Have I gone MAD???

[Idolater]

No. I've been Catholic.

That doesn't enter into it. We're talking about whether a doctrine is true. Unless you're suggesting you have firsthand proof that the Real Presence is false? And how could you? We're all Catholics on my side, and none of us has this elusive evidence you're suggesting you have, which allegedly disproves the Real Presence. What is it you think you know, having been Catholic before?

Here's what I think you know. You know you never believed in the Real Presence. So what kind of Catholic IS that? Every single bit of the Eucharist is offered, everywhere and always by everybody, with the words, "Body of Christ". So what did you say whenever you received Communion? Didn't you verbally say, "Amen"? And isn't that a lie?

So what kind of Catholic is that?

I'm not judging you. I'm just responding to the point you're making, which is to appeal to yourself as some sort of authority here on Catholicism. So I have to contend with that image you're trying to project.

Meanwhile I'm no authority on Catholicism, and I'll always point you to the Catechism of John Paul II; canonical, authoritative and authorized Catholicism. Whatever I say doesn't matter unless it's corroborated in the Catechism of John Paul II. btw the Roman Catechism from the 16th century is redacted through being subsumed by John Paul II's Catechism, meaning if there appears to be any conflict between what the two teach, the Catechism of John Paul II is the arbiter, binder, and explainer.

This says a lot, about you and Catholics, are in fact desirous to be Catholics.

I don't understand this sentence.

There is no literal eating of flesh.

I already know you don't believe in the Real Presence.

The disciples didn't become cannibals!

Wouldn't you agree that there's more than one possible explanation? And that just because you're only persuaded by the one which makes the whole entire early Church a bunch of buffoons doesn't mean that therefore it's correct? It could be it's a mystery. Like Ephesians 5:32 says. (Instead of cannibalism.)

Next, there is no benefit even to your flesh to espouse the ridiculous.

No one is claiming that. (You're begging the question. And straw-manning me.)

I left Catholicism far behind because of the fantasy, mystery, mythology that gets it all wrong.

You never believed in the Real Presence is all. You didn't need another reason to leave. That was enough. It would be enough to leave for anybody who didn't believe in the Real Presence. (Like Flannery O'Connor said, if the Eucharist isn't really Jesus, then to Hell with it.)

It is a beautiful service but ultimately problematic in conveyance.

Conveyance meaning understanding? Or the physical conveyance of the elements? (This is ambiguous.)

It is a mediator between God and man and between Christ. It removes you from intimacy, interrupts what is Christ's alone.

It being the Eucharist and confession? Or just confession? Or just the Eucharist? (This is ambiguous, because we were talking about both.)

Coping at this point.

Why this bluster? You've so far merely asserted your position. (OK but I didn't see any argument other than a low key appeal to yourself as an authority on Catholicism and the Real Presence.)

No, it is a showy stand-between.

You say that because you don't believe in the Real Presence. iow this just means, "I don't believe in the Real Presence", which I already know. (The Eucharist can't be a showy stand-between if the Real Presence is true.)

It is going back to Judaism.

I don't understand this. When did Judaism believe in the Real Presence? They believed in the bread of the Presence in the tabernacle and later temple, but that was just symbolic of God's Real Presence, which was only Really Present in the Holy of Holies once per year.

Christ is Really Present in all the sacraments, including the Eucharist, where He is the bread of Melchizedek, the manna (bread) from Heaven, the Passover Lamb Who takes away the sins of the World (1st John says "the whole World"), and the bread of the Presence.

It's the fulfillment of Judaism.

No, in fact. He didn't Lord it over them in the least and would be horrified if someone prayed to him instead of God.

Again, straw-manning me. I never said lording it over anybody was OK, and why would we pray to your pastor? We would only ask a Saint in Heaven for his or her intercession, like we would ask our pastor on Earth to intercede for us in prayer.

In effect, Judaized.

Catholicism is not Judaized, you just don't believe in the Real Presence, and the Real Presence isn't Judaized.

Catholics have a larger Bible

Because it's the one the Apostles used, the Septuagint.

, most rely on their priests for understanding

Is this somehow different for Evangelicals?

and apply as much of the OT and Apocrypha as they can, effectually Judaizing themselves which Galatians warns against.

Can you provide some specific examples how this is being done?

1) No longer will you need one to say to you 'Know the Lord" from the least to the greatest.

What does that have to do with the pope?

2) Only one Mediator between God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ

We believe that, He is our One High Priest.

3) The veil has been taken away, but not for them that use it still.

We consume Jesus. Again, you just don't believe in the Real Presence, and so all your contentions against Roman Catholicism are just restatements of this.

Heirs does not mean 'are' and this is where great mistakes and assumptions begin.

Is there, or is there not, Jews nor Gentiles, in Christ? Do we each have equal opportunity to join Christ's kingdom or not?

Entertain that this is what they'd have you believe. The Eastern churches were indeed first. Christianity was born in the East.

The East disavowed the papacy as a distinct office from all the rest of the bishops. It was a novelty, especially when looking at the Council in Ephesus in 432. Couldn't have been clearer that the whole Church altogether confessed the papacy is ontologically distinct from all the other offices. Then the East innovated and said no, it's just another patriarchate. Historical revisionism.

This is another problem with Catholicism: They are always confusing the difference between physical and spiritual. There is no need for the wine and bread to become physically literal flesh and blood

Again, we know you don't believe in the Real Presence and didn't when you were Catholic either. You just keep restating it, and you're not arguing, just restating.

, else we'd eat our Catholic priests when they died. It isn't at all what scripture ever meant.

Certainly, Scripture never meant THAT.

Wooden literalism

This is, I am supposing, your only claim so far which attempts to support your disbelief in the Real Presence, it's that we're taking Christ's words, in John chapter 6, and in the four different accounts of the Last Supper, "wooden literally". Well there are other passages such as 1st Corinthians 10 which obliquely refers to the Eucharist as a real sacrifice on a real altar as well. We take that literally too. I don't think that that's "wooden" literalism though, when Paul compares the table of the diabolic with the table of the Lord. I think that that's just what he's saying. They are parallels.

, confusion in mixing Judaism

There's nothing Judaized about the Real Presence. John chapter 6 shows Judaized people did not accept it.

, becoming in an odd sense Messianic Jews

We do not keep Torah in any sense, we only keep the New Covenant's law of Christ, it's fulfilled the Old Torah Law. Roman Catholicism simpliciter is not Judaized.

: All this is a confusion of celebration rather than knowledge of what is actual.

Again, we know you don't believe the Real Presence is actual. But we do believe in the Real Presence. And what proceeds from our belief regarding the Lord's Supper is simply rational, and is certainly not irrational. Meaning you might believe something incorrect, but assuming you believe it, then you can show that it was rational, in spite of not knowing that what you thought was wrong.

Traditions, observances, and ceremony have obscured the relationship between God and man and have left the congregation running to them instead of entering the Holy of Holies themselves.

That's just the Eucharist, so this doesn't make any sense. It'd make sense that if a Catholic did not believe in the Real Presence, that he would come to think about it this way however.

[They] run to the showy instead of the throne of God.

Do you mean here a literal throne, or a symbolic, or spiritual, or metaphorical throne? Can you prove it from Scripture?

I realize there is spendor that does this having been in many Catholic churches, causing a sense of awe and reverence, but when that gets in the way of God, it is an echo of embrace rather than direct.

Impossible for it to get in the way, when you believe in the Real Presence; so again, you're just restating your viewpoint, which we know.

It is the 'in-between' that causes the problem.

There is no 'in-between'. The Real Presence is Really Jesus in the Eucharist, and we EAT Him. There can't BE an 'in-between'. (Ontological.)

I've no doubt a good many Catholics know the Lord, but they are handicapped doing the Rosery, going to the confessional, etc.

Baptism is exorcistic, but praying the Rosary isn't, it's a devotion, and God loves a cheerful giver.

Praying for one another, Lon

We need it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It begins with literally consuming Him.

You're focusing on the ritual to the exclusion of the symbolism behind it.

Says you. And no one else until the 1500s.

Says scripture.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26:26-29 - New King James Version

Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper - And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the...

www.biblegateway.com

And after He takes what is literal, he tells his disciples what they represent. As in, symbolism. Not literally his body and blood, but what they represent.

We are all priests,

Speak for yourself.

Also Paul called himself Father, because he was the father of the Corinthians and others, in the faith. Same idea.

Not once does Paul call himself "Father."

I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 4:14-17 - New King James Version

Paul’s Paternal Care - I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me...

www.biblegateway.com

Paul is saying that their being children to him is figurative, in Jesus Christ. Paul is just another instructor. He was not anyone's Father.

You never believed in the Real Presence is all.

This is an overlap of the "no true scotsman" fallacy and an "ad hominem" fallacy, particularly "appeal to motive."

There's nothing Judaized about the Real Presence. John chapter 6 shows Judaized people did not accept it.

John 6 has nothing to do with the doctrine of "Real Presence."

we only keep the New Covenant's law of Christ

And that's the problem.

Instead of understanding that we are not under the New Covenant (law) but under grace (no law), you think that somehow the Body of Christ is a continuation of Israel in some way, when it is not.

There is no 'in-between'. The Real Presence is Really Jesus in the Eucharist, and we EAT Him. There can't BE an 'in-between'. (Ontological.)

Saying it emphatically doesn't make it so.

We are not cannibals. Again, you're missing the symbolism by focusing on an erroneous woodenly literal interpretation.

IOW, missing the forest for the trees.

Baptism is exorcistic, but praying the Rosary isn't, it's a devotion, and God loves a cheerful giver.

The Rosary is just a prayer that's been ritualized. Rituals are a form of law.

It's like the "free will offering" in the Mosaic law. It wasn't required, but it was still part of the law.

We in the Body of Christ are not under the law. We are under grace.

God indeed loves a cheerful giver. But a ritualized prayer is not that.

 

[Lon]

This one is going to be blunt because you are forcing me.

That doesn't enter into it. We're talking about whether a doctrine is true. Unless you're suggesting you have firsthand proof that the Real Presence is false? And how could you? We're all Catholics on my side, and none of us has this elusive evidence you're suggesting you have, which allegedly disproves the Real Presence. What is it you think you know, having been Catholic before?

Here's what I think you know. You know you never believed in the Real Presence. So what kind of Catholic IS that? Every single bit of the Eucharist is offered, everywhere and always by everybody, with the words, "Body of Christ". So what did you say whenever you received Communion? Didn't you verbally say, "Amen"? And isn't that a lie?

So what kind of Catholic is that?

I'm not judging you. I'm just responding to the point you're making, which is to appeal to yourself as some sort of authority here on Catholicism. So I have to contend with that image you're trying to project.

No, I never believed I was a cannibal. Today you'll be happy to learn it is denied me 0.o The Catholics started with a fantasy idea of what Christ was doing at the last supper. I'm going to hit your church hard in a minute and you will not recover.

Meanwhile I'm no authority on Catholicism, and I'll always point you to the Catechism of John Paul II; canonical, authoritative and authorized Catholicism. Whatever I say doesn't matter unless it's corroborated in the Catechism of John Paul II. btw the Roman Catechism from the 16th century is redacted through being subsumed by John Paul II's Catechism, meaning if there appears to be any conflict between what the two teach, the Catechism of John Paul II is the arbiter, binder, and explainer.

I know. You've a go-between you and the precious Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't understand this sentence.

Very simple: You are Catholic simply because you want to be, not because it is the best relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

I already know you don't believe in the Real Presence.

And you shouldn't either and it is going to hurt in a minute.

Wouldn't you agree that there's more than one possible explanation? And that just because you're only persuaded by the one which makes the whole entire early Church a bunch of buffoons doesn't mean that therefore it's correct? It could be it's a mystery. Like Ephesians 5:32 says. (Instead of cannibalism.)

No. You are appealing to tradition, 'this is the way we always did it' and miss the real meaning of communion in favor of 'the beauty of not understanding.'

No one is claiming that. (You're begging the question. And straw-manning me.)

No I am not. As I said, I have to hold no punches in a moment. Don't leave Christianity for it but do take the cue.

You never believed in the Real Presence is all. You didn't need another reason to leave. That was enough. It would be enough to leave for anybody who didn't believe in the Real Presence. (Like Flannery O'Connor said, if the Eucharist isn't really Jesus, then to Hell with it.)

Of course it was enough. Here it is: Matthew 7:15-20 You cannot have 'real presence' nor have life in a bad tree. It's apples are all wormy and their is no possible way a child molester homosexual can minister real presence to you because it is bad fruit that invades the whole church. You'll next say 'not my Father' yet he remained and you remained when it all came out and how very very many swept it all under the rug and used church tithes to do so. You cannot have real presence with that. If I was still Catholic today, I'd have been gone immediately and would never dream of telling another of real presence when my priests were the devils delivering it. During Nazi Germany's reign, many in the Catholic Church supported. The ones that didn't were vocal and there was a split.

Conveyance meaning understanding? Or the physical conveyance of the elements? (This is ambiguous.)

Both/And

It being the Eucharist and confession? Or just confession? Or just the Eucharist? (This is ambiguous, because we were talking about both.)

Both/And

Why this bluster? You've so far merely asserted your position. (OK but I didn't see any argument other than a low key appeal to yourself as an authority on Catholicism and the Real Presence.)

Heh, like water off a ducks back, eh?

You say that because you don't believe in the Real Presence. iow this just means, "I don't believe in the Real Presence", which I already know. (The Eucharist can't be a showy stand-between if the Real Presence is true.)

No I do not! You cannot have a holy encounter with God delivered by a devil. "By their fruit you will know them" is your wake up call! I would never stay in a church where the pastor abused women or children. I'd double-down if the whole denomination tried to cover it up with the body's tithes. It is wholly inappropriate to use those funds meant for caring for those little ones, to go toward the ones who did it. A little leaven spoils the WHOLE dough. You've listened to spins instead of your Christ. It means you love one and not the other, Matthew 6:24. It was literally this verse that forced the issue with me.

I don't understand this. When did Judaism believe in the Real Presence? They believed in the bread of the Presence in the tabernacle and later temple, but that was just symbolic of God's Real Presence, which was only Really Present in the Holy of Holies once per year.

They did not, but they did misunderstand a lot of instructions, so much so that they began to offer their children into the hands of Molech. When your priests are bad, it is time to return to the Lord and leave the wake behind you. There are still homosexual priests in the RC (and molesters btw).

Christ is Really Present in all the sacraments, including the Eucharist, where He is the bread of Melchizedek, the manna (bread) from Heaven, the Passover Lamb Who takes away the sins of the World (1st John says "the whole World"), and the bread of the Presence.

Of course He is, just as He indwells any who call on His name and "where two or more are gathered." The RC is special pleading, with very very bad fruit, and you've bought in. I don't see how you could as a protestant first, the fruit was already there for all to see.

It's the fulfillment of Judaism.



Again, straw-manning me. I never said lording it over anybody was OK, and why would we pray to your pastor? We would only ask a Saint in Heaven for his or her intercession, like we would ask our pastor on Earth to intercede for us in prayer.

Yes you did! You did in this very post! You said the Pope over-rid what you had to say! I didn't say pray to your pastor. You pray to Mary, Peter, James, John. None of these you know personally. It is like writing in to the TV evangelist and asking him to pray for you. You don't know him either. That is incredibly less than real presence.

Catholicism is not Judaized, you just don't believe in the Real Presence, and the Real Presence isn't Judaized.

Yes. It is. Did you read Hebrews yet? Make sure to put "Catholic Church" in place of "Hebrews" and see how much sticks to the wall. You are that guy.

Because it's the one the Apostles used, the Septuagint.

Not hung up on this particularly. I have the books in one of my bibles.

Is this somehow different for Evangelicals?

Yes! We pass out yearly bible reading plans and encourage everyone 'to know the Lord from the least to the greatest.'

Can you provide some specific examples how this is being done?

Tithes? You'll never find the word in any N.T. letters. An inbetween you and God? You have to go to confessional (Hebrews warns against this, only one (forget high for a moment) Priest: the Lord Jesus Christ.

What does that have to do with the pope?

I don't need a Pope to tell me right from wrong, moreover, as Hebrews says, he has failings and so we must go directly to God.

We believe that, He is our One High Priest.

Forget 'high' in that sentence and you'll have it right: He is our Only. Btw, gentiles don't have priests, we have a Savior (another way Catholics fell back to Judaistic ideas).

We consume Jesus.

No. You do not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:26 For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.
1Co 11:27 So that whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Realize they didn't just come up to the front of the pulpit back then. They came to a house and fellowshipped and 'broke bread together' very differently than churches do today. Churches today have 'mystified' what was supposed to be straightforward and messed it all up and made it into a ritual ceremony.

Again, you just don't believe in the Real Presence, and so all your contentions against Roman Catholicism are just restatements of this.

Of course I don't! You should REALLY question why you do! You'll find it nowhere in scripture which means, necessarily, it is unique to the Catholic Churches. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself if you are duped by 'authority/tradition.' I do not doubt there are Christians in the Catholic Church. I doubt any of you have a deep relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ on a daily basis.

Is there, or is there not, Jews nor Gentiles, in Christ? Do we each have equal opportunity to join Christ's kingdom or not?

Not as you are applying it. They did go to separate churches, so much so Paul opposed Peter to his face. That should inform your theology.

The East disavowed the papacy as a distinct office from all the rest of the bishops. It was a novelty, especially when looking at the Council in Ephesus in 432. Couldn't have been clearer that the whole Church altogether confessed the papacy is ontologically distinct from all the other offices. Then the East innovated and said no, it's just another patriarchate. Historical revisionism.

:doh:

Certainly, Scripture never meant THAT.

Exactly. Look, communion in the early church was a potlatch. When they broke the bread it was 'in remembrance' of the last supper. I don't know of any church that does it that way any more. We've all ceremonialized it into less meaningful and mystified it all at the same time.

This is, I am supposing, your only claim so far which attempts to support your disbelief in the Real Presence, it's that we're taking Christ's words, in John chapter 6, and in the four different accounts of the Last Supper, "wooden literally". Well there are other passages such as 1st Corinthians 10 which obliquely refers to the Eucharist as a real sacrifice on a real altar as well. We take that literally too. I don't think that that's "wooden" literalism though, when Paul compares the table of the diabolic with the table of the Lord. I think that that's just what he's saying. They are parallels.

I know, to the absurd.

There's nothing Judaized about the Real Presence. John chapter 6 shows Judaized people did not accept it.

I disagree. You can't do it yourself, for instance, you have to go up to the priest. You just don't realize how much of your entire service is wrought placing the veil back between you and the Lord Jesus Christ.

We do not keep Torah in any sense, we only keep the New Covenant's law of Christ, it's fulfilled the Old Torah Law. Roman Catholicism simpliciter is not Judaized.

Interesting. I've seen the Ten Commandments, for instance on a few Catholic walls. Have you overstepped yourself in trying to defend?

Again, we

You have a mouse in your pocket?

know you don't believe the Real Presence is actual. But we do believe in the Real Presence.

There's that 'we' again. I know you 'believe it'...

And what proceeds from our belief regarding the Lord's Supper is simply rational, and is certainly not irrational.

You realize you appealed to 'mystery' in this very post, no?

Meaning you might believe something incorrect, but assuming you believe it, then you can show that it was rational, in spite of not knowing that what you thought was wrong.

I've provided plenty of room here for you to rethink even the possibility. You'll find 'real presence' nowhere in scripture, nowhere even intimated. A simple get-together to remember and celebrate the Lord Jesus Christ and His work became this complex traditionalized 'holy of holies.' Yes you aren't supposed to eat in an unworthy manner. No, it doesn't mean anything other than 'a remembrance and encouragement for one another in Him. They met in homes, not cathedrals.

That's just the Eucharist, so this doesn't make any sense. It'd make sense that if a Catholic did not believe in the Real Presence, that he would come to think about it this way however.

It is a nicety, a ceremony.

Do you mean here a literal throne, or a symbolic, or spiritual, or metaphorical throne? Can you prove it from Scripture?

Literal. Hebrews 4:16

Impossible for it to get in the way, when you believe in the Real Presence; so again, you're just restating your viewpoint, which we know.

No. You don't know. If you understood Protestantism you'd never be 'able' to be a Catholic. That you went that direction? Especially in light of bad fruit? I've problems with you.

There is no 'in-between'.

This very thread:

Idolater: Meanwhile I'm no authority on Catholicism, and I'll always point you to the Catechism of John Paul II; canonical, authoritative and authorized Catholicism. Whatever I say doesn't matter unless it's corroborated in the Catechism of John Paul II. btw the Roman Catechism from the 16th century is redacted through being subsumed by John Paul II's Catechism, meaning if there appears to be any conflict between what the two teach, the Catechism of John Paul II is the arbiter, binder, and explainer.

You have a go-between.

The Real Presence is Really Jesus in the Eucharist, and we EAT Him. There can't BE an 'in-between'. (Ontological.)

The sad thing is that you believe this. You can't do it in your home like I can 0.o

Baptism is exorcistic, but praying the Rosary isn't, it's a devotion, and God loves a cheerful giver.

All ritual, but giving cheerfully to an abuse cover-up? If the fruit is bad, the whole tree is bad.

We need it.

We do.

 

[glorydaz]

@Lon I salute you, brother. As I read through these posts about the “real presence”, I began to fume. But, you spoke for me with this.

“Of course it was enough. Here it is: Matthew 7:15-20 You cannot have 'real presence' nor have life in a bad tree. It's apples are all wormy and their is no possible way a child molester homosexual can minister real presence to you because it is bad fruit that invades the whole church. You'll next say 'not my Father' yet he remained and you remained when it all came out and how very very many swept it all under the rug and used church tithes to do so. You cannot have real presence with that. If I was still Catholic today, I'd have been gone immediately and would never dream of telling another of real presence when my priests were the devils delivering it. During Nazi Germany's reign, many in the Catholic Church supported. The ones that didn't were vocal and there was a split.​

​

To think of the men who have touched the “real presence” with their bare hands….those same hands that find their way into the altar boys pants…. ​

 

[Idolater]

Here is another single verse that refutes the RCC completely!

1Tim 2:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:5) For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; ​

A priest is literally a mediator between God and men.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A priest is literally a mediator between God and men.

The priests of the RCC are not Jesus Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

A priest is literally a mediator between God and men.

Wow... that went right over your head.

That was the POINT of the verse.... There is only ONE mediator and it is Jesus Christ Himself!

 

[Idolater]

The priests of the RCC are not Jesus Christ.

No, they're not, but the sacraments are all mystically celebrated by Jesus Christ, including baptism, even when it is celebrated by an atheist faggot, as long as it is celebrated according to the rubric. Which is to say the Trinitarian formula, and with water. The principle here is called "ex opere operato". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

 

[Idolater]

Wow... that went right over your head.

That was the POINT of the verse.... There is only ONE mediator and it is Jesus Christ Himself!

So you admit the verse, written by Paul, says Christ is High Priest? And that that is how He is the One mediator? Because He is our One High Priest?

Wow.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, they're not, but the sacraments are all mystically celebrated by Jesus Christ, including baptism, even when it is celebrated by an atheist faggot, as long as it is celebrated according to the rubric. Which is to say the Trinitarian formula, and with water. The principle here is called "ex opere operato". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to try to justify having priests when in fact there is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, and the mediator is not men.

 

[Right Divider]

So you admit the verse, written by Paul, says Christ is High Priest?

It does NOT say that.

And that that is how He is the One mediator? Because He is our One High Priest?

Wow.

You a scripture twisting religionist.

Mediator is NOT synonymous with priest.

 

[Right Divider]

No, they're not, but the sacraments are all mystically celebrated by Jesus Christ, including baptism, even when it is celebrated by an atheist faggot, as long as it is celebrated according to the rubric. Which is to say the Trinitarian formula, and with water. The principle here is called "ex opere operato". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

Blasphemy will get you nowhere.

 

[Idolater]

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to try to justify having priests when in fact there is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, and the mediator is not men.

It's why He said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It's why those baptized in Acts in the name of the Lord Jesus needed to be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit as well.

 

[Idolater]

It does NOT say that.

You a scripture twisting religionist.

Mediator is NOT synonymous with priest.

Yes it is. That's what a priest is, a mediator between God and men. Literally.

 

[Idolater]

Blasphemy will get you nowhere.

How is it blasphemy to believe that it is our One High Priest Jesus Christ Who actually, ontologically and mystically does the baptizing when someone gets baptized? How is that blasphemy? Are you saying baptism is diabolic or something?

How could any liturgy, priestly work, be validly done, unless the Priest doing it is valid? We believe in One High Priest and priesthood, He is the Priest, and He is God.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it is. That's what a priest is, a mediator between God and men. Literally.

Again, the two words are NOT SYNONYMOUS.

Your logic is fallacious once again.

Just because a priest is a mediator does NOT mean that all mediators are priests.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's why He said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No, it's not.

Water itself will not purify you.

It's why those baptized in Acts in the name of the Lord Jesus needed to be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit as well.

No.

Quit changing the topic.

Jesus is the only mediator in the Body of Christ. Not men. Priests are not part of the Body of Christ.

 

[Lon]

So you admit the verse, written by Paul, says Christ is High Priest? And that that is how He is the One mediator? Because He is our One High Priest?

Wow.

Try "Only" Priest.

 

[Right Divider]

Try "Only" Priest.

The priesthood belongs to Israel.
The body of Christ has no priesthood.

 

[Idolater]

Try "Only" Priest.

I know the rule and I'm breaking it, Thou shalt not quote the Old Testament or the New Testament except for Paul (if you do, do not pass Go and do not collect 200 dollars; go directly to jail), but since I'm only addressing your precise point here and not MAD in general:

Isaiah 61:6 - But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

1st Peter 2:5 - Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1st Peter 2:9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Revelation 1:6 - And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10 - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 20:6 - Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And yet I nor Catholicism disagrees with you: there is ONE High Priest.