What is the Roman Rite, but a denial of...
July 20, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
While it may seem that Great Occultists are nothing without the contributions of their Apprentices, recall that appearance tyrannizes over truth. With that being said, we do acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, that, on rare occasions, Apprentice Tyler’s off hand comments can, it is conceded, be the germ of an encompassing and profound work.
Apprentice Tyler’s idea that the reenactment of the betrayal of Christ as the basis of the mass seems bizarre and as much as I would like to dismiss his nonsense as such, experience has taught me that Apprentice Tyler does not always communicate his ideas verbally in a concise and clear manner. Unfortunately, many aspects of the Mass are not found in the fourth Gospel, such as the Last Supper, the Our Father and the thirty pieces of silver. Therefore, Apprentice Tyler can not be correct in his assertion, but we have previously noted that the text of the Mass at the Agnus Dei reads “peccata mundi”, whereas the fourth Gospel text has “peccatum mundi” and we were unable to determine why the Roman Rite Mass refers to multiple sins of the world, while the fourth Gospel only states one sin of the world. What is the misquoting of the fourth Gospel, but a denial of the Gospel?
Although Apprentice Tyler’s idea that the Mass is an reenactment of the events from the fourth Gospel is incorrect, like many people he assumed the Last Supper is found in all four Gospels. What is the quoting of the first sixteen verses of the fourth gospel at the conclusion of the Roman Rite Mass, but a subtle rejection of the Last Supper?
At times, we entertain the idea that either the Roman Rite is Gnostic or that Gnosticism has crept in during the preceding four centuries. If the Rite was not originally Gnostic, then we attribute this “creeping” Gnosticism to reading the alleged writings of the Church Fathers. For example, the new Mass states the atonement “for all men”, while the previous Mass and the historical church states the remission of sins “for many”. What can “all men” mean, but the universalism of Origin, where all created beings will be allowed into the Kingdom?
With the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and other innovations, the divergence between the Roman Catholic Church and the historical church becomes greater with each passing century.
What is conception without sin, but the creation of a goddess?
What is the current idea of Mary as co redeemer, but a diminishing of Christ?
The Roman Church also has a unique understanding of communion-it is a continuing sacrifice that is communicated to the congregation in the form of bread only. Regardless of Catholic teaching regarding communion under one species, this is a contradiction of what Jesus said during the Last Supper and what the Roman Rite Mass expressly states. The priest is the only one who receives the body and blood of Christ and this quirk of the Roman Rite Mass may explain why the vast majority of Roman Catholics must be purged of venial sins in Purgatory.
What is the the Roman Rite of communion, but a denial of Jesus’ commandment to eat of his body and drink of his blood?
What is the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but a denial of the historical reality of the church of Christ and the authority of its episcopate?
What is the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary in 1950, but a denial of the epistles of Saint Paul where he states “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God”?
The Roman Church acknowledges the “filioque” crept into the western church and then into the Mass, but it has not been removed removed from their Creed.
What is this lack of retraction, but a denial of the authority of the Ecumenical Council?
What is the “filioque”, but the denial that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus from the Father?
The historical church depicts the crucified redeemer as the “The King of Glory”; Rome depicts Christ dead.
What is the depiction of Christ dead on the cross, but a denial of “The King of Glory”?
What is the combination of the corpse on the cross and the lack of the fifteenth Station of the Cross, but a subtle denial of the resurrection and an implicit support for the idea that his followers took the corpse?
What is the lack of a sixteenth station of the cross, but a denial of the Ascension?
While we did not seek to disparage the Roman Rite, we can not but notice the heretical elements in the Mass. Although we readily concede that the Roman Rite Mass does not teach heresy explicitly, but through numerable instances of inconsistencies and contradictions, we can reach no other reasonable conclusion. While the idea that the Tridentine Mass is laden with Gnostic heresies also seems absurd, there are too many elements that point to that conclusion.
Apprentice Tyler’s idea that the reenactment of the betrayal of Christ as the basis of the mass seems bizarre and as much as I would like to dismiss his nonsense as such, experience has taught me that Apprentice Tyler does not always communicate his ideas verbally in a concise and clear manner. Unfortunately, many aspects of the Mass are not found in the fourth Gospel, such as the Last Supper, the Our Father and the thirty pieces of silver. Therefore, Apprentice Tyler can not be correct in his assertion, but we have previously noted that the text of the Mass at the Agnus Dei reads “peccata mundi”, whereas the fourth Gospel text has “peccatum mundi” and we were unable to determine why the Roman Rite Mass refers to multiple sins of the world, while the fourth Gospel only states one sin of the world. What is the misquoting of the fourth Gospel, but a denial of the Gospel?
Although Apprentice Tyler’s idea that the Mass is an reenactment of the events from the fourth Gospel is incorrect, like many people he assumed the Last Supper is found in all four Gospels. What is the quoting of the first sixteen verses of the fourth gospel at the conclusion of the Roman Rite Mass, but a subtle rejection of the Last Supper?
At times, we entertain the idea that either the Roman Rite is Gnostic or that Gnosticism has crept in during the preceding four centuries. If the Rite was not originally Gnostic, then we attribute this “creeping” Gnosticism to reading the alleged writings of the Church Fathers. For example, the new Mass states the atonement “for all men”, while the previous Mass and the historical church states the remission of sins “for many”. What can “all men” mean, but the universalism of Origin, where all created beings will be allowed into the Kingdom?
With the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and other innovations, the divergence between the Roman Catholic Church and the historical church becomes greater with each passing century.
What is conception without sin, but the creation of a goddess?
What is the current idea of Mary as co redeemer, but a diminishing of Christ?
The Roman Church also has a unique understanding of communion-it is a continuing sacrifice that is communicated to the congregation in the form of bread only. Regardless of Catholic teaching regarding communion under one species, this is a contradiction of what Jesus said during the Last Supper and what the Roman Rite Mass expressly states. The priest is the only one who receives the body and blood of Christ and this quirk of the Roman Rite Mass may explain why the vast majority of Roman Catholics must be purged of venial sins in Purgatory.
What is the the Roman Rite of communion, but a denial of Jesus’ commandment to eat of his body and drink of his blood?
What is the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but a denial of the historical reality of the church of Christ and the authority of its episcopate?
What is the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary in 1950, but a denial of the epistles of Saint Paul where he states “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God”?
The Roman Church acknowledges the “filioque” crept into the western church and then into the Mass, but it has not been removed removed from their Creed.
What is this lack of retraction, but a denial of the authority of the Ecumenical Council?
What is the “filioque”, but the denial that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus from the Father?
The historical church depicts the crucified redeemer as the “The King of Glory”; Rome depicts Christ dead.
What is the depiction of Christ dead on the cross, but a denial of “The King of Glory”?
What is the combination of the corpse on the cross and the lack of the fifteenth Station of the Cross, but a subtle denial of the resurrection and an implicit support for the idea that his followers took the corpse?
What is the lack of a sixteenth station of the cross, but a denial of the Ascension?
While we did not seek to disparage the Roman Rite, we can not but notice the heretical elements in the Mass. Although we readily concede that the Roman Rite Mass does not teach heresy explicitly, but through numerable instances of inconsistencies and contradictions, we can reach no other reasonable conclusion. While the idea that the Tridentine Mass is laden with Gnostic heresies also seems absurd, there are too many elements that point to that conclusion.