Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Ready - Fire - Aim!

Could you please give the definition of idolatry that we are measuring against?

Would this one work:

Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

That Knox dude was a troublemaker.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

That would seem to be a question of degrees of guilt. I would not say that the people in the pews are anywhere near as guilty as the leadership.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

The ones I attend to are just humanistic and hook up joints. I have been over in Europe and it seemed they were the same way over in Spain, France, and Italy. Is the United Kingdom different? I doubt it. Especially since the UK is basically apostate anyways. It is probably just a good time Rock and Roll sit down joint to drink and discuss everyday things. 99% of it is Christless, and the 1% of his name being mentioned is just in vain.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Absolutely, but the people will still be held accountable on the day of judgment, unless they repent and put their trust in the one true and living priest, Jesus the Christ. This is why we must know how to be good apologists when witnessing to Romanists, so that we can point them to the LORD Jesus.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

eucharist.
The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.


Sacrifice of the Mass

The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation [NOTE: Propitiation is not used]. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good.


The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament


The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord". There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist...
In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ's Body and His Soul and Divinity as well. A strictly logical conclusion from the words of promise: "he that eateth me the same also shall live by me", this Totality of Presence was also the constant property of tradition, which characterized the partaking of separated parts of the Savior as a sarcophagy (flesh-eating) altogether derogatory to God. Although the separation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, is, absolutely speaking, within the almighty power of God, yet then actual inseparability is firmly established by the dogma of the indissolubility of the hypostatic union of Christ's Divinity and Humanity. In case the Apostles had celebrated the Lord's Supper during the triduum mortis (the time during which Christ's Body was in the tomb), when a real separation took place between the constitutive elements of Christ, there would have been really present in the Sacred Host only, the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ as it lay in tomb, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth as it was shed, both the Body and the Blood, however, hypostatically united to His Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucharistic presence...
There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in the Eucharist, but would be, if Christ's Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said.to him: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" So too the bilocation of saints, sometimes read of in the pages of hagiography, as, e.g., in the case of St. Alphonsus Liguori, cannot be arbitrarily cast aside as untrustworthy.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I believe the official RCC position would be that they are "aids to faith." They give the worshiper something to focus his attention on when praying or worshiping.

I had a Catholic once tell me that it is similar to Buddhism or Hinduism in that they have thousand of Gods to pray to and the RCC has thousands of saints to pray to. This makes for an easy change over. If you know any Catholics you immediately see that they have a saint to pray to for anything that is happening in their lives, including selling ones house. Simply plant a statue of St. Joseph (Jesus' step dad) in your front yard and you will sell your house.

There is a lot wrong with the RCC but if you listen to their theology it is not that different from your average arminian. I think there are Catholics who are saved but I don't think anyone could ever get saved according to what the chruch teaches.

Originally Posted by pilgrim3970

Some random thoughts:

To me the bigger problem with the Mass is belief that during the Mass Christ is offered up anew.

This , to me, is MUCH more problematic (and just completley unbiblical) than the insistance the accidents change. One may debate about what Christ meant by "This is my body..." but there is just no debate to be had about the words of scripture which say:

That's not to say that the belief that the elements physically become the body and blood of Christ isn't also problem. Because it has led to the superstitious practice of the "veneration of the blessed scarament" in which the wafer is placed in a chapel for the faithful to adore and prayer before.

To Roman Catholics, they are not "worshipping the bread" but worshipping Christ.

Their adoration of the scarament is much like the orthodox and their veneration of icons. Both view this like (and this is an example given to me by an aquaitence who is Eastern Orthodox) the way one might kiss or look with affection on a picture of a loved one.

Ok, I feel like I am rambling but hope some of this is useful information.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I strongly disagree. They are more than aids to worship but it is still a violation of the second commandment. The teaching of Rome is a false gospel. The Puritans consider Romanism and Arminianism the two great enemies of the church.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The question is though, how do we help them by attending the Mass? We should befriend Roman Catholics, and other sinners, but not partake with them in their sins? It is difficult to see how attending a Roman Catholic service is anything but participating in it.

Having said that, I would not go as far as Ian Paisley's church does. They automatically excommunicate anyone who attends a Mass (or at least they used to). I think this is too harsh, as not all Christians have the same level of knowledge; instead, I would want the elders to admonish and instruct them first, and only exercise more severe discipline if they repeatedly went to it.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I understand the point you are making, Daniel. My family are all Roman Catholics and it is difficult when there is a wedding or funeral. When I have attended masses on occassion, I refuse to kneel or participate. We do not attend a hindu temple in order to witness to Hindu's, so you make a valid point.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I guess there is nothing to do with these people. We must not do anything. I guess we should just sit inside our four walls and wait for them to come to our doors.

This is hyper Calvinism.


I do not adhere to this kind of thinking.

Originally Posted by Galatians220

I have tremendous respect for everyone here in all of these forums, for there are far more learned and mature Christians than I here. In every forum, there they are, and I defer to them.

Not everyone, though, by the grace of God, was exposed to as much Roman Catholicism as I was. Taught by a semi-cloistered order of nuns for 12 years, and through grad school courses by Jesuits in college; I took grad courses in Catholic liturgy and Catholic moral theology. I knew they were wrong, but I didn't know HOW wrong. I knew they were idolatrous, but it hasn't been until the last few years that the Lord has given me some sense of exactly what was/is going on in that organization that, worldwide, has one billion adherents.

If there's one thing I've learned in all my years of born-again, fervent belief in the doctrines of grace - and with over 90% of my dear, extended family and friends still firmly rooted in the RCC - it's that you cannot successfully witness to a happy Catholic. Only the Holy Spirit can bring someone out of the RCC. There is absolutely nothing that we can do or say by our words, our witness, our "friendship evangelism," or anything else that can possibly interest a real Catholic in the real Gospel, not even slightly. They're so convinced of "works salvation" -- and even I am still picking off those "works burrs..." When you attend a mass, you give assent to it in subtle ways, whether you think that's what you're doing or not. You give the impression that "real Christians" have no objection to standing shoulder to shoulder with Catholics at their masses, so there must be no problem with them. Believe me, they're hoping and praying that you'll come back there for real the next time and that you'll even join one of their "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults" (convert) classes. The vast, vast majority of adult "cradle Catholics" give no thought to their ever leaving, not if the Holy Spirit has not begun His work in them.

If you attend a mass, ask yourself whether you would want the Lord Jesus Christ walking alongside you as you walk into that church and look at the statues, the light on the altar that's supposed to signify the presence of the "Blessed Sacrament," the Stations of the Cross on both sides of the church and "the side altars" (which Catholic churches are still supposed to have). The altar on the left is "the Mary altar" and the one on the right is "the Joseph altar." There are so many other things... The tract racks with little prayers to St. Jude (the patron saint of hopeless situations), St. Anthony (the patron saint of lost items), the formulae for novenas to Mary, the prayers to St. Joseph, etc., etc.

But first, before you enter that church, read Hebrews 7 through 10...

I'm old enough to remember the mass said in Latin... How many masses have I attended in my lifetime? Thousands... I went to mass two to three times a week from first grade through 12th, and once a week during college and thereafter, until I finally couldn't take any more. But I praise the Lord! He brought me out - and it's all covered over by the Blood. "Hoc est corpus meum" ("this is My Body") said the priest in Latin. In my old church, if someone dropped a host on the floor of the church, it could only be retrieved by the "consecrated fingers" of a priest, and the spot where it had landed would have to be covered by a "blessed linen" until "holy water" was used to make that spot okay for people to walk on again. Idolatry? Oh, yes!

Please, if you still doubt what I've said above, go to Richard Bennett's website, Berean Beacon and read... He's a former Catholic priest who now devotes his life to bringing others of the elect who remain in the RCC out... Or read the book, "Far From Rome, Near to God." Or go to Mike Gendron's "Proclaiming the Gospel" web site (I don't recommend that one as much for Reformed Protestants as others, but it's still worthwhile). Or try to find the book "Night Journey from Rome to the New Jerusalem" by Clark Butterfield, another Catholic priest who left, underwent conversion, began to preach the real Gospel - and then died under somewhat mysterious circumstances.

As I said on the now-closed thread, I don't question other people's consciences or their status as Reformed believers or Christians just because they find that they can go to Catholic masses or other events. The Lord gave me a different life history, and part of that means that I can't do it - but I've no quarrel with others who can. I just want others to have "informed consent" when the occasion arises for them to attend a Catholic event...

May the Lord bless this important discussion to His glory and for His always perfect purposes!

Margaret

Originally Posted by Galatians220

No, no, I didn't mean that at all... There are plenty of Catholics who are unsettled (that's what I called them a few days ago on another thread); there are some who are seeking the real Gospel... I referred immediately above to not witnessing to "happy Catholics," if you'll recall my post non-selectively.

I agree with you that hyper-Calvinism is also heresy.

We certainly should speak "a word in season." I've done that for about 14 years with a friend I met in high school. I've spent hours that amount to days on the phone with her, talking about Roman Catholic doctrine and theology versus the real Gospel, giving her things to read, etc. She'll attend a Reformed church with us for weeks or months, say she accepts the preaching and teaching - but eventually, she'll run back to the RCC. Why? "Tradition." "I can't betray my parents like that." Most recently (and finally): "I'm a Catholic for life and that's where I'm staying." We should speak the truth in love to these people, but it's ultimately God's work. I'm still praying for her, but for the time being, I'm letting the witnessing go. I don't want her to drop me; the Lord may claim her out of the RCC yet.

People witnessed to me for years when I was in the RCC and even though I was always unhappy in it, I would rear up and get angry at the slightest indication that I might "find the Lord" elsewhere. All I'm saying is that we, by ourselves, can't drag someone out of the RCC. Powerful ethnic considerations figure into it as well (Irish-American, in my case). I miss celebrating St. Patrick's Day in some respects, but St. Patrick himself was a godly man who brought the Gospel to Ireland. I admire his witness and his efforts. However, he's not to be venerated in any way...

All I'm saying is that going to a Catholic church, expecting to reach out to those who are content in it and bring them to an understanding and "heart acceptance" of the real Gospel is going to lead to disappointment and maybe even a distaste for evangelism, which we should all avoid. If the Holy Spirit has begun His work in any particular Catholic, God will give the increase and He will lead our witness to him or her in the direction He will have them to go.

After almost 20 years of witnessing to those nearest and dearest to me, I will say that I've seen the Holy Spirit working more effectively in the Jews I've witnessed to (and those also have been many) than on Catholics - thus beautifully illustrating Romans 1:16. But I'm trying not to make this anecdotal, per your earlier admonition, which I do appreciate and thank you for.

Thank you, Mr. Snyder, for your corrections, and God bless you.

Margaret

Originally Posted by Stephen

Rome has redefined idolatry to be any kind of worship given to a false god. The worship of the mass is not considered idolatry, because it is worship given to the true God. They do not include the second commandment (you shall not make unto yourselves any graven image) in their listing of the ten. Ironic is it not?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie