15 years of chrysostom

[Idolater]

Judaism.

WAY OLDER than Catholicism!

When was the office of rabbi made? And nowadays, how do you know whether it's a real rabbi? Can someone just say, "I'm a rabbi," and that counts? There used to be the offices of priest and high priest, but they no longer exist. It's impossible for them to resuscitate those offices too. They have no authority to elect or appoint men to those offices anymore, the offices of priest and high priest went extinct a long time ago, which is why I began my response talking about rabbis, because rabbis are the only Jewish religion officials nowadays.

And when their religion went from having the offices of priest and high priest, to only having rabbis (rabbinical Judaism), that was a foundational change, a wholesale abandonment of the religious system Moses established. That's not continuous, whereas Catholicism has existed and persisted continuously from the first century. Rabbinical Judaism started AFTER Catholicism.

 

[Idolater]

You definitely have to include John Paul the Great. He gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I didn't think was necessary until Francis came along.

The Catechism (JPII's, and Francis's) is like the Apostolic case law, and the canons are like the Apostolic statutes, if we compare the Church to secular political society.

It's a GIFT. Agreed.

 

[Right Divider]

I love how the other Catholics don't fraternize with me. Like they're trying to disavow me. "That's not what being Catholic's about, what he's doing"—yes it is. It's the other way around. It's the zealous fundamentalists like me, entering the Church, and rearing Catholic kids who are just like us, who are being what Catholics are supposed to be. I mean from the Bible, what we're supposed to be.

If you really cared what the Bible says, you would not be a Romanist.

 

[Right Divider]

When was the office of rabbi made? And nowadays, how do you know whether it's a real rabbi? Can someone just say, "I'm a rabbi," and that counts? There used to be the offices of priest and high priest, but they no longer exist. It's impossible for them to resuscitate those offices too. They have no authority to elect or appoint men to those offices anymore, the offices of priest and high priest went extinct a long time ago, which is why I began my response talking about rabbis, because rabbis are the only Jewish religion officials nowadays.

And when their religion went from having the offices of priest and high priest, to only having rabbis (rabbinical Judaism), that was a foundational change, a wholesale abandonment of the religious system Moses established. That's not continuous, whereas Catholicism has existed and persisted continuously from the first century. Rabbinical Judaism started AFTER Catholicism.

Again, the longevity of an organization says nothing about its veracity.

There are many false religions and some have been around much longer than the false religion of Roman Catholicism.

 

[chrysostom]

If you really cared what the Bible says, you would not be a Romanist.

And you wonder why we don't fraternize with you?
Just to set the record straight, I care about what the bible says and I'm still Catholic.

 

[Clete]

This is what I mean. This is a Boomer Catholic's response when an honest Protestant (@Lon ) says he disagrees with about 10% of Catholic teaching:



:/

It's zero percent for fundamentalist converts (non-perfunctory—meaning to say, not those who are only converting because they want to marry a Catholic) to Catholicism. We are NOT the same.

Since the other Catholic ignores the argument, how would you, a fundamentalist Catholic, account for the vast majority of Popes who haven't been fundamentalists?

 

[Clete]

And you wonder why we don't fraternize with you?
Just to set the record straight, I care about what the bible says and I'm still Catholic.

Sincerely false. (i.e. What you've said here isn't an intentional lie but it is false.)

The bible contradicts major aspects of the Catholic faith and Catholicism itself is self-contradictory to the point that it's own leadership is corrupt by your own admission. Yet you remain a Catholic.

 

[Clete]

When was the office of rabbi made? And nowadays, how do you know whether it's a real rabbi? Can someone just say, "I'm a rabbi," and that counts? There used to be the offices of priest and high priest, but they no longer exist. It's impossible for them to resuscitate those offices too. They have no authority to elect or appoint men to those offices anymore, the offices of priest and high priest went extinct a long time ago, which is why I began my response talking about rabbis, because rabbis are the only Jewish religion officials nowadays.

And when their religion went from having the offices of priest and high priest, to only having rabbis (rabbinical Judaism), that was a foundational change, a wholesale abandonment of the religious system Moses established. That's not continuous, whereas Catholicism has existed and persisted continuously from the first century. Rabbinical Judaism started AFTER Catholicism.

If you actually believe that there has ever been a single second of time since Abraham where there was no one on planet Earth who practiced Judaism to the extent he was able, then you're delusional beyond my ability to help you.

Besides, even if what you said here disqualified Judaism as a counter example (which it doesn't) you still have no answer as all for Hinduism which has not only continuously existed far longer but has more adherants than Catholicism. By your standard you should worship Vishnu!

The simple fact is that Catholicism is not older than just simple (i.e. non-Catholic) biblical Christianity.

This is the last time I will respond to this point. It has been falsified more than once by more than one person. If you persist then just go sit in your closet and chant to yourself about it. The intellectual dishonesty that exists on this website is nearly unbearable.

 

[chrysostom]

The bible contradicts major aspects of the Catholic faith

Please give me one example.

 

[Clete]

Please give me one example.

You people are so predictable!

It would be easier to list the doctrines of the Catholic faith that aren't contradicted by the bible! You people don't give a rotten rat's tail about the bible! All you care anything at all about it your own "magisterium" which is so self-contradictory that any home-schooled 6th grade child would know it was false! But, to answer the question directly....

The teachings of Roman Catholicism contradict Scripture at nearly every major doctrinal point.

• The Bible teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all (Hebrews 9:28), yet the Catholic Mass claims to re-offer Him daily as an unbloody sacrifice.
• Scripture says salvation is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8–9), yet Rome makes justification depend on sacraments and obedience.
• The Bible says there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5), yet Catholics pray to Mary and the saints.
• The bible declares that all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and that even Mary rejoiced in “God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), yet they claim she was sinless.
• Christ’s blood cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7), yet Rome adds purgatory.
• God alone forgives sin (Mark 2:7), yet priests claim that power through confession.
• God forbids images in worship (Exodus 20:4–5), yet Catholicism promotes their veneration.
• Scripture never mentions Mary’s assumption into heaven, yet they dogmatized it.
• The Bible alone is declared sufficient for doctrine and practice (II Timothy 3:16–17), Catholicism places “sacred tradition” on equal authority with God’s Word.
• etc

In every case, the authority of Scripture is displaced by the authority of men, and the finished work of Christ is replaced by an ongoing system of rituals, mediators, and man-made decrees.

 

[Idolater]

The teachings of Roman Catholicism contradict Scripture at nearly every major doctrinal point.

• The Bible teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all (Hebrews 9:28), yet the Catholic Mass claims to re-offer Him daily as an unbloody sacrifice.

It's the same one sacrifice.

• Scripture says salvation is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8–9), yet Rome makes justification depend on sacraments and obedience.

Catholicism believes in grave moral obligations, the obligation to avoid grave sins. Acts 9erism also believes in this. (Acts 9erism is not antinomian, libertine Christianity.)

• The Bible says there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5), yet Catholics pray to Mary and the saints.

He is the One mediator because He is our High Priest. Priest = mediator in this context.

• The bible declares that all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and that even Mary rejoiced in “God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), yet they claim she was sinless.

There is more than one kind of salvation in the Scripture.

• Christ’s blood cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7), yet Rome adds purgatory.

Acts 9erism acknowledges there are temporal penalties associated with sinning. The way you put it makes it seem like you believe there are never any temporal penalties from when Christians sin. That's obv false, and you admit it. You break the law, you go to jail. That's a temporal penalty. You get drunk, you fall down and hurt yourself. You commit adultery, you get a divorce and ruin your family. Heck the latter example shows that it's not just you who suffers the penalties from sinning, but others too, other innocent people.

• God alone forgives sin (Mark 2:7), yet priests claim that power through confession.

No they don't. It's Christ absolving, forgiving, remitting, in the confessional, he, as a priest, is acting in persona Christi.

• God forbids images in worship (Exodus 20:4–5), yet Catholicism promotes their veneration.

Got a problem with a crucifix?

• Scripture never mentions Mary’s assumption into heaven, yet they dogmatized it.

There are many things not mentioned in Scripture that are gravely immoral (gravely obligatory to avoid), e.g. abortion, smut, masturbation. Whether or not Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, body and soul, the Scripture's simply silent about. You have some proof it didn't happen? No, you don't.

• The Bible alone is declared sufficient for doctrine and practice (II Timothy 3:16–17), Catholicism places “sacred tradition” on equal authority with God’s Word.

Because it's Apostolic tradition. It IS the Word of God.

• etc

In every case, the authority of Scripture is displaced by the authority of men, and the finished work of Christ is replaced by an ongoing system of rituals, mediators, and man-made decrees.

The authority conferred in the Church's offices is Jesus's authority.

 

[Idolater]

If you actually believe that there has ever been a single second of time since Abraham where there was no one on planet Earth who practiced Judaism to the extent he was able, then you're delusional beyond my ability to help you.

He meant any institution, apart from marriage and family, which has persisted for as long. Governments, corporations, etc.

Besides, even if what you said here disqualified Judaism as a counter example (which it doesn't) you still have no answer as all for Hinduism which has not only continuously existed far longer but has more adherants than Catholicism. By your standard you should worship Vishnu!

Krishna. But no, as it is not an institution or organization, but a practice. And that's not what @chrysostom meant by what he said. Again, marriage far exceeds even Hinduism in age, but he was talking about something besides marriage and family.

The simple fact is that Catholicism is not older than just simple (i.e. non-Catholic) biblical Christianity.

Peter was the first pope. Catholicism IS just simple Biblical Christianity.

 

[Idolater]

Since the other Catholic ignores the argument, how would you, a fundamentalist Catholic, account for the vast majority of Popes who haven't been fundamentalists?

No pope has ever taught ex cathedra an error. We don't believe in impeccability, but infallibility, and only under the precise conditions (ex cathedra). Beyond this charism, popes (supreme pastors of the Church) are only men. The authority is conferred in the office they hold, and it does not make any pope perfect except when they teach ex cathedra. And even then, it's not the man, but the office, which is prevented from teaching error.

 

[Idolater]

Again, the longevity of an organization says nothing about its veracity.

Never said it did. I was responding to a particular post.

There are many false religions and some have been around much longer than the false religion of Roman Catholicism.

Religious practice and observation, and an organization composed of offices, are not the same thing. @chrysostom was talking about an organization that has persisted continuously with no disruption since c. AD 33.

 

[Idolater]

If you really cared what the Bible says, you would not be a Romanist.

The opposite is true.

 

[chrysostom]

yet the Catholic Mass claims to re-offer Him daily as an unbloody sacrifice.

Where is that written?

 

[Clete]

It's the same one sacrifice.



Catholicism believes in grave moral obligations, the obligation to avoid grave sins. Acts 9erism also believes in this. (Acts 9erism is not antinomian, libertine Christianity.)



He is the One mediator because He is our High Priest. Priest = mediator in this context.



There is more than one kind of salvation in the Scripture.



Acts 9erism acknowledges there are temporal penalties associated with sinning. The way you put it makes it seem like you believe there are never any temporal penalties from when Christians sin. That's obv false, and you admit it. You break the law, you go to jail. That's a temporal penalty. You get drunk, you fall down and hurt yourself. You commit adultery, you get a divorce and ruin your family. Heck the latter example shows that it's not just you who suffers the penalties from sinning, but others too, other innocent people.



No they don't. It's Christ absolving, forgiving, remitting, in the confessional, he, as a priest, is acting in persona Christi.



Got a problem with a crucifix?



There are many things not mentioned in Scripture that are gravely immoral (gravely obligatory to avoid), e.g. abortion, smut, masturbation. Whether or not Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, body and soul, the Scripture's simply silent about. You have some proof it didn't happen? No, you don't.



Because it's Apostolic tradition. It IS the Word of God.



The authority conferred in the Church's offices is Jesus's authority.

I rest my case.

 

[Clete]

Where is that written?

That idea comes directly from official Catholic teaching, not from a misunderstanding of practice. It is explicitly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent....

“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice... The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner on the altar of the sacrifice of the Mass.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1367​

That is a direct statement that the Eucharist is offered, not merely remembered, as a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice, only “unbloody.”

“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross... This sacrifice is truly propitiatory.” - Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2; Canon 3 (1562)​

​

This canon anathematizes anyone who denies that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sins—meaning, according to Catholic dogma, the Mass truly re-presents and offers Christ’s sacrifice before God.


The bible directly contradicts this claim...

“He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself... so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.” - Hebrews 9:26–28​

The author of Hebrews emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, precisely to distinguish it from the repetitive offerings of human priests. The Catholic Mass, by presenting an ongoing “unbloody” sacrifice, reintroduces the very system the New Testament declares finished.



Now, everyone reading this needs to pay attention to what just happened here....

1. chryspstom just challenged the existence of such a Catholic teaching. The implication of which is that it is a false teaching that his religion does not teach.
2. I've now just proven that it is, IN FACT, exactly what I presented it to be.

and what will happen next....

Chrysostom will not alter his doctrine in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!

Indeed, this will not have any effect on him at all (doctrinally or otherwise)!

WHY?

Because, despite his insistence to the contrary he DOES NOT CARE about what the bible teaches. It does not bother him in the slightest that his doctrine in contradiction either with the bible or with itself. He doesn't want it to make sense. He doesn't want it explained. He believes what wants to believe and that's is all there is to it. There isn't any other means or motive behind his belief system aside from satiating his own desires, be they religious or otherwise.

That goes equally as much for Idolater. God Himself couldn't move either of them an inch off their cherished dogma.

 

[Clete]

He meant any institution, apart from marriage and family, which has persisted for as long. Governments, corporations, etc.



Krishna. But no, as it is not an institution or organization, but a practice. And that's not what @chrysostom meant by what he said. Again, marriage far exceeds even Hinduism in age, but he was talking about something besides marriage and family.



Peter was the first pope. Catholicism IS just simple Biblical Christianity.

Liar.

Every single sentence of that entire post was an intentional lie!

 

[Clete]

No pope has ever taught ex cathedra an error. We don't believe in impeccability, but infallibility, and only under the precise conditions (ex cathedra). Beyond this charism, popes (supreme pastors of the Church) are only men. The authority is conferred in the office they hold, and it does not make any pope perfect except when they teach ex cathedra. And even then, it's not the man, but the office, which is prevented from teaching error.

Literal delusional stupidity!

There is no hope for you. You've turned off your reasoning faculty.