The Joys of Catholicism

[Idolater]

The one thing he has right is his screen name that he thought was clever.

Idolatry

Idolatry is coveting, lust, and gluttony. And offering sacrifices to statues. On an altar. In a temple. With priests. Idolatry is all about a false God. Philippians 3 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even...

theologyonline.com

 

[Derf]

Just listened to this--Dr Flowers is a favorite of mine, but this is the first time I've heard him address this issue. Well done, imo.

 

[Nick M]

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866108664202903602

 

[Idolater]

Just listened to this--Dr Flowers is a favorite of mine, but this is the first time I've heard him address this issue. Well done, imo.

Such as when he wrongly said transubstantiation is Medieval philosophy, this isn't even an ignorance of Roman or Papal Catholicism problem, it's a general ignorance problem, since it's the Medieval attempt to use Aristotelian philosophy to more precisely describe the consecration of the bread and wine, the Real Presence not being something invented and innovated in the Middle Ages, but something the FIRST Church believed and taught, and it's an unbroken chain of belief and teaching ever since then.

So he's straw manning the Real Presence. obv he's very open about being ignorant of this topic in the video. So perhaps it's just imprudent for him to have even published the video. He even admits this, numerous times in the video. I agree with him. He shouldn't have published it, but, he does obv have any opportunity to issue a correction.

Part of the problem is the video he's attempting to rebut or respond to, somehow claimed that the reason Roman or Papal Catholics believe the Real Presence, is because of the 16th century Council of Trent. That couldn't be more wrong either, we believe it is Apostolic, the only licit authority the Pope has is to declare infallibly what is Apostolic and deeply true, so thinking the Council establishes a matter, is like thinking the cart's before the horse. The first job is to establish what is Apostolic, and that obv precedes the establishing of something as Apostolic. First it's Apostolic, then and only then can it be established as Apostolic.

Until Trent there was never any dispute about the Real Presence, that's why we don't hear about it being dogmatically defined as Apostolic until the 16th century, before then it was never necessary since it was ALWAYS believed and taught EVERYWHERE by EVERYBODY.

 

[Idolater]

View attachment 13322

It's nice when you see people free to cheerfully offer themselves as living sacrifices, which is what Roman and Papal Catholics mean by devotions.

It's acts of penance, prayer, Lectio Divina, corporal acts of mercy, helping with your local parish, feeding the hungry, devotion to various Saints. There are tons of devotions. Ways of offering yourself to God. For the salvation and deliverance of souls. Unite your suffering with Christ's for the salvation and deliverance of souls. The New Testament tells us, be chipper when suffering. Cheer up, and offer it to God, for the salvation and deliverance of souls.

Nobody has to do the same devotion as Roman and Papal Catholics, the Church does recommend and approve certain devotions, like praying the Rosary and the numerous traditional rituals and postures during Mass, and there is some disagreement about how we should view devotions as compared with satisfying light moral obligations. But basically you're not gravely obligated to do any devotions, if you don't want to. And I would argue that if you can't do your devotion cheerfully, then you shouldn't do it, because that's not what it means to offer yourself as a living sacrifice, and being a cheerful giver. God loves a cheerful giver.

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866108664202903602

The woke political (and incoherent) ideology and social contagion both infected and captured many organizations. But not the Roman Catholic or Papal Catholic Church.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The woke political (and incoherent) ideology and social contagion both infected and captured many organizations. But not the Roman Catholic or Papal Catholic Church.

From https://uscatholic.org/faq/who-we-are/:

U.S. Catholic is published by the Claretian Missionaries. . . . The Claretian Missionaries are a Roman Catholic congregation of priests and brothers.

You were saying?

 

[Idolater]

From https://uscatholic.org/faq/who-we-are/:

U.S. Catholic is published by the Claretian Missionaries. . . . The Claretian Missionaries are a Roman Catholic congregation of priests and brothers.

You were saying?

And there are individuals in many organizations who are infected with the woke political ideology but it doesn't make the organization captured, not like the medical establishment is captured, and like the CIA is captured, and NASA. And the Methodists, for example. The Roman Catholic or Papal Catholic Church is not captured. Check the Catechism and see.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And there are individuals in many organizations who are infected with the woke political ideology but it doesn't make the organization captured, not like the medical establishment is captured, and like the CIA is captured, and NASA. And the Methodists, for example. The Roman Catholic or Papal Catholic Church is not captured. Check the Catechism and see.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

 

[Nick M]

It's acts of penance, prayer, Lectio Divina, corporal acts of mercy, helping with your local parish, feeding the hungry, devotion to various Saints. There are tons of devotions. Ways of offering yourself to God. For the salvation and deliverance of souls.

No man goes to the Father but through me.

 

[Derf]

Such as when he wrongly said transubstantiation is Medieval philosophy, this isn't even an ignorance of Roman or Papal Catholicism problem, it's a general ignorance problem, since it's the Medieval attempt to use Aristotelian philosophy to more precisely describe the consecration of the bread and wine, the Real Presence not being something invented and innovated in the Middle Ages, but something the FIRST Church believed and taught, and it's an unbroken chain of belief and teaching ever since then.

So he's straw manning the Real Presence. obv he's very open about being ignorant of this topic in the video. So perhaps it's just imprudent for him to have even published the video. He even admits this, numerous times in the video. I agree with him. He shouldn't have published it, but, he does obv have any opportunity to issue a correction.

Part of the problem is the video he's attempting to rebut or respond to, somehow claimed that the reason Roman or Papal Catholics believe the Real Presence, is because of the 16th century Council of Trent. That couldn't be more wrong either, we believe it is Apostolic, the only licit authority the Pope has is to declare infallibly what is Apostolic and deeply true, so thinking the Council establishes a matter, is like thinking the cart's before the horse. The first job is to establish what is Apostolic, and that obv precedes the establishing of something as Apostolic. First it's Apostolic, then and only then can it be established as Apostolic.

Until Trent there was never any dispute about the Real Presence, that's why we don't hear about it being dogmatically defined as Apostolic until the 16th century, before then it was never necessary since it was ALWAYS believed and taught EVERYWHERE by EVERYBODY.

Did you listen to the rest of it? That wasn't his primary point.

 

[Idolater]

Did you listen to the rest of it?

I did.

That wasn't his primary point.

What do you think his primary point is? I already set out what I took him to mean, which is the same reasoning that could also deem Christ's divinity and Resurrection spiritual, symbolic, or metaphoric.

 

[Derf]

I did.



What do you think his primary point is? I already set out what I took him to mean, which is the same reasoning that could also deem Christ's divinity and Resurrection spiritual, symbolic, or metaphoric.

Except the test of true faith is if you believe Christ came in the flesh (and therefore died in the flesh and rose in the flesh).

 

[Idolater]

Except the test of true faith is if you believe Christ came in the flesh (and therefore died in the flesh and rose in the flesh).

I believe that, but in order to prove it, you're going to quote 1st John

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

ofc we just take the Gospel accounts literally, but here we have John commentating also, to underscore, that it's not metaphor that He came in the flesh irl.

How's that different from John chapter 6 commentating on the Lord's Supper? And John 6 is Christ Himself commentating. You just don't have a leg to stand on if you take Leighton Flowers' approach here, you wind up proving more than you want to, and it's all wrong.

 

[Idolater]

It's acts of penance, prayer, Lectio Divina, corporal acts of mercy, helping with your local parish, feeding the hungry, devotion to various Saints. There are tons of devotions. Ways of offering yourself to God. For the salvation and deliverance of souls.

No man goes to the Father but through me.

There is no conflict. Not under my lexical stance (Roman Catholicism simpliciter, Papal Catholicism simpliciter), and while my lexical stance may be different than yours, it is a valid stance. I have a right to it.

I no longer think Evangelicals have a right to their lexical stance. They must submit to the pope in order to enter in to the fullness of your own faith.

Outside of the Church, there is salvation, but the fullness of your faith is only inside the Church.

 

[Idolater]

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

There's woke capture everywhere then, woke has captured the whole World then.

As in there are no exceptions. Even a little bit of woke which exists in every wife or husband, every politician, every boss, means their organization (organizations simpliciter are organizations of offices) is captured. The organization between a husband (an office) and his wife (another office) is a marriage, and every marriage is captured too.

With the sole exception of anyone with pure political ideology. Because woke is a taint. It's like dog poop in the punch bowl.¹ Whether you can taste it or not.¹

If a husband has pure political ideology, but his wife is infected to some degree with woke, then the marriage is captured, according to your logic. Do you agree?

I don't agree. I think that offices and thus organizations of offices are all about discharging duties. Duties are what makes an office, duties along with the power which is supposed to help the officer discharge the duties of the office. You don't want to have an office with too much power and too little responsibility, and you don't want too much responsibility and not enough power either, they are both bad offices.

But you have to have offices to have an organization, and you have to have an organization to have organizational capture by a political ideology. And so to me, the only proof you can show of organizational capture is going to be in the dereliction of duty. Certainly there are organizations which demonstrate they are captured. But as far as what the Roman Catholic Church or Papal Catholicism teaches, which is the duty of the Church's teachers (officers), there is no dereliction of duty. As I said behold the Catechism of John Paul II.


¹ Trailer Park Boys

 

[Derf]

I believe that, but in order to prove it, you're going to quote 1st John

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

ofc we just take the Gospel accounts literally, but here we have John commentating also, to underscore, that it's not metaphor that He came in the flesh irl.

How's that different from John chapter 6 commentating on the Lord's Supper? And John 6 is Christ Himself commentating. You just don't have a leg to stand on if you take Leighton Flowers' approach here, you wind up proving more than you want to, and it's all wrong.

So you're saying that if some metaphor is used, then all is metaphor? I don't think that's a plausible way to view any literature, except possibly some poetry.

 

[7djengo7]

The Christian faith hinges on one proposition, and it is, to put it as Keith Green does in his rendition of the "Easter Song", "Jesus Christ is no longer dead (Glory to God, He is risen, Hallelujah, etc.)." Jesus Christ is no longer dead, if someone is to break Christianity, they need to break this proposition, and anti-Christians forever have tried to do it.

Which is an admission that Christianity does not hinge on Rome's asinine, un-Biblical, false proposition, that each one of millions of wafers of bread around the world stops being the wafer of bread that it is, and starts being Jesus Christ instead of being the wafer of bread that it is. Keith Green wrote against that Romish falsehood:

The Catholic Chronicles Series : Kety Green : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive The late VChrit stian Singer, Keith Green wrote a series of 4 articles about the Roman Catholic Church. Ed has edited these and placed the together in one... archive.org

 

[Idolater]

So you're saying that if some metaphor is used, then all is metaphor? I don't think that's a plausible way to view any literature, except possibly some poetry.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? ...

These people struggled with a metaphor. Then after Jesus answered them:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ...

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Peter and the rest of them didn't understand the bread of life discourse anymore than the people who walked away that day. They didn't stick around because it made sense to them. They stuck around because they believed in Him.

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

I mean, it's almost like, because Peter here says something so similar to his confession in Matthew 16:16, that maybe it's happening around that same time? but I don't think that's true. This John 6 account is I think the first or second Passover of Christ's Earthly ministry? and I don't think Matthew 16:16 took place during a Passover. But the confession there in John 6:69 above by Peter is really similar to his confession in Matthew 16:16, which is interesting.