My experience at a Roman Catholic Funeral

[Beth]

Agree

Not to mention the prayers to Mary and other dead people, prayer for the deceast to go to heaven, eventually once they pay for their sin in purgatory.
Grew being taught the RCC false religion, even though my grandmother had been excommunicated during WWII, my mother was raised by her grandmother, in the RCC church. So everything I was ever taught was RCC. I ahd no problem throwing it all out when I was saved and started reading scritpure, everyday found something that had to go.

This was my experience as well, leaving the RCC.

 

[Beth]

understand

In another thread I relaid my experience, while attending a Roman Catholic Funeral, and I described it as, “pervasive Spiritual Darkness”.

I now realize, that I really should not have left things hanging that way.

So here is a more detailed explanation.
--------------------------------------------------
This was the first time, that I had ever gone through the doors of a Roman Catholic church, and the first thing that hit me, was the fact that everything that I had seen in the lives of Roman Catholics over the years, seemed to be in a concentrated form, there.

On the surface, there were those idols all around the room, and everybody genuflecting in unison: But worst of all, was the oversized blasphemes statue of our Lord, still on the cross(He is no longer on the cross).

Now we were standing way in the back(it was a packed house), but when the “mass” part of the service started, I really started getting antsy.

Both my wife and I, later described to each other, exactly what the experience was like.
The best way, that I can put it, is it was almost like being in a hyperbaric chamber, with the air pressure getting higher and higher.

And it wasn’t very long after that, that we both had to exit. This had been the funeral, for the relative of a friend of ours, so we thought that it was somehow our duty to attend, so as to maybe give some comfort.

But there was no “comfort”, to be given.

To think back on it now, it breaks my heart, when I think about all those poor people, steeped in this false religions lies, so assured that they are right.
--------------------------------------------------
As to weather or not this was an act of “separation” or simply rejecting Satan’s lies, that will have to left up to each individual believer’s conscience..

Therefore, this account, should not have been included, in my post about “Separation”!

Understand totally where you are coming from, I simply cannot and will not sit through a RCC funeral service.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have been to several Catholic funerals, after all I live in Ireland. I understand EXACTLY what you are describing, but then again this country is always in a cloud of spiritual darkness.

And yet, how far do we go to avoid having our spiritual sensitivity offended? Did Jesus not tell us to expect this?

I go out of love for my friends. The inroads into homes and lives has been amazing.

I'm just curious about Ireland. You say that this country has always had a cloud of spiritual darkness about it (assuming that you mean because of Catholicism) But didn't Ireland change in a major way after Mawen Saket evangelized? Didn 't they build monestaries that singularily saved western literature and many writings of the early church not to mention scripture?
Is part of that spiritual darkness due to Oliver Cromwell persecuting the Island? And their dispute with England and each other who should rule it? May it have less to do with Catholicism? If you ask me Europe is in spiritual darkness not just Ireland. The US is going that way as well. I see the US as being a lot like England was at the begining of the 20th Century just before they lost their empire. They were a strong evangelizing country but now you'll be lucky to see a christian. (though to be fair things are changing a bit.). The US seems to be following this trend.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm just curious about Ireland. You say that this country has always had a cloud of spiritual darkness about it (assuming that you mean because of Catholicism) But didn't Ireland change in a major way after Mawen Saket evangelized? Didn 't they build monestaries that singularily saved western literature and many writings of the early church not to mention scripture?
Is part of that spiritual darkness due to Oliver Cromwell persecuting the Island? And their dispute with England and each other who should rule it? May it have less to do with Catholicism? If you ask me Europe is in spiritual darkness not just Ireland. The US is going that way as well. I see the US as being a lot like England was at the begining of the 20th Century just before they lost their empire. They were a strong evangelizing country but now you'll be lucky to see a christian. (though to be fair things are changing a bit.). The US seems to be following this trend.

First, I agree with you, for the most part, on Europe.

Second - I don't know who Mawen Saket is. I say that with chagrin because I thought I knew Irish ecclesiastical history pretty well. But I don't feel too bad because even a google search turned up blank. I'll need your help with that one.

So much has contributed to the darkness here. I have lived here since 1995 so have looked into things a little.

Outside of Ulster there has not been a revival since the 5th century. Within a hundred years or so pagan druidism had crept back into the Celtic Church and pagan gods and goddesses were simply renamed and 'christianised.' The pagan goddess Brigit became St Brigid for example. There are ungodly pagan carvings of a fertility goddess in many of the churches on the island. When Rome took control in the 10th century she simply adopted the Celtic customs into her own.

There are many other factors which have led to this present darkness. The long running political oppression cannot be ignored. However it can be seen in the 'blood sacrifice' mindset of many of the rebels of 1916 who felt like the shedding of their own blood for Erin would bring them salvation.

I do acknowledge the work of the Celtic scholars for a huge contribution to maintaining Western civilisation during the Dark Ages.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, I agree with you, for the most part, on Europe.

Second - I don't know who Mawen Saket is. I say that with chagrin because I thought I knew Irish ecclesiastical history pretty well. But I don't feel too bad because even a google search turned up blank. I'll need your help with that one.

So much has contributed to the darkness here. I have lived here since 1995 so have looked into things a little.

Outside of Ulster there has not been a revival since the 5th century. Within a hundred years or so pagan druidism had crept back into the Celtic Church and pagan gods and goddesses were simply renamed and 'christianised.' The pagan goddess Brigit became St Brigid for example. There are ungodly pagan carvings of a fertility goddess in many of the churches on the island. When Rome took control in the 10th century she simply adopted the Celtic customs into her own.

There are many other factors which have led to this present darkness. The long running political oppression cannot be ignored. However it can be seen in the 'blood sacrifice' mindset of many of the rebels of 1916 who felt like the shedding of their own blood for Erin would bring them salvation.

I do acknowledge the work of the Celtic scholars for a huge contribution to maintaining Western civilisation during the Dark Ages.

Sorry I mispelled the name. I'm horrible at spelling. I was spelling it phonetically but the proper spelling is Maewyn Succat

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry I mispelled the name. I'm horrible at spelling. I was spelling it phonetically but the proper spelling is Maewyn Succat

I really wasn't trying be be smart. I didn't know Patrick's supposed birth name well enough to recognise it at first glance with that spelling. Now I do. Thanks for clarifying.

Bad thing is there is no solid proof of who Patrick really was. Everything is conjecture. The theory that he was christened by the Pope also has no hard evidence. It is primarily Roman sources who have developed these theories.

All we have is Confessio and Epistle to Coroticus, neither of which give hard evidence of his life, except that he was a true, born again Christian with a heart for Ireland and her people. Wales, England, and Scotland also claim Patrick.

His failure was in a lack of discipleship. His passion for souls kept him moving and sharing the gospel. This failure assured that the strong, dark, pagan influences of the ancient druids made a come back, that, from what I have seen, lasts till today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I really wasn't trying be be smart. I didn't know Patrick's supposed birth name well enough to recognise it at first glance with that spelling. Now I do. Thanks for clarifying.

Bad thing is there is no solid proof of who Patrick really was. Everything is conjecture. The theory that he was christened by the Pope also has no hard evidence. It is primarily Roman sources who have developed these theories.

All we have is Confessio and Epistle to Coroticus, neither of which give hard evidence of his life, except that he was a true, born again Christian with a heart for Ireland and her people. Wales, England, and Scotland also claim Patrick.

His failure was in a lack of discipleship. His passion for souls kept him moving and sharing the gospel. This failure assured that the strong, dark, pagan influences of the ancient druids made a come back, that, from what I have seen, lasts till today.

There had to be something however because Ireland became a strong center of Christianity in the dark days of Europe. It is likely the Irish evangelized Iona and started a strong church in Scotland from which Columba came from. So someone was discipling.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There had to be something however because Ireland became a strong center of Christianity in the dark days of Europe. It is likely the Irish evangelized Iona and started a strong church in Scotland from which Columba came from. So someone was discipling.

These were "Christian' in a generic sense. Celtic Christianity is very in vogue at the moment, but careful study of it will prove a firm connexion with nature worshiping pagan druidism. When I first started studying this I was convinced that the Celtic church was a pure gospel preaching, evangelical church. In fact it was nothing more than christianised paganism, or perhaps paganised christianity.

Come over for a visit, I will show you some of my hard evidence in St Brigid's church about from here . I can't even put the name of one particular pagan figure in the church, because a google of it would come up with some pretty gross stuff.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

These were "Christian' in a generic sense. Celtic Christianity is very in vogue at the moment, but careful study of it will prove a firm connexion with nature worshiping pagan druidism. When I first started studying this I was convinced that the Celtic church was a pure gospel preaching, evangelical church. In fact it was nothing more than christianised paganism, or perhaps paganised christianity.

Come over for a visit, I will show you some of my hard evidence in St Brigid's church about from here . I can't even put the name of one particular pagan figure in the church, because a google of it would come up with some pretty gross stuff.

Actually I wouldn't mind it. I haven't been to Ireland since 1993. I really like my visit there (despite spiritual darkness which I think has more to do with Guiness then the Catholic church :laugh: ). I wasn't anywhere near Ulster I was primarily at Killarney. I'm curious at seeing what you mean. The fact that christians took their understanding from the culture around them (I'm not saying that it is ok) seems no different than today. If you look at American Churches you see our values displayed. You can see that we are a culture that critically looks at things. We are technical and that we value capitalism. Many churches are little more than social clubs resembling your local golf club. I wonder what testiment our churches will have in the future? I don't know much about Celtic Christianity apart from the art work but it seems to have been a light in a dark world at the time. Celtic Christianity finally submitted to Rome however so I'm not supprised that there is a trend back. I find that in the UK and Ireland that there is this interest in original celtic culture and revival of it. Europe has been christianized so long they forget their pagan roots. I thank God that they found the bog people because that lets us understand druidism a lot better. I think Europe forgets how barbaric its past was which is why the Romans as cruel and horrible as they were looked at other Europeans as brutal. As poorly as many think of the Catholic church, it has been a major player in tempering the brutal continent of Europe.

 

[Salamander]

Hi Salamander

You asked......



They do this, because they crucify Him afresh, at every mass.

Then that would be a sin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have a couple of questions here for this thread:

First a statement. In my study of this subject of the Catholic church they do not teach that Christ is crucified each time at their liturgy. They will vehemently tell you that is not true. So it must be a perseption we have that they do. So this leads to my questions:

Do you really believe the Catholic church believes it is possible to re-crucify Christ? Actually possible to do? If the answer is yes, I'd like to understand how you think they believe that this can occur. If you don't know, why do you think that's actually what they are doing? Since Catholics do not profess to believe that they re-crucify Christ, what is the basis for the claim that Catholics re-crucify Christ at Mass? I mean, if they don't say that's what they do, and if they say it's not really possible, then the statement is based on?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Semantics to my mind. While they claim that they do not sacrifice Christ over and over they do admit to re-enacting the one sacrifice. They use the word 'memorial' but much more that a 'memorial' is carried out. The 'sacrifice' on the cross and that which takes place in the Eucharist is '...one single sacrifice.The victim is one and the same.; the same now offers through the priests; who then offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of the offering is different. (From Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367).

There is a tremendous inconsistency in terminology here, for in the same paragraph it is claimed that today's sacrifice is bloodless, while at the same time claiming that the wine has been turned into Jesus' very blood. So is the sacrifice bloody or not?

The mass is an utter abomination and the purest of blasphemies. For a wicked sinner to stand at the altar and claim to change wine and bred into the physical body and blood of Christ so that the sacrifice is repeated is vilest of heresies.

No wonder believers are uncomfortable during this part of a Catholic funeral.

I remember when this truth hit a friend of mine who had been saved. During the mass he left to become physically sick to his stomach at the thought of partaking in what the priest was saying and claiming to do.

This is not an innocent little difference between 'us and them.'

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Semantics to my mind. While they claim that they do not sacrifice Christ over and over they do admit to re-enacting the one sacrifice. They use the word 'memorial' but much more that a 'memorial' is carried out. The 'sacrifice' on the cross and that which takes place in the Eucharist is '...one single sacrifice.The victim is one and the same.; the same now offers through the priests; who then offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of the offering is different. (From Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367).

There is a tremendous inconsistency in terminology here, for in the same paragraph it is claimed that today's sacrifice is bloodless, while at the same time claiming that the wine has been turned into Jesus' very blood. So is the sacrifice bloody or not?

The mass is an utter abomination and the purest of blasphemies. For a wicked sinner to stand at the altar and claim to change wine and bred into the physical body and blood of Christ so that the sacrifice is repeated is vilest of heresies.

No wonder believers are uncomfortable during this part of a Catholic funeral.

I remember when this truth hit a friend of mine who had been saved. During the mass he left to become physically sick to his stomach at the thought of partaking in what the priest was saying and claiming to do.

This is not an innocent little difference between 'us and them.'

Is it possible (and I think this more accurately reflects the catholic perspective) that they offer up the sacrifice (Eucharist : Thanksgiving freely offered) that christ made when he made it at the time he made it as thanks offering to God? Ie... Remember when you died for our sins and were that sacrificed for us? We now offer that sacrifice to you and thank you for it? I believe thats how it is to be understood. It deffinately matches the ECF.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is it possible (and I think this more accurately reflects the catholic perspective) that they offer up the sacrifice (Eucharist : Thanksgiving freely offered) that christ made when he made it at the time he made it as thanks offering to God? Ie... Remember when you died for our sins and were that sacrificed for us? We now offer that sacrifice to you and thank you for it? I believe thats how it is to be understood. It deffinately matches the ECF.

That is not what they say - they say it is the same sacrifice. How can sinful man replicate the same sacrifice that only the spotless Lamb could offer?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is not what they say - they say it is the same sacrifice. How can sinful man replicate the same sacrifice that only the spotless Lamb could offer?

Yes the same sacrafice made by Jesus 2000 years ago. Not a new one over and over. I'm very certain that's what they say. Since, I'm not catholic I can't prove it apart from quoting their documents. But as you know there is a disconnect between the actual teaching of the church and the practice of their laity. Often the laity doesn't even understand what they actually believe. Which is why John Kerry is told not to take communion because he is catholic and is believing something against their teaching. (abortion).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes the same sacrafice made by Jesus 2000 years ago. Not a new one over and over. I'm very certain that's what they say. Since, I'm not catholic I can't prove it apart from quoting their documents. But as you know there is a disconnect between the actual teaching of the church and the practice of their laity. Often the laity doesn't even understand what they actually believe. Which is why John Kerry is told not to take communion because he is catholic and is believing something against their teaching. (abortion).

Agreed, most everyday Catholics haven't a clue what they are doing - just watch them during a mass.

That doesn't make the mass any less wicked or insidious.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Agreed, most everyday Catholics haven't a clue what they are doing - just watch them during a mass.

That doesn't make the mass any less wicked or insidious.

Why do you say mass is wicked or insidious (I really like the word insidious it just has many connotations)? I remember Mass and I've seen mass. There is scripture use all over the place. Pictures of events occuring in the bible. Usually the churches are ornate. And I don't ever remember or seen a Priest say worship the devil. Or persecute baptist, or any make a secret oath to Isis.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Why do you say mass is wicked or insidious (I really like the word insidious it just has many connotations)? I remember Mass and I've seen mass. There is scripture use all over the place. Pictures of events occuring in the bible. Usually the churches are ornate. And I don't ever remember or seen a Priest say worship the devil. Or persecute baptist, or any make a secret oath to Isis.

I have been posting it all along. A sinful man claims the ability to re-enact the same sacrifice that the spotless Lamb of God gave on the cross. He is putting himself in the place of the Saviour and claiming the ability to change bread and wine literally into the body and blood of Christ for a cannibalistic ritual performed in the name of 'religion'.

How more wicked can you get?

I love Catholic people. The vast majority of my neighbours and friends are Catholics who haven't a clue as to the darkness that enslaves them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have been posting it all along. A sinful man claims the ability to re-enact the same sacrifice that the spotless Lamb of God gave on the cross. He is putting himself in the place of the Saviour and claiming the ability to change bread and wine literally into the body and blood of Christ for a cannibalistic ritual performed in the name of 'religion'.

How more wicked can you get?

I love Catholic people. The vast majority of my neighbours and friends are Catholics who haven't a clue as to the darkness that enslaves them.

But didn't I say catholics don't believe that? And is the Eucharist anymore sacraligious (from sacrament btw) than the incarnation? That would be their argument.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But didn't I say catholics don't believe that? And is the Eucharist anymore sacraligious (from sacrament btw) than the incarnation? That would be their argument.

Most Catholics do not believe it, I agree, but their church does. That is the problem. They don't realise that their church sees them as blood-drinking, flesh eating puppets.

The incarnation is Biblical. God did come in the flesh.

He never gave sinners the right to recreate His Son's perfect sacrifice. Christ alone could perform that sacrifice.