[Faith-talk] alleged unbiblical rituals in the Roman Church

[Steve Jacobson]

As many of you know, I am one of the volunteers who attempts to help Dave with technical aspects of our lists and this 
is one of the lists I watch.  I am not the moderator, but in my capacity as one who watches lists, I want to caution 
everyone that the purpose of this list is to discuss challenges blind persons have in dealing with our particular religions.  
Debating the pros and cons of any particular religion can't lead to anything good in the context of this list.  Let's be very 
careful, therefore.  My reply here is not meant to be directed to any particular message but to the entire series of 
messages.  Specifically, I don't mean this to be directed at you Stefan, as you are new to the list and are simply 
responding to other messages.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:05:05 +0930, Stefan Slucki wrote:

>Hi Beth and list members,

>hmmm, my first post and I'm getting into controversial territory.

>Beth, you asked why folks see rituals within the Roman Church as unbiblical. 
>By the way, I use the word "Roman" not to be abusive or rude in any way but 
>because the word "Catholic"  means universal or world-wide, a term which I 
>believe embraces all genuine followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.
>"Roman" refers to the particular assertion that members of the particular 
>denomination acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the visible head of the 
>church on earth and order their discipleship, accordingly.

>I could write a screed on church rituals--most denominations have them.

>I guess central to the Roman system is the 'sacrifice of the mass' offered 
>by the class of persons known as priests.

>Now before anything else is said, the Roman Church clearly states that it is 
>not limited to the Bible as its authority and so the 'traditions' handed 
>down (usually through the Bishop of Rome) and the consensus of the Sacred 
>Magisterium are equally important to the Roman system.

>When I left the Roman Church, the letter to the Hebrews, in particular 
>chapter 10 v11-18, (but various other Scriptures as well) was central as 
>this section points to the once-forever-Sacrifice (capital S) of Jesus. No 
>longer is there a need for priests to offer sacrifices--unless they are 
>sacrifices of prayer and testimony to the Grace of God [Heb 13:15-16, 1 
>Pet.2:9-10, Rev.1:5-6].

>The problems I had and have with the mass (whether in the Tridentine or 
>post-Vatican 2 rite) begin with the statements about the bread and wine 
>being "offered" "the work of human hands" "as a sacrifice of praise".

>If Hebrews 10 is heeded, Jesus Has Offered the once-forever and only valid 
>Sacrifice; no priest's sacrifice (including under the former Covenant) could 
>cleanse the conscience like Jesus' Sacrifice!

>Bread and wine are just as much God's Gifts as are all other resources we 
>humans use. The phrasing to me speaks of the self-propelled sacrifice which 
>Cain offered [Genesis 4:1-8] which God Rejected.

>I know that the mass is said to be the entering-in of believers into the one 
>true Sacrifice of Christ in an "unbloody way" but this is a literalism 
>(along with the Teaching of Jesus in John's Gospel ch6 35-61 that Jesus 
>Himself Declared was not meant to be taken literally but Spiritually.

>Obviously, there will never be total agreement about these things in the 
>professing church.

>There are many other rituals such as the Rosary, personal confession to the 
>priest etc etc which those who esteem the Bible as their only authority find 
>unacceptable.

>I trust this is not taken as an offensive post and if it's been too 
>doctrinaire then our Moderator will step in.

>I sincerely you, Beth, and others find this a fair statement of both the 
>Roman and Evangelical positions.

>Stefan Slucki. 
>_______________________________________________
>Faith-talk mailing list
>Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk