[Note: Bosco wanted to give us the benefit of his thoughts on the Catholic Mass. I would ask those commenting to do so patiently. I have left Bosco’s spelling as it was. Any links have been added by me so you can see his sources. C451. This will be followed by a post by myself]
I thank God for the privilege to witness to my friends.
Let us begin by seeing what the Catholic Church says about its Mass.
I will have to write myself short cuts because I cannot cut and paste for some reason.
The power of the priest is equal to that of Jesus Christ. He, the priest, reaches up into heaven, and brings Christ down from his throne and places Him upon our alter to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our alter as the eternal victim for the sins of man….not once, but a thousand times. Christ, the eternal omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the catholic priest.
Faith of the Millions; O Brien
Lets compare this breathtaking scenario to what the bible says;
Who needeth daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people, for this he did ONCE, when He offered up Himself.
But this MAN, after He had offered one sacrifice for the sins of man forever, sat down at the right hand of God forever.
Where remission is, there is no more offering for sin.
Christ is a high priest, by a greater tabernacle, not made with human hands.
Book of Hebrews.
The scriptures say that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The catholic church says its Mass is a bloodless sacrifice.
At the end of the council of Trent, the clergy, or who ever ran that council, set up a list of canons, or decrees, that said one is ananthema(damned) if one doesn’t believe a list of about ten things, I think, A few being that one must believe Jesus is truly and bodily in the wafer, or Host, I think, and another being that one must believe what they say about anything, or they are damned. This can account for why catholics seem stuck to that religion, because they are damned if they don’t.
This Romanish practice of bringing down Christ from heaven to sacrifice him again and again in order to relieve those in attendance from their sins means the Romanish religion says that Christs sacrifice on Calvary wasn’t enough.
As Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the temple, which separated God from the people, was torn from top to bottom, so now we have access to God for ourselves. We have now a mediator in Christ, how is our lawyer in heaven.
Then in around 70 AD, the temple was destroyed, the alter was destroyed, the records of all the Levite priests were destroyed. All of that symbolic stuff was gone. We don’t need it anymore. the born again are priests and Kings in the Kingdom of heaven. God used to dwell in Solomon’s temple, but now he dwells in heaven and no more will dwell in tabernacles made by human hands.
Now, the saints gather in homes or rooms and praise god and sing and fellowship.
The Romanish religion, not satisfied with Christs one time sacrifice, has built alters and temples and some golden cage that they claim God crawls into for their amusement. Levites were the priests. But the Church on Vaticanus Hil has its own false priest, its own false alters and its own false tabernacles.
Queen Mary of England, a devout catholic, and with the smiling approval of the Holy Father on vaticanus Hill, burned to death anyone caught saying that Christ was not really the “real” presence in the Catholic Euchrist, or monsterance, or what ever that thing they have during their re sacrifice of the Risen Lord. Not to mention she went about to confiscate every bible the people had in their native tongue.
Killing bible believers, confiscating bibles and killing their owners, denying Christ sacrifice. This is the purest form of blasphemy and for a surety the work of the Evil One, Satan himself.
During one of these burnings of a family, which was denounced without cause (all of the burnings were without cause) one of the females was pregnant. While she was burning, her baby fell out of her onto the fire, and was grabbed by someone, a official in attendance. Another attending official, obviously a catholic clergy, demanded that the baby be tossed back into the fire, which it was.
The Church that Christ founded.
The Romanish religion claims that this unbiblical Mass is the pinnacle, the height of its devotional life. And this is where God is encountered. Not enough to be at the height of blasphemy, it tells little children that to miss one of these blasphemous rituals is to bring downs Gods wrath upon them in the form of a eternity in hell. This alone is inexcusable.
The simple gospel, as told by the meek and lowly Jesus, is to come to Him and find rest for your souls, and learn of Him because He is meek and lowly of heart and his burden is light.
Thank you for your attention.
All Along the Watchtower 
I’m afraid you is still a bit unsaved, dear bruvver Bosco, especailly as you aint even been baptissed yet.
Anyways it is facsinating to learn dat when Jesus said “This is My Body… do this in remembrance of Me”, wot he meant was “Dis is an odinarry lump of bread, and I wants you to make a specail effort to mock my saccrifice.”
Sorry about de spelling errors, my spelling is as weak as your thoeloggy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You told me you weren’t catholic. You aint nothing but a bunch of jive.
LikeLike
I goes to the Calumny Chapel wiv its concrete doves that we worshipps, same as you does.
LikeLike
You can’t worship concrete doves… that’s idolatory.
LikeLike
Don’t pay any attention to good brother Eccles. Hes a non issue.
LikeLike
Bosco – do see my post – even by your standards this was sad stuff.
LikeLike
Every word is deadly accurate. Yes, I read your rebuttal. I took care to be as fair and accurate as possible, using the CCs own words. What I said was true, but you simply claim my info is outdated. Um, didn’t the CC claim it never changes?
LikeLike
No, almost no word was accurate, as I showed. What you did was cherry-pick phrases and never use a single authoritative Catholic source. By using Catholic sources I showed that everything you said was incorrect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have also read many such statements from Catholic sources. I was also under the impression that Catholic publications had to carry an imprimatur indicating approval. Am I correct or mistaken a book that disturbed me considerably was ‘The Glories of Mary’. I forget the author but I came across it what I was assisting in street evangelism in Dublin in the1970s. The book definitely denigrated Christ and glorified Mary as the hope of salvation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That used to be the case, but it has fallen out of use generally since Vatican II. The book you mention is by Ligouri, and does have the imprimatur. He takes a very Italian view of these things, and, along with de Montfort, is a favourite quarry for those who want to argue for ‘Mary’ worship. He makes it clear in the preface that in glorifying Mary, he does so to the greater glory of Jesus, and if one reads it in the light it was meant to be read in, it does that. It is, like de Montfort, a good example of the difficulty Anglo-Saxon culture has with Marian veneration and its language.
LikeLike
I’m afraid I cannot take that lenient view of the ‘Glories of Mary’ failing to ascend to a stern Christ but get there through Mary is as blasphemous as it can as I see it.
I really do think the RC Church is trying to backtrack and perhaps confuse since VII and can quite appreciate where Bosco is coming from. But I do not support his disrespectful manner towards sincere Catholics or others.
LikeLike
It needs to be read in the light of the author’s intent, not a Protestant reading. The Church is not backtracking, but it has realised that some of the older language is open to misunderstanding.
LikeLike
As I have indicated I just cannot accept what I see as lame excuses for traditional Catholicisms’ statements or past actions.
My stance, however, is quite different in some respects to Bosco who considers all Catholics hell-bound. I do not see that a Catholics sincere faith in Christ and commitment to Him as Saviour can result in anything other than salvation.
Hence I have enjoyed fellowship with a number of Catholic believers.
LikeLike
It isn’t an excuse, Rob, it is an explanation of something which tends to puzzle men from an Anglo-Saxon culture. An equally good question would be why, when French, Italian and Spanish men have no problem.
LikeLike
The Church is not backtracking, but it has realised that some of the older language is open to misunderstanding.
Good brother Rob is rite. lame excuses for blasphemous false teachings and doctrines. No matter what I quote, be it the bible or the CCs own words, you say its either poetry, like the bible, or open to misunderstanding like the CCs own words. there aint no misunderstanding.
Theres one person on the throne at judgment, and its not Mary. Time to seek the Lord while he may be found.
LikeLike
The power of the priest is nowhere near the power of Jesus! That is blasphemy! I just started reading and already I am starting to see some very bad things being taught. The priest is just like everyone else. But Jesus says that He is the Way, Truth, and Life. NOBODY comes through to God, except for Jesus. I do hope that the Catholics don’t find the Gospel heresy… if so then there will be more problems….
And Christ bows his head to the priest?? Who does the Catholic priest think he is?? We are nothing but a heap of bone, blood and flesh. nothing more, nothing less. including the Pope.
I’m kind of jumping a bit but I shall talk to you about Mary Tudor now who is mentioned in this post.
She was awful. A horrible woman. If she is the “devout Catholic” who is the example for us, then I can guarantee you that every Catholic will go straight to Hell. She would burn Protestants at the stake, because she disagreed with Luther and all those people. It’s a bit like evolution you see… Proven wrong, countless times, and still people refuse to believe that it is false, made-up, pure imagination.
Mary held on to those beliefs taught by the RCC. And I must say the RCC was very clever about how they gained power. Their connections with the government made them extremely powerful, and so if they got on to the Queen’s side, what could stop them?
Mary Tudor is called ‘Bloody Mary’ for a reason…. remember that.
But I am struggling to figure if you are blaming God or Satan. We cry out, “God! why do you let so many bad things happen in the world?” What if God asked that to us? Hm?
But what angers me most is how we justify all this by calling Bloody Mary a “devout Catholic”. That sickens me and I have no more to say except this,
The Pope I can confirm is the anti-christ, I agree with Luther fully. You can hate on me, but you’re probably at the Vatican in Rome and I’m sitting here in Australia with beautiful sunshine knowing that I know the truth and grace of God.
LikeLike
So, you can confirm the Pope is the anti-Christ? Would there be any argument there, or are you infallible?
What was the last book you read on Queen Mary? I am guessing you’ve never heard of Eamon Duffy or David Loades or read a word they have written; and yet you feel better qualified to comment on Queen Mary than those who have spent years studying the sources? As with your claim on the Pope, it seems that your comment about saying ‘I am right, you are wrong’ would be better directed at yourself. Since God alone knows who goes to hell, you make a blasphemous claim in guaranteeing you know who goes to hell.
I am not, alas in the Vatican, but when it comes to high culture and aesthetic beauty and history, you are welcome to Australia and I’ll take Rome any time.
LikeLike
you make a blasphemous claim in guaranteeing you know who goes to hell.
No more blasphemous than calling a man the Holy Father, and then bending over and kissing his foot.
LikeLike
Since Jesus founded his Church on Peter and gave Peter and the Apostles the power, in his name, to bind and loose, we are simply respecting the office and not the man. As you choose not to understand this, this, again, is your problem. Saying you can guaranteed who will and will not go to hell is another matter. You, for example, claim you cannot go to hell because you are saved. St Paul did not make such a claim, nor did any of the Apostles, so can we get this straight once and for all? You have been unable to offer me one case from the Bible of anyone saying they are saved and definitely going to Heaven, and yet you claim to be Biblical? Really? You make a claim no Apostle makes and tell me it’s Biblical. I have simply asked you to quote me one person in the whole of the Bible who says what you say. It would better not to keep telling lies Bosco. We know who the father of lies was. Has it not occurred to you that by telling so many lies you are doing the work of the father of lies who was a liar from the beginning?
LikeLike
ill get back to you on that one.
LikeLike
While you are at it, do give me the Biblical example of someone claiming what you claim – that is to know they are saved. Christ says we shall all face the Last Judgement, but if you are ‘saved’ I presume you don’t get that? Do tell me more about how you escape the Judgement? If you don’t, how are you ‘saved’? There’s a contradiction here Bosco, perhaps you’d like to explain it?
LikeLike
Being sure of salvation:
How about Paul 2 Tim. 1:12
LikeLike
So why does Paul talk about running the race and hoping for the victor’s crown?
LikeLike
Not everything Paul says relates to how he views his position with regards to Salvation. There is quite a bit in the gospels where the Lord speaks of loss or reward apart from the salvation issue. Paul also deals with this e.g.”He himself will be saved but so as by fire”.
LikeLike
In other words, he does not deal in the same language as Bosco, who seems to believe that salvation cannot be lost.
LikeLike
No, as I have said the evangelical world is divided upon whether salvation is secure or can be lost. I am inclined to the view of eternal security but not to the degree of absolute certainty.
However, I am certain that there issues of reward and loss for those who will be saved which is what I referred to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My point was about Bosco’s utter certainty- which I find no parallel to in Church history before the sixteenth century. There’s an interesting piece here from a former Protestant:
https://chnetwork.org/story/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/#.WR-oXRb3O15.twitter
LikeLike
I have no problem with your point on one saved always saved – the majority of evangelicals would agree with you anyway. You asked for a NT example of someone who was secure in salvation. I consider the Timothy passage relevant.
LikeLike
The piece I link to makes the point clearer than I did:
‘Modern American Evangelicals teach that Christian life begins when you “invite Jesus into your heart.” Personal conversion (what they call “being born again”) is seen as the essence and the beginning of Christian identity. I knew from my reading of the Fathers that this was not the teaching of the early Church. I learned studying the Reformers that it was not even the teaching of the earliest Protestants. Calvin and Luther had both unambiguously identified Baptism as the beginning of the Christian life. I looked in vain in their works for any exhortation to be “born again.” I also learned that they did not dismiss the Eucharist as unimportant, as I had. While they rejected Catholic theology on the sacraments, both continued to insist that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Calvin even taught in 1541 that a proper understanding of this Eucharist is “necessary for salvation.” He knew nothing of the individualistic, born-again Christianity I had grown up with.’
LikeLike
I doubt Bosco will read the piece I linked to, but this passage is for him and others who take his view:
‘Modern American Evangelicals teach that Christian life begins when you “invite Jesus into your heart.” Personal conversion (what they call “being born again”) is seen as the essence and the beginning of Christian identity. I knew from my reading of the Fathers that this was not the teaching of the early Church. I learned studying the Reformers that it was not even the teaching of the earliest Protestants. Calvin and Luther had both unambiguously identified Baptism as the beginning of the Christian life. I looked in vain in their works for any exhortation to be “born again.” I also learned that they did not dismiss the Eucharist as unimportant, as I had. While they rejected Catholic theology on the sacraments, both continued to insist that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Calvin even taught in 1541 that a proper understanding of this Eucharist is “necessary for salvation.” He knew nothing of the individualistic, born-again Christianity I had grown up with.’
LikeLike
My leaning is towards Anabaptist and there is little that is individualistic in their tradition. Church community and its discipline is a vital ingredient. With regards to baptism, the NT example can be quite strongly argued to be the baptism of believers. This is the time when a disciple nails his colors publically to the mast. Interestingly it the point In the process of conversion) when a Muslim convert to Christ generally begins to experience opposition.
LikeLike
And that, Rob, is the problem. Arius showed you can argued quite strongly from Scripture that Jesus is a creature, the first-created; the Gnostics argued, quoting Scripture, that those inspired by the Holy Spirit had access to special knowledge not available to others; the Docestists argued that Scripture showed Jesus was a man on whom the Spirit descended at Jordan. Scripture does not interpret itself, any more than it defines itself.
On the nailing one’s colours to the mast as a Christian, I agree.
LikeLike
Im too tired to do all that now. Ill do my best when I relax a bit.
LikeLike
A common Catholic action, twisting the words of others. I didn’t say that I know every person that will go to Hell. Take a look at someone like Emperor Nero of Rome. He was a truly evil man. Just so you know, he hated all Christians, had them covered in boiling tar, alive, then used as candles in his garden. Killed his first wife so that he could marry another woman, only to have her kicked to death later. Is it not safe to say that he would be in Hell? Doesn’t sound like blasphemy….
So you claim that Queen Mary, or Bloody Mary was good huh? So you agree that when she would burn Protestants at the stake because of their denomination then it is ok? Want to burn me or Bosco? Because according to you it is theologically correct.
Mary did a lot of other awful things that I don’t feel like mentioning, I think you took me for not liking her because she was a Catholic. That is not the case, I have Catholic friends who I enjoy talking to a lot, and I know that judging someone for their religion doesn’t help.
If you were a Protestant then you would agree that the Pope is the anti-christ. But what I notice is that you rarely talk about what the RCC did wrong because, oh wait, they didn’t. I forgot, and if anyone says they did, then it is heresy. What a joke.
And even when you do mention the things that the RCC did wrong, then it is extremely briefly and the conversation switches in a moment.
I will not bow to this Pope or pray to any Saint, when I can do both to the God in Heaven whom I love and serve.
LikeLike
I refuse to talk to you about my salvation because you will just twist my words… again. And it would be better to be calm about it than to bluntly sit there and say that I am making a contradiction and make no sense when in fact, you can’t accept the truth.
LikeLike
How very convenient – you have no answer so you make a feeble excuse. Why post at all?
LikeLike
Good brother classicmusicguy doesn’t feel he has to answer to you about his salvation. He seems to get excited when you attempt to water down the atrocities committed by the Roman State run religion. Plus, neither of us feel the need to hide protestant atrocities because neither of us belong to a religion. I say ….good. Turn around is fair play.
LikeLike
Bosco, as you protest the position of the Church, you are a Protestant – sorry to inform you of the obvious.
LikeLike
“Bosco, as you protest the position of the Church, you are a Protestant – sorry to inform you of the obvious.”
Does that mean the Orthodox are also Protestant?
By the way, I just left Russia and had a wonderful time visiting many sites particularly churches there. On the plane leaving read an interesting article on R.Orthodox Church and the state. If I can find the time I will try and offer the gist of it for a post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, because the Orthodox do not protest the position of the Church. They are in schism with it but do not deny the Real Presence or the Episcopate or the idea of a sacramental priesthood open only to men.
LikeLike
But of course the Orthodox claim the RCC is in schism and surely that is a protest.
LikeLike
No. Schism is quite different from rejecting the Church, its sacraments and its idea of the priesthood. You will struggle to find a member of the OC who holds a Protestant view of salvation.
LikeLike
I agree that it’s different but the Orthodox still seem to protest against the RCC
LikeLike
Protestantism rejects much the early Church held as axiomatic. The OC does not, and its disputes with the RC are of a different kind. It should, of course, be noted that the Great Schism occurred before the Reformation, and no one has ever called the OC Protestants.
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
Be very interested in a piece on the ROC and the State, Rob 😊
LikeLike
Basically, atheists have been getting prosecuted, JW activities have been made illegal and the Orthodox are seeking to use state power clamp down on the activities of Pentecostals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back to the status quo under the Tsars.
LikeLike
heck, I don’t mind being considered a protestant. It don’t bother me. Just don’t call me late for dinner.
LikeLike
I am sure no one would do that to you
LikeLike
You are an interesting example of transference. I never claimed you knew everyone who would go to hell, but you did claim you knew some people who would, just as you claim to be ‘saved’; does this mean you miss out on being judged at the last? Nero, like Hitler, was an evil man, but unless you are claiming to be God, you cannot be sure of his fate.
Again, I claimed not that Queen Mary was good, but that you were basing your prejudices on out of date history. I asked if you had read any of the relevant authoritative studies, and you respond with more unsupported assertions. What history shows is that Mary did as her Protestant brother, Edward did, and her Protestant sister, Elizabeth did; so why mention only one of the three? Perhaps because you are a bigoted anti-Catholic?
If you could cite where I have said it is theologically correct to burn you and Bosco, I should be amazed. The fact that I allow you and Bosco to post here, when Bosco has been banned from most sites, suggests your bigotry has got the better of your judgement.
Like so many bigots, you are ill-educated and low-information. If you bothered reading more widely ion this site you’d see I am always happy to admit when the Church did wrong, but if you think that anyone running a Catholic site is going to major on the sort of bigotry you and Bosco indulge in, then you’d be wrong.
LikeLike
Bigotry. Well I never!
Say, isn’t a bigot someone who says anyone not in their group is less than good? Sorta like the catholic church where non members do not get salvation? Im aware the CC has tried to backpeddle on that, because it shines a light on Catholicism.
LikeLike
No, a bigot is someone whose mind is so narrow that after 5 years of being shown to be wrong they continue to spout the same old nonsense 😊
LikeLike
Oh, OK, thanks.
LikeLike
Id love to answer your questions but I got a big cute bunny picking me up in 20 mins. Gotta get ready.
LikeLike