The Joys of Catholicism

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
In the literature it means if and only if. It's not superfluous.
In what literature? In The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes? I know what's meant by it. Your use of "IFF" where you used it is superfluous, because you are wrong in your "only if".

What He said was

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake BREAD, and said, Take, eat: this BREAD is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
No, He clearly did not say that, and you know it. What He said was "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." And that's not what you said He said.

$$ 1Co 11:25
After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This CUP is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
What's your "point"? Notice He didn't say "THE CONTENT OF THIS CUP is MY BLOOD", or "This LIQUID is MY BLOOD".

You wish. Instead...
Glancing over your long-winded raving that starts with those words, it's clear that none of it is a response to anything I have written. It's mere noise, so I'm not going to waste time reading it.
 

Derf

Well-known member
And there's only One Church emerging from the first century, Vincent of Lerins confirms it. There's One Church movement, and then there are the heresies. These are the only branches of the Christian tradition that existed, this is according to their own testimony, in documents we have from that time. We have the New Testament, we also have two letters from Pope Clement in Rome (successors of Peter sat on Peter's throne, left vacant in Rome when Peter was put to death by crucifixion, although his crucifixion was different because he was hung upside down, which means he must have taken longer to die unless they set him on fire, because crucifixion kills you through suffocation because your core musculature gives out and you can't breathe anymore due to your weight being suspended by just your two arms all day), and then we also have a letter from Ignatius of Antioch (Antioch was also a Petrine see, because Peter was the bishop of Antioch for a while, meaning he lived there, and oversaw Church administration for that city's diocese) written to the same Roman diocese that Paul had written to, not 50 years earlier, in which he indicates how special Rome is because of the papal office residing there, Peter's throne, and the throne of David.

There's the throne of David, and then there's all the heresies. Those are the branches of Christian tradition which emerge from the first century, we know this from documents from the time. There's David's throne, and the movement associated with that, and there's the heresies, which are movements unassociated with David's throne. They're already going off the reservation, even by the first century.

One of them is called the Docetists. They didn't believe, based on independent philosophy, that Jesus could have really come in the flesh. It conflicted with their philosophy, and even though the Pope and all the bishops all taught that Yes He did, they went off on their own.

Ignatius is the first one to condemn people for not believing the Real Presence, and it was the Docetists.

The Docetists are even mentioned by 1st John, in the New Testament.

Like I said, you Dispensationalists have an excuse, you have a reason why the Roman Catholic Church emerging out of the first century is not the Church in the Bible simpliciter, you think, as you indicate here, that that movement was already corrupt.

So you have an excuse. It's users like @Lon and @Derf and idk maybe @7djengo7 (I can't tell if this latter is a Dispensationalist or not yet), who have some 'splainin to do Lucy. Dispensationalists just believe the Roman Catholic Church emerging out of the first century is already corrupt. So they have an excuse.
I'd count myself a dispensationalist, but not mid-Acts. But I don't think I need an excuse for anything. Jesus sent letters to 7 churches. And the movement wasn't called a church movement, it was called the Way. If you group together to worship God for providing salvation from death through Jesus Christ, you are a church.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I'd count myself a dispensationalist, but not mid-Acts. But I don't think I need an excuse for anything. Jesus sent letters to 7 churches. And the movement wasn't called a church movement, it was called the Way. If you group together to worship God for providing salvation from death through Jesus Christ, you are a church.

What is Paul talking about when he says "the Body, the Church"? I mean he says Church, singular—which Church is he talking about? in what does that one Church consist?

$$ Col 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
 

Right Divider

Body part
We are to follow Paul, and Paul said, quoting Christ, "'this do'".

It's a positive obligation He imposes on us, and Paul tells us. It's the Mass obligation. You have to go to Mass, if you want to follow Paul. That's what Paul's saying, he's saying 'this do'. Celebrate Communion. That's at Mass. Go to Mass. Mass obligation. It's right there, in Paul, and we are admonished to follow Paul, and Paul says, this do.

$$ 1Co 11:23
For I (PAUL) have received of the Lord that which also I (PAUL) delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
$$ 1Co 11:25
After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
Talk about a textbook case of confirmation bias!

There is nothing obligatory about that "command". It's not a "command" in the way that you and your false religion want to make it.

Paul never went to "Mass" and neither do I.

This remembrance does not require a "Mass" (i.e., an abominable evil).

I thought that, according to the RCC, Peter is the one that we get our instructions from. You're a mess.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
He didn't say to break bread.
Exactly what did He say to do, when He said "Do this in remembrance of me"? Did He say to eat something? Did He say to eat bread? If so, broken bread or unbroken bread? I ask because you have said that, whereas your "priest" eats broken bread, he administers to you to eat only "broken" bread -- which (again) is to say he has you to eat unbroken bread. After all the verbose jargon you've handed us as though you imagine you're making important, subtle distinctions, do you want to tell us that it's a matter of indifference to you whether the bread you eat in your "Eucharist" is broken or unbroken?
He broke bread, and then said, this bread is My body.
On the contrary, He did not say any bread is your body. But you're right to not put quotation marks around your words "this bread is My body", because those are your words, and not His. His words are "this is my body".
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
In what literature? In The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes? I know what's meant by it. Your use of "IFF" where you used it is superfluous, because you are wrong in your "only if".

No I'm not.

No, He clearly did not say that, and you know it. What He said was "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." And that's not what you said He said.

That is what I said He said.

What's your "point"? Notice He didn't say "THE CONTENT OF THIS CUP is MY BLOOD", or "This LIQUID is MY BLOOD".

I know my point, and so does everybody else. What is YOUR point? That when He says His body He's talking about His body, right? And when He says His blood, He's talking about His blood, right? Well that's what I'm saying too. He means His body and His blood (and soul and divinity, because He is indivisible).

Glancing over your long-winded raving that starts with those words, it's clear that none of it is a response to anything I have written. It's mere noise, so I'm not going to waste time reading it.

You really know how to hurt a guy.

Exactly what did He say to do, when He said "Do this in remembrance of me"? Did He say to eat something?

Yes.

Did He say to eat bread? If so, broken bread or unbroken bread? I ask because you have said that, whereas your "priest" eats broken bread, he administers to you to eat only "broken" bread -- which (again) is to say he has you to eat unbroken bread. After all the verbose jargon you've handed us as though you imagine you're making important, subtle distinctions, do you want to tell us that it's a matter of indifference to you whether the bread you eat in your "Eucharist" is broken or unbroken?

I said it's broken actually, and symbolically. What more do you want?

On the contrary, He did not say any bread is your body.

I never use "My" capitalized when I am talking about me.

But you're right to not put quotation marks around your words "this bread is My body", because those are your words, and not His. His words are "this is my body".

And this is a pronoun, and what is it applied to in the sentence, in context? To His body, correct? That's what I'm saying. That's what all Roman Catholicism's been saying from day one.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I know my point, and so does everybody else. What is YOUR point? That when He says His body He's talking about His body, right?
He never said His body; a human body isn't even something that is/can be said. Words are things people can say, whereas human bodies are not. Also, the Bible does not even record Him as having ever said the phrase "His body" in any of His recorded, face-to-face, in-person, in-the-flesh conversations with people. He did say "my body", however, by which (I take it) He was referring to His body, and thus not referring to something that was not His body, such as one or more morsels of bread.

And when He says His blood, He's talking about His blood, right?
He doesn't say His blood, because, like a human body, blood is not something one says/can say. One can certainly say things about blood -- whether about their own blood, or about some other party's blood, or about both; one can say the word "blood" and thereby either refer to blood or not refer to blood; but no one says blood.

I never use "My" capitalized when I am talking about me.
My mistake! Seriously, though: saying what you just said is akin to saying "I never use sentences." For, on the contrary, you're using "My" capitalized when talking about yourself, right there, in your very sentence that reads "I never use "My" capitalized when I am talking about me."

I said it's broken actually, and symbolically.
Either a piece of bread is broken, or it's not broken. To say "it's broken...symbolically" is to utter nonsense. You said your "priest" only breaks the piece of bread he eats, and does not break the piece of bread he hands to you to eat. Chanting "it's broken...symbolically" does not change the fact that the unbroken piece of bread he hands you is an unbroken piece of bread.
And this is a pronoun, and what is it applied to in the sentence, in context? To His body, correct? That's what I'm saying.
Are you asking if the pronoun "this" is a pronoun? "This" is a pronoun. When Jesus says "This is my body", by His pronoun "this" He is referring to His body, and thus, He is not referring to one or more morsels of bread, or any other thing that is not His body.
That's what I'm saying.
Some of the time you seem to be saying He is referring to His body by His pronoun "this". But you also turn around and say He is, by His pronoun "this", referring to something that is not His body. See, that's where you derail: the times when you say He is referring, by His pronoun "this", to something that is not His body.
 

Derf

Well-known member
What is Paul talking about when he says "the Body, the Church"? I mean he says Church, singular—which Church is he talking about? in what does that one Church consist?

$$ Col 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
The same church He said He would build, but there are multiple churches. So He is the head of the church, without continuing to be the head of the church of Laodicea, where He has to knock to be let in.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
You really know how to hurt a guy.
Well, hopefully you know I don't mean to hurt your feelings, and I suspect you're just being sarcastic in saying that. You tend to get a tad annoying when it comes to much of your discourse on the topic of what you call "Catholicism", and I've no doubt I do the same to you. But these are huge differences between us. It makes me a little sad that we can't have more significant common ground, but, of course, neither of us is likely to budge.

Plus, if I remember right, you at some point said you used to be "evangelical". If it's true you at some point believed the Bible fact of justification by grace alone/through faith alone (though it's clear you do not, presently, believe it), then you're -- I would have to believe, thanks to the blessed truth of OSAS -- not in as bad of a shape as you'd be in had you been a cradle-to-grave Romanist.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Talk about a textbook case of confirmation bias!

There is nothing obligatory about that "command".

If you presuppose your pet theology is right, and that there are no obligations for the Body of Christ, then ofc it is not obligatory—to you, but that's not making any case, that's just declaratory.

I could see saying, "Even though the 'Apostle to the Gentiles' Paul, quotes Christ as saying, 'This do,' He wasn't talking to me, He was only talking to His Apostles, so they are really the only ones upon whom this imposed obligation lands. THEY have to 'do'—but not me or us."

It isn't that it's surprising that Paul would quote Jesus—Jesus is God, and so it would always make sense to quote God, no matter who you are or what you're doing. It's just strange that a tradition of celebrating Communion would rise up, and that it happened in spite of Paul quoting this particular thing that Jesus said. I mean in spite of it not imposing an obligation on the Body of Christ, the Mystery Church, nonetheless, the tradition of celebrating Communion arose.

That is prima facie very coincidental.

It's not a "command" in the way that you and your false religion want to make it.

You don't underSTAND my religion.

Paul never went to "Mass"

Mass is the celebration of Communion, along with the other elements of Acts 2:42

You don't think Paul ever celebrated Communion?

and neither do I.

If you're wrong, it's your loss.

This remembrance does not require a "Mass" (i.e., an abominable evil).

As said, Holy Communion IS the Mass.

I thought that, according to the RCC, Peter is the one that we get our instructions from.

Like I said, you don't understand it.

You're a mess.

You are.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The same church He said He would build, but there are multiple churches. So He is the head of the church, without continuing to be the head of the church of Laodicea, where He has to knock to be let in.

There's One Church, and you know that. The seven lampstands are clearly the ONE menorah. But if you insist, we can exclude Laodicea, and think of them like, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons; who aren't Christian. Or we can think of them like Methodists or Baptists, those we all largely consider to be Christian, though imperfect.

So where are standard Roman Catholics in this model for you? Are they just another Methodism or Congregational ecclesial community? Mormons? Or something else?

For me standard Catholicism is 'something else,' because while Matthew 16:18-19 isn't strictly speaking an establishment clause for the papacy, it's pretty darn close. And while we don't have any establishment clause for the office of a bishop either in the Bible, we see bishops in the New Testament, so we know the office of a bishop was established by either Christ or the Apostles. No other option.

Certainly Jesus wants the menorah of the One Church to have all its lights burning brightly. Certainly I don't think He's going to ever hack off a lamp that won't burn, not like gouging out the eye that causes you to sin, not like pruning a vine, not like harvesting the wheat and the tares and burning the tares, not like cursing the fig tree. All seven lampstands I think are preserved, I think He just wants them all burning brightly, all together.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
He never said His body; a human body isn't even something that is/can be said. Words are things people can say, whereas human bodies are not. Also, the Bible does not even record Him as having ever said the phrase "His body" in any of His recorded, face-to-face, in-person, in-the-flesh conversations with people. He did say "my body", however, by which (I take it) He was referring to His body, and thus not referring to something that was not His body, such as one or more morsels of bread.


He doesn't say His blood, because, like a human body, blood is not something one says/can say. One can certainly say things about blood -- whether about their own blood, or about some other party's blood, or about both; one can say the word "blood" and thereby either refer to blood or not refer to blood; but no one says blood.

You know quotation marks didn't exist when the Bible was originally written, right? And that Jesus was aware that quotation marks weren't a thing, when He spoke, knowing what would be recorded?

I'm sure you know that.

My mistake! Seriously, though: saying what you just said is akin to saying "I never use sentences." For, on the contrary, you're using "My" capitalized when talking about yourself, right there, in your very sentence that reads "I never use "My" capitalized when I am talking about me."

SUPRA.

Either a piece of bread is broken, or it's not broken. To say "it's broken...symbolically" is to utter nonsense.

Oh. So ... is the consecrated host, His body, or no? Because it either is or it isn't, and to say, "It is ... symbolically" seems ... to be "utter nonsense."

Wouldn't you agree? I mean you said it.

(Except where you said, "No, it's a verb, but you used it as a noun, so you shouldn't have used quotation marks there.") That's equivocation.

You said your "priest" only breaks the piece of bread he eats, and does not break the piece of bread he hands to you to eat. Chanting "it's broken...symbolically" does not change the fact that the unbroken piece of bread he hands you is an unbroken piece of bread.

Well, I have received nonetheless, actually broken host before, it's rare, but not rare enough to just say it never happens. Such as if Mass was well attended, and the priest needs to break up even the little hosts, just so that everybody gets enough, which is just a tiny amount, barely large enough to appear to be obv bread. So that no one goes without.

You see how your contention here has fallen flat? Because obv when I do receive broken host, nothing is different, because what really matters is the words of consecration which the ministerial priest said when holding the elements. "This is My body; this is My blood; this do."

Are you asking if the pronoun "this" is a pronoun? "This" is a pronoun. When Jesus says "This is my body", by His pronoun "this" He is referring to His body, and thus, He is not referring to one or more morsels of bread, or any other thing that is not His body.

You're capturing the importance of the words of consecration. Now, what about BEFORE He said those words? Bread, or nah?

Some of the time you seem to be saying He is referring to His body by His pronoun "this". But you also turn around and say He is, by His pronoun "this", referring to something that is not His body. See, that's where you derail: the times when you say He is referring, by His pronoun "this", to something that is not His body.

Your theology of the incarnation itself is actually limited, which is why you're thinking about this the way you are. You do understand that when you think of His body, meaning what on a crucifix is called His corpus, that you're thinking about God, simpliciter, or God, directly. Not like, God is associated with Jesus's body, but that God IS Jesus's body?

But if we took some skin cells off His arm and looked at them under a microscope, would we see God? Wouldn't we just see cells, and nuclei, and cytoplasm? But it's actually God. I mean stands to reason. Must be. So how do ... how do we make any sense of that at all? In fact, sense of our faith at all? How can we tell people that this flesh and blood Man Who walked the Earth, IS God?

A strand of His hair isn't a strand of God's hair—it IS God, at least while it's on His head, because He IS God. It's an ontological fact. And you can't say, "Well yes, He is God, but not His PHYSICAL features," which is Gnostic, and Docetism. So therefore His hair, and His skin cells, ARE God.

You folks, don't get that. You haven't drunk the Kool-aid. Jesus is God, simpliciter, unconditionally and without qualification. We have no difficulty believing that what appears to be bread and wine, is ACTUALLY God, because while Jesus Himself APPEARED to be a mere man, he was ACTUALLY God too. And He's the One Who SAID, the words of consecration.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Well, hopefully you know I don't mean to hurt your feelings, and I suspect you're just being sarcastic in saying that. You tend to get a tad annoying when it comes to much of your discourse on the topic of what you call "Catholicism", and I've no doubt I do the same to you. But these are huge differences between us. It makes me a little sad that we can't have more significant common ground, but, of course, neither of us is likely to budge.

It must be that the more truth we become aware of, the better our theology will become as well, so I think that's what we're all doing here, is pursuing the truth, no matter where it lies.

Plus, if I remember right, you at some point said you used to be "evangelical". If it's true you at some point believed the Bible fact of justification by grace alone/through faith alone (though it's clear you do not, presently, believe it), then you're -- I would have to believe, thanks to the blessed truth of OSAS -- not in as bad of a shape as you'd be in had you been a cradle-to-grave Romanist.

You and RD both, just don't understand how grave moral obligations, such as don't commit adultery or murder, can coexist with grace alone /faith alone—but they do, and they always have, and standard Roman Catholicism is exactly how. It's a narrow gate, there's just one correct way to read the Bible, and it's standard Roman Catholic. There exist grave moral obligations, and also, grace alone and faith alone. Both. There is no conflict ultimately, even though it is not immediately clear how these things can simultaneously be.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Oh.


You received the tradition of using bread to celebrate the Lord's Supper, yes? You didn't make that up yourself, right?


Jesus took bread, and then said, "This [bread] is [now] My body [meaning, it is no longer bread]." Those are the words of consecration.

^ Just so everyone's clear, I keep using the term "words of consecration", these are them. ^
 

Right Divider

Body part
If you presuppose your pet theology is right, and that there are no obligations for the Body of Christ, then ofc it is not obligatory—to you, but that's not making any case, that's just declaratory.
You being a Romanist, I can fully understand your confusion.
Me being a member of the body of Christ, I can fully understand the truth.
I could see saying, "Even though the 'Apostle to the Gentiles' Paul, quotes Christ as saying, 'This do,' He wasn't talking to me, He was only talking to His Apostles, so they are really the only ones upon whom this imposed obligation lands. THEY have to 'do'—but not me or us."
There are many things that we should do, but NONE of them are required for our salvation.
It isn't that it's surprising that Paul would quote Jesus—Jesus is God, and so it would always make sense to quote God, no matter who you are or what you're doing. It's just strange that a tradition of celebrating Communion would rise up, and that it happened in spite of Paul quoting this particular thing that Jesus said. I mean in spite of it not imposing an obligation on the Body of Christ, the Mystery Church, nonetheless, the tradition of celebrating Communion arose.
Communion is NOT "eating".
You don't underSTAND my religion.
Your "religion" is an illogical and irrational mess that is leading you and millions of others straight to the lake of fire. Your "religion" was made-up by religionists and it is NOT of God.
Mass is the celebration of Communion, along with the other elements of Acts 2:42
Acts 2 has nothing to do with the body of Christ. It is totally JEWISH (i.e., Israelite).

The "apostles' doctrine" referred to there is totally JEWISH (i.e., Israelite).

"Ye men of Israel" Act 2:22
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
There's One Church, and you know that.
I heard a sermon recently claiming that there are multiple churches, but not a single Church, with a church being a local assembly. I'm not sure I'm on board with it in all instances, but it allows for some clarity.
The seven lampstands are clearly the ONE menorah.
Are they? Then how can a single lampstand be removed? Does another take its place? Where did the new one come from?
But if you insist, we can exclude Laodicea,
Can we? Isn't that lopping off a member, as you say below?
and think of them like, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons; who aren't Christian. Or we can think of them like Methodists or Baptists, those we all largely consider to be Christian, though imperfect.

So where are standard Roman Catholics in this model for you? Are they just another Methodism or Congregational ecclesial community? Mormons? Or something else?
Why are all Roman Catholics presumed to be a single church? Are all reformed also a single church? If a church is really an "assembly", then when does the whole Roman Catholic body assemble?
For me standard Catholicism is 'something else,' because while Matthew 16:18-19 isn't strictly speaking an establishment clause for the papacy, it's pretty darn close. And while we don't have any establishment clause for the office of a bishop either in the Bible, we see bishops in the New Testament, so we know the office of a bishop was established by either Christ or the Apostles. No other option.
In local assemblies, yes.
Certainly Jesus wants the menorah of the One Church to have all its lights burning brightly. Certainly I don't think He's going to ever hack off a lamp that won't burn, not like gouging out the eye that causes you to sin, not like pruning a vine, not like harvesting the wheat and the tares and burning the tares, not like cursing the fig tree. All seven lampstands I think are preserved, I think He just wants them all burning brightly, all together.
I guess spewing a church out of His mouth makes me think He us cutting them off, but I'm not sure.
 
Top