the catechism what it teaches about "NOT worshipping."Â*

Lucia Dos Santos and Bernadette Soubierous were told to KNEEL before the vision. Peter, the messenger angel in Revelation clearly discouraged kneeling before them and the angel even identified the act of kneeling as close to "worshipping" already.
Would the humble Mary of Nazareth encourage followers to worship her? I think not.

To you do we cry poor banished children of Eve, to you do we send our sighs mourning and weeping in this valley of tears... Turn then most gracious advocate your eyes of mercy towards us

Unto thy hands I entrust my salvation (to Mary)

Both of those prayers are by Alphonsus Ligouri.... I'm sure Manny can identify where they came from....... The Roman Catholic Church will no doubt dismiss any of those who insist that invoking the name of Mary is not worshipping.... But if we understand the implications of it all. We know the church is in error in excusing the act of worship for mere veneration, or holding of special honor.

Anyone with an iota of common sense understands that excessive veneration is tantamount to worship.

I am not misrepresenting anything I am bringing them into the light beyond the terms and hollow discourses and deceptive philosophy Rome preaches these.

The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

Yes, in many cases there are situations like apparitional events that merely receive imprimatur of the local Catholic bishop. So based on that statement above it is "unofficial".... but why won't the church close shrines that have not yet received full approval by Rome?? Why won't they discourage the paying of pilgrimage to those places if it's possible that the visionary has deviated from the "good fruits" that (according to Rome's teachings) is truly an indicator of a benevolent spirit?

I'll even give you a chance by helping you. Kindly show me even one verse in the Bible that says the Bible itself is the SOLE and FINAL authority for Christians. That should prove that the Catholkic Church has no authority whatsoever. Oh... but you can't seem to find that verse now, can you?

Nope. But the Scriptures do attest that they ARE enough for salvation..... and for WORKING OUT salvation. Working out, not working for to build up spiritual muscle and to train in righteousness....... Meaning? The Scriptures can stand even without the man-made unorthodox heresies being preached by the church of Rome.

The Arameans, the Coptics and the Greek orthodox had the complete New Testament even before the Roman church did...... just because someone re-affirms that a Volkswagen vehicle is a Volkswagen is NOT the reason it is defined as the car of it's name... The Catholic Church did NOT establish the canon either.

Yes and everytime the Scriptures accuse Babylon of being the BIG BAD CHURCH you don't sink my claims you just throw them off as "personal interpretations". Why? Because the Scriptures clearly convict the universal faction that you so zealously defend. Many eschatologists and scholars both orthodox and Catholic alike attest that Babylon is Rome, but some are afraid to admit to the fact that it would be the universal faction that would lead people astray on a GLOBAL scale. (Rev. 17: 15, Daniel 7: 23)

But there is a 5th kingdom. A fifth empire that will overthrow the big bad church... and that kingdom is everlasting!

[makusama]

true! but as for me bai noh you won't get the truth man bai if you are not prepared to accept it or if you are already on the state of rejecting such ideas.

So very true.

we share here lang but if you dont like other people's opinion so be sports lang ta ana and then never put down anyone who's not at your wavelength. ayt? chill lang ta bai. naglabad na akong ulo og basa sa mga postings nga grabeh ka daghan og grabeh ka lawom hehehe.

Opinions are okay with me. We live in a democratic country. The problem is CardinalBunal is "misinterpreting" the Roman Catholic Faith from unreliable sources and attacking its leaders. I also have the right to defend diba? I am also reading his posts and trying to find a point in it... basin pa diay sakto siya... open man ko... and I am not a blind follower (dili ko santos material). I respect all religions and I even have close friends form different religions...

I also have been posting again and again.. research before attacking and posting kay wala nay lami kung dali ma tubag unya klaro kaayo na walay ayu... If naa gyud siya makit-an na bati like the "inquisition" that is supported by historical proof wala man sad ko ni deny... angkon man sad diba? Kung tinu-od awwww... angkonon... kung botbot naturally depensa gyud... normal raman na...

it is not religion than can save ya but it is how you lay down all your burdens and sins to God and admit that you have sinned and you want to change and you want to become His child. na nicomment na nuon ko hehehe

for a person na comment comment lang... bullseye gyud imo comment sa Catholic faith!
sayon ra istoryahon imong gisulti bro but suwayi og buhat.. kanang tinud-anay gyud diba pwerteng lisura... hehehehe

[makusama]

This is the whole prayer.... un-editted version

Hail! Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To you do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, O most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
O God, whose only-begotten Son, by His Life, Death, and Resurrection has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life; grant, we beseech You, that, meditating on these mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain, and obtain what they promise. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

ayaw chop chopa.... kapoy na og explain... self explainatory mani...

Unto thy hands I entrust my salvation (to Mary)

asa mani gikan? imuha ning version or unsa? unsa may kumpleto na prayer ani? mura mani og David Blaine camera trick man... cut cut...

Post the complete prayer kuno with the title para ma research gyud nato...

[makusama]

aahhhh.. kit-an nako...


Virgin full of goodness, Mother of Mercy, I entrust to you my body and soul, my thoughts, my actions, my life and my death.
O my Queen, help me, and deliver me from all the snares of the devil. Obtain for me the grace of loving my Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, with a true and perfect love, and after him, O Mary, to love you with all my heart and above all things.
Amen.

and after him, O Mary, to love you with all my heart and above all things.

una gihapon ang ginoo... ika duha si Mary alang alng mama gud na ni Jesus.

Obtain for me the grace of loving my Lord Jesus Christ, your Son

-nagpatabang ra og padu-ol sa ginoo diay... kalo-oy sad tawn... tsk tsk tsk kuyawan man sad ta...

[makusama]

aahhhh.. kit-an nako...


Virgin full of goodness, Mother of Mercy, I entrust to you my body and soul, my thoughts, my actions, my life and my death.
O my Queen, help me, and deliver me from all the snares of the devil. Obtain for me the grace of loving my Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, with a true and perfect love, and after him, O Mary, to love you with all my heart and above all things.
Amen.

and after him, O Mary, to love you with all my heart and above all things.

una gihapon ang ginoo... ika duha si Mary alang alng mama gud na ni Jesus.

Obtain for me the grace of loving my Lord Jesus Christ, your Son

-nagpatabang ra og unsaon pag higugma ang ginoo na perpecto... kanang kanunay gyud... kalo-oy sad tawn... tsk tsk tsk

kuyawan man sad ta... wala may bati dinhi... it is all aimed at loving the Lord Jesus Christ in a perfect way... naay daotan ana? mangayo man gani ta og tabang pangadji kung naay masakit sa atong pamilya... unsa man diay sakto? kanang dili mangayo og tabang unya solo solo lang?

[Cardinal Bunal]

Virgin full of goodness, Mother of Mercy, I entrust to you my body and soul, my thoughts, my actions, my life and my death.
O my Queen, help me, and deliver me from all the snares of the devil. Obtain for me the grace of loving my Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, with a true and perfect love, and after him, O Mary, to love you with all my heart and above all things.
Amen.

Yes, but this among many other Marian devotionals affirms the AD IESUM PER MARIAN practice..... Put "Mary" beside or in front of Jesus (Neck is one of Mary's titles in the church of Rome (see Col. 1: 18 Christ is the Head ) ), then Mary instantly becomes another Mediator!

The apostles, and Christ himself taught that there is no other Mediator, and Christ wants us to come to Him directly. (John 14: 6)

Mary herself never encouraged people to go to Jesus through her. (2 Thes. 2: 9 - 10 ) anthropos, Someone, the lawless one has been orchestrating these erroneous practices.

http://www.harpazo.net/Queen.html

If you had a sick friend, and his physician is out of town - but his mother, who happens to be a lawyer is avaible. You would certainly in lieu of the doctor's absence ask her mother, the lawyer to cure your sick friend, right? The reason being, since your physician is an expert and is very qualiified in his field, surely his mother can't be good for nothing right?

^^That illustrates the folly of ascribing to Mary what is due to Christ's and Christ alone.

But as the Scriptures say, Christ forever lives to intercede for us. - Heb. 7: 25 (NAB), to Mediate for us (1 Tim. 2: 5) and to be our Advocate to the Father if anyone does stumble in sin. (1 John 2: 1 NAB)

We love Mary, and we do count her as Blessed, but we must NOT extol her beyond her place as another believer and ob
edient follower of the Lord.

Peter himself (Acts 10: 26 ) and an angel sent by the Lord (Revelation 22: 8 - 9 ) identified the very act of kneeling as the beginning or equivalent or WORSHIP.

[KS Stanilavsky]

MASS DECEPTION
by Timothy F. Kauffman


If any of our readers happen to be subscribers to a cable network, they may have occasionally flipped past Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Television Network, or EWTN , a globally broadcast Roman Catholic cable channel. Among the many regularly featured Roman Catholic programs is one that we would invite our readership to view: the Daily Mass which airs from Our Lady of the Angels Monastery in Birmingham four times daily during the week. Though we do not recommend a regular viewing of the subject matter, we think this segment is worth seeing at least once. It portrays for us--in the most graphic way possible--our reasons for rejecting the Roman Catholic Mass sacrifice.

Before we go any further, we wish to explain that our use of the term "sacrifice" regarding the Mass is a deliberate one for the Mass is truly a sacrifice in which a "victim" is "immolated" on an altar. It has all the makings of a sacrifice and thus it is properly so-called by the Roman Catholic Church:

"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice : 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests , who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.'" (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367)

"And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory ... For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, ...forgives even heinous crimes and sins." (Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2)

One need not view the Daily Mass very long before being struck with the base familiarity of the setting used for this sacrifice. The altar is of course in plain view with a tabernacle and candlesticks nearby, while the priest stands at the ready to offer this sacrifice of appeasement to God. Two angels, cast in bronze, find themselves forever prostrating themselves to the right and to the left of the altar, presumably to worship the presence of the divinity of Christ in the bread to be offered. Between these two cherubims, the priest will perform his rites by which he thinks and teaches that sins can be, to some degree, removed or at least put off.

Now, to the eye unaided by the revelation of the light of Christ, this situation seems perfectly arranged for the appeasement of the wrath of an angry God, and speaks through images of the grace bestowed to us in Christ Jesus. The carnal man finds nothing at all objectionable either about the setting itself or about the ritual which is to be performed there. Christians, however, find the whole performance rather troubling. We shall explain why.

To begin, we cannot help but notice how accurately this sanctuary has been designed to reflect the ministrations of a Levitical priest in the Old Testament. Right down to the cherubims of the glory on either side of what Rome thinks to be the mercy seat: the altar of immolation of the victim to be sacrificed. The whole scene is resonant of that design which Moses received from God Himself:

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be" (Exodus 25:18-20).

The setting of the Roman Mass therefore gives the appearance of being Biblical, but it is not.

The first doctrine to which the Mass sacrifice draws attention is that of transubstantiation: the Roman Catholic teaching that the bread of the altar contains in itself the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, as well as His blood, and, of course, His body. It is in this manner that the whole Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity is to be immolated to propitiate the wrath of God. To immolate means to sacrifice, kill or destroy. This is what the priest is alleged to do when he serves at the altar to offer the transubstantiated wafer sacrifice to God. Though we fully deny the Roman dogma of transubstantiation, we will let it stand for now in order to show the greater futility of the Romish Mass which is professed to satisfy the wrath of God and forgive sin.

We note from the beginning that the Roman priest finds himself bound by the same limitations which prevented the Levitical priests of the Old Testament from offering sacrifices which could take away sins. For example, the Roman priest performs at the altar a sacrifice with someone else's blood. Also, the priest is obviously a man who is not Christ. Likewise, the Roman priest freely confesses that he presents the sacrifice to God for his own sins and for those of the people. Even if the doctrine of transubstantiation were true (and it is not) all three of these problems would render the Mass ineffective as a sacrifice for sins.

The epistle to the Hebrews, when comparing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, makes much of the fact that under the old priestly caste, the sacrifices offered in the temple were of no effect in removing sin, "as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own" (Hebrews 9:25b). Literally, when someone besides Christ acts as a priestly mediator, his mediation is of no effect since he does not offer his own blood, even if the blood is perfect blood . When the Roman Catholic priest asserts that he transubstantiates the bread into Christ's blood to be offered by him to God, he in the same instant tacitly confesses that his sacrifice accomplishes nothing at all.

The Scriptures also state that Christ, being the sole mediator of the New Covenant, shares the altar with no man. He alone ministers at the sacrificial altar of the New Covenant:

"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar " (Hebrews 7:13)

We remind the reader that this was written after Christ's death, and therefore, rules out any New Testament priestly caste apart from the priesthood of all believers. No other man has ever served at Christ's altar, not before--and certainly not since--his ministrations on the cross. For the Roman Catholic priest to assert that he serves at the same altar as Christ is to confess openly that he ministers at the altar of a different Christ than the one spoken of in the Bible.

To continue, the effectiveness of the sacrifice is equally dependent on two criteria: 1) the purity of the priest who ministers, and 2) the purity of the blood being offered. Christ was Himself the perfect High Priest and the perfect sacrifice:

"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26)

There is no Roman Catholic priest who would presume to be sinless. Therefore, there is no Roman priest who has ever offered a Mass sacrifice that was capable of removing sin. The scriptures rule out the efficacy of the ministrations of any priest who has to offer a sacrifice for his own sins:

"He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:27)

Of course, the Roman religion has a ready answer for these objections. To solve the problem of someone who is not Christ offering "Christ's blood," and having another man, a sinful man, minister at Christ's altar, the priest is said to be acting "in the person of Christ," or in persona Christi (1994 Catechism , paragraph 154. That is, though we see with our eyes of flesh a non-Christ offering the non-blood of Christ, we are expected with eyes of faith instead to see Christ Himself offering His own blood-wafer to the Father.

If it were true (and it is not) that the bread changes into Christ's blood and the priest somehow acts in the person of Christ, this would seem to quell any of the above objections both to the manner in which the Mass sacrifice is offered, and the efficacy of the sacrifice itself. However, Rome's solution, instead of solving the problem, actually adds two more.

First, the method of the Mass sacrifice has Christ offering Himself in an earthly temple which, despite its remarkable similarity to Moses' design specifications in Exodus 25, is still only a copy of it, which itself was merely a copy of the Heavenly one. Second, this present picture of the Roman priest offering "Christ's blood" "in the person of Christ," still has him doing so repeatedly. That is, it has Christ immolating himself (suffering) over and over again. He is presumed to offer Himself on a sacrificial altar every time any Roman priest offers a Mass sacrifice anywhere in the world until the end of time.

If any would ask why we should take exception to the Mass on these grounds, we answer that the Scriptures speak plainly against it. To say that Christ repeatedly offers His own blood (i.e., His sufferings) to the Father over and over again in a temple made by hands is to say that He does precisely what the Scriptures say he does not :

"For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 9:24-26a).

But Rome's error at this point again multiplies itself two-fold. First, Rome has Christ offering His sacrifice to God in a way that the Scriptures say He did not do it, and second, Rome has Christ offering His sacrifice to God in a way that the Scriptures say cannot remove sin. Christ "appeared once to put away sin," says the Word. Rome has Him appearing many times (through the Roman priest) in an earthly temple made with hands, and not putting away sin at all. In fact, Rome has Him suffering (being immolated) over and over again until the end of the world. Rome's Christ (who is a "not-Christ" and is no savior at all) must offer his sacrifice repeatedly in the Mass because it is understood that the Mass does not "put away sin" at all. If it did, once would be enough, but Rome's work of "putting away sins" is never done. And since it does not "put away sin" through one offering, an infinite number of Masses will never be enough either.

But even here Rome has its explanation. Although from the plain view of it we see the sacrifice being offering in an earthly temple, Rome actually holds that the sacrifice is only performed on earth (in the earthly sanctuary), but is actually offered in Heaven (in the Heavenly sanctuary). We will here cite the part of the Liturgy of the Mass where Rome has the sacrifice of Christ's blood being actually offered on the altar in Heaven. We ask the reader to pay special attention to the identity of the person that Rome has offering the sacrifice on the Heavenly altar:

"We offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice... Look with favor on these offerings and accept them... Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing."(Sunday Missal Prayerbook and Hymnal for 1994, pg. 27. See also the 1994 Catechism , paragraph 1383)

Perhaps after a perusal of this citation from the liturgy of the Mass, the reader can see our concern. While Rome thinks it has solved the problem of Christ's sacrifice being offered in a temple made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, it has added yet another problem. The offering of Christ is now pictured to be presented on an altar in Heaven (as the Scriptures say it was), but now it is an angel who is offering the sacrifice. Thus, the sacrifice of the Mass introduces yet another error in that it is now an angel offering blood that is not his own to God repeatedly as a sacrifice for sins. Thus, Rome compounds her error.

But these are not all of Rome's problems regarding the Mass sacrifice. So confident are the Scriptures that Christ's sacrifice of Himself, properly offered in a Heavenly temple, is effective in removing sin, that their clear testimony is that He did so only once, for all time, and now lives forever. And because our Priest offered a sacrifice which was so thoroughly effective, He does not need to continue to offer that same sacrifice over and over again. He can now rest and sit down at His Father's right hand without having to worry about whether another priest will need to come to finish His ministrations. He knows that all priests who preceded Him could not remove sin because they came and ministered and died. Their mortality was their weakness, and this is why they were many in number and needed successors. Christ knows that there was no need of numerous priests to follow after Him, for their weakness, too, would be their mortality, rendering them incapable of removing sin. Christ, however, was effective in the ministrations of the sacrifice because He, being perfect, lives forever and now makes intercession for the elect as the permanent and final occupant of that High Priestly role. He knows that Rome's priesthood is no priesthood at all because it attempts to undo all that He has done:

"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:22-25).

This passage makes it abundantly clear that Christ's priestly work is effective precisely because He needs no other priests to finish or carry on His work. But this passage also states something else. The mark of a sacrificial system that cannot secure eternal redemption is the continuation of its sacrifices. The mark of a deficient priesthood is the necessity of many in number to perpetuate the inferior sacrificial system as each inferior priest dies.

The news that Christ's sacrifice has put away sins once and for all is marvelous news to the believer, but Rome's priesthood cannot stand the hearing of it. This Good News of Christ's High Priestly ministry puts an end to everything that Rome's sacrificial priesthood wants to carry on. No worse news can fall on the ears of a Roman priest than this: Christ's sacrifice has put away sins once and for all. But the Christian Hebrews to whom the epistle was written, among whom were no doubt some of the Levitical tribe of priests, understood the significance of it. We have proof from the Scriptures that the converted Levites, upon hearing the gospel, did not rush to construct duplicates of their Levitical altars in order to continue their ministrations. They did not do what EWTN has done. And though they might have recognized the setting of the sacrifice were they to see EWTN 's daily Mass, they would stare aghast in wonder that what had been so close to disappearing in their time had been revived illegitimately. Even in their day, such things were passing away, and close to disappearing--even the description of it was only by way of reminder of something that had since passed out of practice (Hebrews 8:13). We leave the reader with the following passage to contemplate, and to wonder what the Christian Hebrews would have thought if Mother Angelica could, through EWTN , broadcast Rome's deception to the first century Christian Church:

"Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary . For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick , and the table , and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; ...And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:1-10).

Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, the words "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest," continues to be true for them, and will remain their fetters of bondage until they repent of error and confess that what they now practice was intended to be merely a foreshadowing of the gospel, and not the gospel itself. The Way into the holiest of all has been revealed to us in Christ, but the Roman Priestly caste would not have us know this, "for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in" (Matthew 23:13).

[KS Stanilavsky]

THE CHURCH

by Joe Mizzi (excerpted from Crucial Questions for Catholics May 2002)

When Jesus asked his disciples their opinion about himself, the apostle Peter answered: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus commended Peter, saying, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:16-1.

What is the 'rock' upon which the Church is built? Some say it is Peter; others think it is Peter's confession, 'Your are the Christ.'

The church is build on Peter, the other apostles and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because the church is founded on their teaching about Christ. However the Roman Catholic claim that the church is build on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is simply false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, in the New Testament Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is 'the Church's supreme pastor (shepherd)' (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he calls Jesus Christ 'the Chief Shepherd' (1 Peter 5:4).

The 'rock' could refer to Peter's confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. 'Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church.' (paragraph 424).

We need not be in any doubt about the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.

Who is the head of the Church?
Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)
What is the foundation of the Church?
No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Is there any other Rock besides the Lord?
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock, I know not one (Isaiah 44:8 ).
The church of Jesus Christ is the whole assembly of his people which he purchased with his own blood from every nation of the world. It is holy because its members are sanctified by the blood of Christ and have the same Holy Spirit. It is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the Bible.

Every local assembly of Christians who believe and obey the teaching of the Bible form part of the one catholic church of Jesus Christ