Throwback Thursday: Next time you drive past a Catholic church on Sunday morning…

Posted on by Tom

For today’s “Throwback Thursday” installment, we’re going to revisit a slightly re-edited post that was first published back on August 28th, 2015.

capture30

Many evangelicals pass a Catholic church on Sunday morning and probably think to themselves, “Sure, Catholics worship God a little differently than we do, but we’re all worshiping the same God, that’s the important thing.” But let’s examine that thought. At an evangelical worship service there’s typically some announcements and singing of hymns and songs of praise for about a half an hour followed by an hour of preaching from God’s Word by the minister. The Gospel is presented and the unsaved are invited to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

The Catholic “mass” is quite different. At the mass, there are also announcements, singing, a couple of very short readings from the Bible and a short seven or eight-minute “homily” (sermon). But the main focus of the mass is the lengthy ritual whereby the priest allegedly changes bread wafers and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus. Jesus spoke about being the “bread of life,” but Catholics interpret those passages in a literalist sense that defies sound exegesis and a spiritual understanding of God’s Word. The priest then offers up Jesus the “host” (i.e., “victim”) to God the Father as a sacrifice for the sins of all the participants and any others who are mentioned. The mass attendees then line up to take the Jesus wafer and Jesus wine from the priest and consume them, believing grace is imparted that will wash away “venial” sins and supposedly help them avoid committing “mortal” sins in the future in order to hopefully merit their salvation at the moment of their death.

Catholicism is really an extension of the Old Testament Levitical sacrificial system with the priest serving as a mediator between God and the people. The priest is essential to the Catholic sacramental and works-righteousness system. Without his ordained “powers” and role as mediator, the people are doomed and the Catholic hierarchy has always desired to keep it that way.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” – 1 Timothy 2:5.

However, Jesus completely did away with the Old Testament sacrificial system when He was crucified and breathed His last breath with the words, “It is finished,” and the veil to the Holy of Holies of Jerusalem’s temple was torn in two, giving all people direct access to God through Jesus Christ the Savior. God’s Word says Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of the Father, NOT on Catholic altars as a broken victim, being sacrificed again and again, thousands of times daily all over the world.

“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God” – Hebrews 10:11-12.

Here’s a passage from a Catholic source that should put the Catholic priesthood and the mass in stark perspective for all evangelicals:

“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 man…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 commands.” – from “The Faith of Millions” by Father John O’Brien, Nihil obstat; Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend; March 16, 1974.

What anti-Biblical BLASPHEMY!

So when you drive by that Catholic church next Sunday morning, remember they’re NOT worshiping God the Son inside, rather they believe they’re sacrificing Him on their altars as part of a process to merit their salvation. Rather than trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone for their salvation, they’re relying on priests, sacraments, “good” works, and “obeying” the Ten Commandments (impossible!)

69 thoughts on “Throwback Thursday: Next time you drive past a Catholic church on Sunday morning…”

  1. Reblogged this on I ONCE WAS LOST and commented:
    “So when you drive by that Catholic church next Sunday morning, remember they’re NOT worshiping God the Son inside, they believe they’re sacrificing Him on their altars as part of a process to merit their salvation. Rather than accepting Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone for their salvation, they’re relying on priests, sacraments, “good” works, and “obeying” the Ten Commandments (impossible!)”
    Amen, Brother Tom!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. I pulled out a book that was my children’s sebber years ago called “My Picture Missal”) a mouse nibbles on it a bit-must not have liked it complet

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. ( ugh wasn’t ready to send!)
      Great simple way to understand what the mass is!!!
      Right there says that the priest turns the wine into “the living blood of Jesus”

      Before that the “priest changes the bread into the living body of Christ”

      Hocus pocus 😔

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. So if that be true that the priest is really doing that #1 now they are all practicing canibalism
        #2 Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and it looks as though the priest has a special “power” that he can out so God!
        😢

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, it is a form of cannibalism, although the RCC obviously denies it. I think the RCC somewhat tones down how they present the priests’ powers compared to yesteryear, but nothing has changed doctrinally. Fifty or sixty years ago pious parishioners used to kiss a priest’s hands because they allegedly held the power to change the bread wafer and wine into God.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Hey, we all undersatnd a few typos in comments! 🙂 I spend much less time prooftexting comments than I do posts, yet typos still “creep into” my posts also!

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I got a chuckle over this because I kept many of my childhood Catholic mementos for many years (including the children’s missal I received at First Communion), they were very important to me, but I scoffed at people who took Jesus seriously as “brainwashed born-agains.” All that stuff went in the dumpster when I accepted Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Lol! I threw everything out and then found this later but felt it was a good simple way to look at what they are doing! Hard to believe we were so blinded… BUT GOD!!!!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: it was a good simple way to look at what they are doing!

        Sure, I have several Catholic books myself that I use for reference. Speaking of all those old Catholic mementos in general, you know how when you get into a manic housecleaning mood and throw a lot of things out, but a couple of weeks later you regret throwing out certain childhood mementos? I had no regrets about throwing out the Catholic items. Would a prisoner cherish his chains after he/she were released from prison? I know several ex-Catholic “evangelicals” who “cherish” their Catholic upbringing and still have great respect for the RCC. Does not compute.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Sally. Yes it’s part of our sinful hearts to gain advantages over others and institutionalize the prerogatives. The Old Testament priests only foreshadowed the coming perfect Messiah and High Priest. The priestly caste wasn’t meant to be perpetuated after Jesus’ saving sacrifice and His mediation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I am really appreciating your blog so much ! I think that perhaps it was pride that drew me into the Catholic Church. They had, for example, candles, which our Baptist church considered mesmerizing, and the priests wore vestments, compared to our pastor’s green suit. Thanks for helping me find my place in the Body of Christ.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Sally, thanks for the kind words of encouragement and Lord bless your service to Him! As someone who was a Catholic for my first 27 years, but was then born-again in Christ by faith in Him alone, it was puzzling and frustrating to me how many evangelical pastors and para-church leaders were embracing the RCC as a Christian entity even though Catholic spokespersons have always been quite upfront about their church’s belief that salvation is merited via faith (in the sacramental system) plus works. It’s all by God’s grace that we are not in the chains of religious legalism and ritualism.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Re: Mortal and Venial sins

    Raymond Brown S.S.
    “First John is cautious. For most sins, the prayers will be heard; but there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently, the readers of the letter knew all about this sin. We are not so well informed (except that we should avoid identifying “sin unto death” with mortal sin, and a “sin not unto death” with venial sin). Probably the sin for First John was joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy, a sin elsewhere judged harshly.”
    Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, Liturgical Press 1998, p. 121.

    Like

    Reply

      1. He was a highly regarded scholar and his works often contradicted traditional Romanist teachings. I would say a lot of his biblical exegesis even comes close to the Protestant understanding.

        I really wonder how people like him have so much head knowledge, know that the Romanist dogma contradict the bible, yet remain a Romanist.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. We, of course, don’t know if Brown was saved. I’m sure there are some within Catholicism who are exposed to the Gospel and genuinely repent of sin and accept Jesus as their Savior by faith alone, but stay for a period out of fear, ignorance, or the misplaced desire to “work within the church.”

        Like

  5. 1) If you do not interpret Jesus’s call to eat his Body and Blood in a literal sense, nothing Jesus says in the Bible can be taken literally. Not only did he say it once, but AFTER PEOPLE STARTED LEAVING HIM, he repeated the same teaching again: the same truth that was too strange for his disciples to take. Here’s an allegory: If you are a teacher, and built a great metaphor for your students to relate some event in history, but as soon as you start telling them the metaphor they begin to leave the room with frightened faces, would you just continue on and keep on talking? No! You would be afraid you are going to lose your JOB and STUDENTS and immediately you would explain what you were saying and apologize. Obviously Jesus was speaking the real, literal truth when he told his disciples to eat and drink his Body and Blood, for he did not explain himself to his fleeing followers at all. It was the decisive moment which would take an act of Faith for his true disciples to continue to follow him. These are now Catholics.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Catholics point to Jesus not correcting those who were offended by His Bread of Life discourse as PROOF that their literal interpretation was correct. You need to read the Scriptures my friend.

      “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.” – John 6:63

      “For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing,
      And their eyes they have closed,
      Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
      Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
      So that I should heal them.” – Matthew 13:15

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. Romanist, apart from the scripture Tom has quoted, you might want to read these 🙂

      Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).

      Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

      Augustine (354-430) :It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Yes the appearance of bread and wine that we are eating, remains. This miracle is called transubstantiation. But Jesus becomes physically present under these appearances.
        I think that quoting the Bible is the most convincing: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
        “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
        How can you argue that? Not only did Jesus himself tell us, here are his DIRECT APOSTLES, spreading the same teaching.
        “without discerning the body”
        Here is a beautiful article that explains everything, even common Protestant objections.
        https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-most-straight-forward-verse-about-the-eucharist-in-the-bible

        Like

      2. Yes the appearance of bread and wine that we are eating, remains. This miracle is called transubstantiation. But Jesus becomes physically present under these appearances.

        Romanist, asserting something and pontificating over and over again does not make that thing true. Please read the quote from Pope Gelasius again, and read the Jesuit Kilmartin’s comment, especially about “substance”, which a Pope explicitly denies, and read line 1376 of your cathechism that teaches a change in substance. Unless you are trying to tell me that substance == appearance ! 🙂

        I think that quoting the Bible is the most convincing: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

        Where does this verse say that there is a change in substance as taught by line 1376 (which is a key point of transubstantiation) of your cathechism?

        Regarding this verse, I also affirm the real/true presence of the Lord’s supper as a sacrement but yet do not believe and deny that the substance of the elements of the bread and wine change. In this, I stand with Pope Gelasius and Augustine. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  6. The other thing I can’t figure out is why did we need gifts given to us when we “made first communion” and “confirmation”????

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      4. I love your blog. It’s good to hear about Romanism as practiced on the ground by someone who grew up in the system.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. Thanks sb95! The Lord led me out of the RCC and bids me to warn Catholics and ecumenical evangelicals of the falsehoods of that apostate church.

        Like

  12. This is why I thank God for your ministry, brother, you’ve not compromised the Gospel in any fashion. This is what we need, not men who speak softly to those who march their way into eternity trusting in idols.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you for the encouragement, sister! Yes, those evangelicals who mistake doctrinal accommodation and compromise for charity don’t do our lost Catholic family members and friends any favors.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  13. Excellent. Clearly explains what the Catholic Mass is all about. Hebrews 10/11-12 is a perfect Scripture verse to bring truth into the darkness. Keep up your great work Tom. I missed reading your posts.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Crissy, I saw a few “likes” from “Sonrisa” and checked out the blog to find out a person by the name of Crissy was the proprietor. I was hoping that it was you! I hope you are doing well! I take it you shut down your old blog and started a new one.
      Thanks for the encouragement! I look forward to reading your posts again.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. Next Time You Drive by an Armenian Apostolic Church…you’ll find parallel rituals. Established in the 1st century, it’s a bit surreal to see how they established a priesthood as ornate at the Levitacal.
    Over the years they’ve had many unifying invites with the Vatican – what a marriage that would be! 😕

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Interesting! I imagine once Christianity was adopted as the state religion there was tremendous pressure within and without the early church to institutionalize and create liturgies which grew quickly in complexity. A mediatorial priesthood would have been the logical choice for church leaders seeking to increase their advantages within the Roman system.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment