The Joys of Catholicism

[Idolater]

Now that I think of it, it seems kind of interesting, the title of this thread. That it was opted to call it "The Joys of Catholicism" rather than to call it "The Joys of Christianity".

Because there's no Real Presence in "Christianity". Christianity is a book religion, not a living relationship with God, like canonical Roman Catholicism simpliciter is.

You don't have the Real Presence, with the exception of baptism and perhaps marriage, because marriage is actually celebrated by common priests (the newlyweds celebrate marriage themselves, it's only like, convalidated by a ministerial priest in Catholicism—but don't quote me on this one—I am much more sure that baptism is the Real Presence of Christ, when it is celebrated validly—Ex Opere Operato), you don't have the Real Presence. So there's no Eucharist because there's no Holy Orders, because none of your people were ever validly ordained, so none of you can convect the Eucharist, so no Eucharist.

obv none of you believe in sacramental absolution of sin, and exorcism, so no Real Presence there either, but again, no Orders, so it wouldn't obtain anyway.

You just don't have Christ's priesthood, which is in the order of Melchizedek, who ministered with bread and wine.

 

[Idolater]

Excellent. Yes, there is always something between man and God in the Catholic Church. I hadn’t thought of it that way, and all those things are fake. I can remember when I had to put a Kleenex on my head because I hadn’t brought my little head covering. I made up sins to tell the priest in the confessional, and he’d give me a certain number of Hail Marys, and our fathers. Yes, and the stations of the cross, and getting slapped in the face for confirmation. Made me swear off God for a long time.

I mean you're just straw manning. And begging the question. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, and you just declare it's wrong, and then, voila, we have "something between man and God in the Catholic Church", which is ... it's just childish Glory, to say this—it's childish. We don't believe there's anything between man and God, because how can you? when you believe in the Eucharist? And you just up and saying, Well you're wrong—and so therefore you DO have something between man and God—you're just begging the question—and it's a straw man.

None of you have ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is fake—not even close. So go right ahead and do it, if you've got an ace up your sleeve.

But you don't have an ace up your sleeve. I've worn the same sleeve—it's not up there.

Now look what this Pope is saying….all religions are the same and other abominations coming from his mouth on a daily basis. Not good, but not surprising. The church has a very sad history and they grab ahold of people and don’t let go. Satan is alive and well in the Catholic Church. People need to get out asap.

The Pope also says "Faggot", a "homophobic slur". He doesn't misappropriate it though, it's not as if he called someone a retarded faggot, but the emphasis was on being retarded, and he just threw in faggot for emphasis—he was talking about faggotry when said faggot, so we do know he's not "P.C." in his heart. Maybe he's been misunderstood, misinterpreted, "cherry picked", "proof-texted"? By bad elements? Like people who call him, disparagingly, insultingly, offensively, like a dog whistle, "Bergolio". To disrespect him.

 

[Idolater]

True that most denominations do wrong things, and it’s getting worse all the time. Just as the Bible tells us it will. However, most other denominations broke away at some point in time, so I have to give them credit for that.

Here are some leaders of denominations that broke away, even as early as the 5th century:

Novatian
Sabellius
Donatus
Arius
Eunomius
Macedonius
Photinus
Apollinaris
Priscillian
Jovinian
Pelagius
Caelestius
Nestorius

The Catholic church claims to be the mother church, even though they borrowed from the idol worshippers when they started up after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. Besides, I see so many lies, it’s difficult to find any truth. I think the Bible warns us about all of it. Statues, penance, purgatory, and so many more. Things the father of lies promotes.

Literally almost anything can be proven by cherry picking and proof-texting from the Bible, don't you think?

When I see a rosary I think of this verse. Or for penance say ten Hail Marys, and five our fathers. Nope, you’re not allowed to go to other churches, because you might actually hear the truth.

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.​

So obv don't pray vainly, right? You're supposed to just pray the Our Father once your whole life? Come on—you don't believe that. Don't MAKE IT vain. That's your job to do. It's OK to pray the Our Father more than once your whole life. Don't make it vain.

 

[Idolater]

I understand wanting to vent.

I don't think you can say the RCC has no truth, nor can you say Satan isn't in many other denominations, which by your standard means they have no truth. But many (most?) denominations have their hobby horses, many of which are distractions, if not outright wrong.

In the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation 1-3, only two were not chastised for very serious offenses against Christ.

How serious do you think it would be if a "church" approved of legalized abortion on demand? How about faggotry? "Same sex marriage"? "Transgendering" children? There are lots of big ticket moral matters that the Roman Catholic Church gets a big check mark for supporting or condemning, just for the record, and as a matter of public record.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, but God has certainly given the Jews every chance, and many believe in spite of the blindness. That’s the “blindness in part” that Paul speaks of in Romans. Watching what is going on in Israel today, I was shocked to learn that most Jews today never even looked in the New Testament. They have been lied to by their rabbis that the New Testament is for Christians not Jews, and they are shocked when they read the Gospels filled with Jewish names and ideas.

They see the word Christ and know it means Messiah. A lot of gentile believers today don’t seem to know that, either.

They do read Hebrew, though, and even the New Testament is translated into Hebrew today. They read about the Messiah Yeshua and believe. You can see them on YouTube coming to the realization. Amazing to see.

Hebrew Catholics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Idolater]

In good RCC news, literally, I was sitting in their service not even just a few months back and I would have fallen out of my chair but we were sitting. For a change. I will paraphrase. He did not mince words. I have not heard this in the way he put it previously from their mouths. In quotes, but it is a paraphrased.



I was floored. And he went onto the second death where everyone is judged and most will go to the lake of fire. This was their short story sermon the "homily" where they try to explain the gospel reading that does not apply to us.

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim Your death O Lord until You come again."

 

[Idolater]

How do you differentiate the two traditions, one of which was old, the other was new. How do you decide that you follow the old (Peter and the 12) or the new, Paul?

We're not Dispensationalists, so we don't believe Peter and the 12 and Paul are not the same. All Apostolic traditions are of equal value.

 

[Right Divider]

We're not Dispensationalists, so we don't believe Peter and the 12 and Paul are not the same. All Apostolic traditions are of equal value.

 

[Derf]

How serious do you think it would be if a "church" approved of legalized abortion on demand? How about faggotry? "Same sex marriage"? "Transgendering" children?

Jesus took great issue with some of the churches that didn't deal with the Jezebel-type issues.

There are lots of big ticket moral matters that the Roman Catholic Church gets a big check mark for supporting or condemning, just for the record, and as a matter of public record.

Sure. Mormons, too.

It's good for churches to go on record against immorality and perversity.

 

[Idolater]

View attachment 13439

You're absolutely right. My mistake. I should have said something like We're not "traditional" Dispensationalists.

 

[Right Divider]

You're absolutely right. My mistake. I should have said something like We're not "traditional" Dispensationalists.

Neither are we. Most "traditional" dispensationalists are Acts 2... which is ridiculous.

 

[7djengo7]

Because there's no Real Presence in "Christianity". Christianity is a book religion, not a living relationship with God, like canonical Roman Catholicism simpliciter is.

You don't have the Real Presence, with the exception of baptism and perhaps marriage, because marriage is actually celebrated by common priests (the newlyweds celebrate marriage themselves, it's only like, convalidated by a ministerial priest in Catholicism—but don't quote me on this one—I am much more sure that baptism is the Real Presence of Christ, when it is celebrated validly—Ex Opere Operato), you don't have the Real Presence. So there's no Eucharist because there's no Holy Orders, because none of your people were ever validly ordained, so none of you can convect the Eucharist, so no Eucharist.

obv none of you believe in sacramental absolution of sin, and exorcism, so no Real Presence there either, but again, no Orders, so it wouldn't obtain anyway.

You just don't have Christ's priesthood, which is in the order of Melchizedek, who ministered with bread and wine.

You are addicted to gobbledygook.

 

[7djengo7]

View attachment 13439

He's mocking.

 

[Right Divider]

He's mocking.

Himself

 

[Idolater]

You are deluding yourself

No I'm not. I said I was begging the question deliberately as an example.

, granted because the experience is significantly meaningful to you

Same way your experience is significantly meaningful to you, without the Eucharist and belief in the Real Presence.

, but 1) Does the bread literally become human flesh before you swallow it?

Transubstantiation means changing substance, and substance means changing essence plus accidents, the essence of anything is what that thing is simpliciter, and its accidents are all the other things about it. So the bread and chalice are changed to God. The essence changes, but its accidents or attributes do not. Its predicates. iow how it looks, tastes, feels, behaves in a laboratory, etc., does not change.

Although note Eucharistic miracles suggest the flesh or body the bread changes into is cardiac or heart tissue. Meaning Our Lord's sacred heart is what we're actually eating when we receive Holy Communion.

Of course not, but you'll argue it is 'real flesh' just the same.

Our Lord argues "it is real flesh". (John 6.)

2) The wine? Does it have a metallic salty taste to you? No it does not. Does the Lord Jesus Christ come to you with His presence? Of course, if you know Him, that is part of the remembrance. 3) [Do] you need His physical being? No, you need His Spirit in you and around you.

That's a false dichotomy and completely begging the question. Besides even Christ's own words refute you, ofc you'll argue they're obv "metaphor" so I won't waste time or bother quoting Him here (John 6). But you're begging the question—if He actually does manifest Himself physically, then to contend "you don't need Him physically" is silliness on its face. That's not even the issue, and a smoke screen—red herring.

That, my friend, is actually real presence and no wafer or touch of wine

It's symbolism Lon. Implication. It MEANS a full loaf, and a full chalice. You Evangelicals understand symbolism, I don't understand why you think it's offensive to point out that Roman Catholic simpliciter Communion employs symbolism.

is going to take His place.

Begging the question again. It IS Him. The Eucharist isn't "taking His place".

Catholics always have something in the way

Begging the question! Or straw man. Either one, but you're not thinking well here.

, taking His place in our lives as round-a-bout ways of not meeting Him face to face in a very real sense of presence, before the throne of God.

We literally do that in the Eucharist. You're SO confused.

And again, begging the question, and straw manning.

If I hadn't yet, I just did.

No you didn't, you again just begged the question again and again.

I've had many mountain top experiences where His presence is palpable. You? Seems only the Eucharist?

No, not only the Eucharist.

But the Eucharist, every time? abs. Are any other experiences of His palpable presence nearly as predictable? Not even close.

 

[JudgeRightly]

 

[7djengo7]

So the bread and chalice are changed to God.

In John 6:35, Jesus stated "I am the bread of life". Was Jesus -- the bread of life -- "changed to God"?

Why does your "Eucharistic element" even need to be bread in the first place, if Rome's magicians are just going to hocus-pocus it into not being bread anymore? Why couldn't it be, say, cardboard, or styrofoam?

 

[glorydaz]

In John 6:35, Jesus stated "I am the bread of life". Was Jesus -- the bread of life -- "changed to God"?

Why does your "Eucharistic element" even need to be bread in the first place, if Rome's magicians are just going to hocus-pocus it into not being bread anymore? Why couldn't it be, say, cardboard, or styrofoam?

I don’t think they understand that eating the bread means reading the word of God, and being nourished in the spirit by that reading of the Bible.

 

[Lon]

No I'm not. I said I was begging the question deliberately as an example.



Same way your experience is significantly meaningful to you, without the Eucharist and belief in the Real Presence.



Transubstantiation means changing substance, and substance means changing essence plus accidents, the essence of anything is what that thing is simpliciter, and its accidents are all the other things about it. So the bread and chalice are changed to God. The essence changes, but its accidents or attributes do not. Its predicates. iow how it looks, tastes, feels, behaves in a laboratory, etc., does not change.

See? You are so caught up in the physical. It saddens me. You are missing it brother! I know emotional. It is no bad thing, but don't confuse emotion of a moment with what is Spiritual. "Feeling" closer isn't closer. You practice communion incredibly more spiritually (incredibly) when you reach out in love to love the unlovable. 1 John 4:10 Never, never, confuse emotion, emotional highs for the spiritual. These two are not the same. Part? Yes, but not it. Communion is 'after' the spiritual, not the spiritual. It is the celebration and reminder of all things spiritual. Transubstantiation is caught in the flesh.

Although note Eucharistic miracles suggest the flesh or body the bread changes into is cardiac or heart tissue. Meaning Our Lord's sacred heart is what we're actually eating when we receive Holy Communion.

It is a ceremony then, no matter how else you try to spin it. There is no mystery, just emotionalism. It ONLY has meaning AFTER you have communed with God in spiritual reality. AFTER. If you haven't been spiritual, it may 'spark' the latter, but that is behind the eightball and in every sense why the RC is wrong. It ALWAYS puts the cart before the horse, first spiritual, then the celebration.

Our Lord argues "it is real flesh". (John 6.)

Cannibal. You missed it. He said He was living water too. To confuse your metaphors, He was speaking of something else and you've allowed physical to permeate your whole being.

That's a false dichotomy and completely begging the question. Besides even Christ's own words refute you, ofc you'll argue they're obv "metaphor" so I won't waste time or bother quoting Him here (John 6). But you're begging the question—if He actually does manifest Himself physically, then to contend "you don't need Him physically" is silliness on its face. That's not even the issue, and a smoke screen—red herring.

Supra. You do not understand Him as real water either. He was saying HE alone is life. You've dragged Him down to your world instead of being lifted to His. Thus is the RC legacy. In every RC I've been to, He is still on the physical cross. Brother, you are missing it for platitudes, ceremony, and observances, the forest for the trees.

It's symbolism Lon. Implication. It MEANS a full loaf, and a full chalice. You Evangelicals understand symbolism, I don't understand why you think it's offensive to point out that Roman Catholic simpliciter Communion employs symbolism.

Doh! You just told me I was going for metaphors then you do it yourself! Is it transubstantiation or not?! You seem to be making excuses for your church (a physical entity).

Begging the question again. It IS Him. The Eucharist isn't "taking His place".

All explained in fleshly terms.

Begging the question! Or straw man. Either one, but you're not thinking well here.

You've not, to this point, ever shown you understand the difference I and other's are spelling out. You've never entertained I was Catholic, surrounded by Catholics. This is an old conversation for me.

We literally do that in the Eucharist. You're SO confused.

And again, begging the question, and straw manning.



No you didn't, you again just begged the question again and again.



No, not only the Eucharist.

But the Eucharist, every time? abs. Are any other experiences of His palpable presence nearly as predictable? Not even close.

All denial, unable unwilling to entertain you are wrong. Why so entrenched? What is driving it from contemplating?

 

[7djengo7]

Although note Eucharistic miracles suggest the flesh or body the bread changes into is cardiac or heart tissue. Meaning Our Lord's sacred heart is what we're actually eating when we receive Holy Communion.

Again, why the need to start out with wafers of bread? Why even start out with any sort of foodstuff at all? Why can't your "Eucharistic miracles" convert inedible stuff into food?