The Joys of Catholicism

[Idolater]

It's absolutely totally fine to question the following scenario.

1500 years go by, and all history indicates that from the time of the Apostles, the Church which Jesus founded was a bunch of Quaker meetings and Evangelical Bible studies.

Then all of a sudden a movement appears and the leaders of the movement are saying that THEY are the Church Jesus founded. Not only that, but they say that Jesus's true Church has pastors, and the pastors are of the following varieties: there's super pastors, who pastor a whole area, region, city, etc., there's a super pastor who's pastor over even all the other super pastors, and there's also just regular pastors, who can exercise six of the seven special pastor powers that all the super pastors can exercise, but the seventh power is to make new super pastors, and no regular pastors can make a super pastor—you need to be a super pastor to make a new super pastor.

So anyway that movement pops up in the 1500s, from out of nowhere. Says they're the real Church.

You would totally doubt that. That claim has very low initial plausibility. That's like saying the Mormons are the true Church—it's that kind of low initial plausibility.

I note nobody answered this. It wasn't addressed to anybody in particular so I'll drop a few names here to see what you think, @JudgeRightly @Right Divider @Nick M @Lon @7djengo7 and anybody else ofc.

 

[Nick M]

There are so many logical fallacies in that post, I don't want to waste my time. But I will for a moment. The standard is scripture. Not what people outside of scripture claim. Caesar Augustus believe in Jupiter. That was before the 12 were called, including Peter. Therefore with your logic the older church and religion is correct. Your argument is pretty sad actually.

 

[7djengo7]

I note nobody answered this.

Which (if any) thing(s) that you wrote in it do you believe are true?

 

[Idolater]

There are so many logical fallacies in that post, I don't want to waste my time. But I will for a moment. The standard is scripture. Not what people outside of scripture claim. Caesar Augustus believe in Jupiter. That was before the 12 were called, including Peter. Therefore with your logic the older church and religion is correct. Your argument is pretty sad actually.

You and the Dispensationalists certainly have an advantage here, because you all already believe that the "Church" (in quotes just for your sake, for the sake of argument) that emerges and emerged from the first century WAS ALREADY corrupt and not the Church (no quotes) in the Bible. You see as we all do how but ONE movement emerges and emerged from the first century, and you all teach that there were TWO movements in the first century, one of them ended when the LAST first century Kingdom Gospel believer went softly into the night, and the OTHER was a corruption of Paul's Church (the "Body of Christ", in quotes because it's in the Bible that way).

So actually Paul's Body of Christ and Church didn't survive the first century, is what you all say, and the ONE "Christian" movement emerging from the first century is already a DISTORTION and NOT the Church in the Bible.

@Lon and @Derf for example here don't have that same advantage. They, as do most Evangelicals, believe the Church movement which we see emerge from the first century is the Church in the Bible simpliciter. So for them, my analogy is more apt, than for you.

 

[Idolater]

Which (if any) thing(s) that you wrote in it do you believe are true?

I believe that Evangelicalism emerged in the 1500s, from out of nowhere, from out of left field. It would be surprising if Evangelicalism were the Church in the Bible, as surprising, as I note, as Mormonism being the Church in the Bible. Mormons incidentally like Dispensationalists and Evangelicals teach that the Church in the Bible did not survive to today, and instead we have to jump tracks to another branch of Christian tradition from the putative ancient branch and branches, if we want to be in the Church in the Bible today. The Mormons say that's them, the Dispensationalists say it's them, and the Evangelicals say it's them. None of these branches admit Roman Catholicism or Holy Orthodoxy or ANY ancient tradition is THE Church in the Bible—the Church simpliciter.

 

[Idolater]

Many Catholics have an emotional response much like "Pentecostals".

Yes. I know I do. I started to tear up and almost starting weeping at Eucharistic Adoration one time, completely unprompted. I mean I knew I was in the Real Presence of the Lord, ofc, but I don't tear up every Mass, but I did at Adoration once. It was pretty intense. Kind of brutal. I know you all just want to feel better, but sometimes life is hard, J-Roc.

 

[Right Divider]

@Idolater It's hard to know where to start to address the completely retarded and idiotic "story" that you and your RCC promote.

You pretty much ignore the Bible (quoting it occasionally out of context and forcing your meaning onto it).

There is MORE than ONE of the following in the Bible:

• Church
• Gospel

There was a body of believers called the remnant of Israel.
There was and is a body of believers called the body of Christ, which began with Paul. Paul is OUR pattern, per the Bible.

Your devious and abominable RCC has tried to steal Israel's place from the beginning. We in the body of Christ will have none of that nonsense. We know what the Bible teaches because we can read. God gave us His Word so that we would not need any corrupt organization to "interpret" it for us.

 

[Idolater]

Great point! His body had not yet been broken, but the bread had already been broken, or was being broken when He said

So the bread was not His body. To admit His body had not been broken yet is to admit the broken bread was not His body.

That makes perfect sense, IFF He didn't say

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body,

But He did.

Do what in remembrance of Him? Break bread? Do Rome's "priests" even break bread in their "Eucharist"? From what I've seen, they use their fingers to ever-so-delicately extract a wafer out of their "ciborium" and gently convey it onto the tongue of the "communicant", and it doesn't look like any breaking is involved in that. I mean, it looks rather like they're doing all they can to avoid breaking the "host".

Because of crumbs. Crumbs which retain upon inspection the form of bread, are to be treated with the same care and concern as Eucharist that is whole and unbroken. So the hosts are specially designed to minimize crumbling, for this reason.

Also idk if you're familiar with symbolism, but when the ministerial priest presiding over the Supper of the Lamb breaks his own host, that represents the breaking of all the bread. So your sharp eye caught something, but this is what it caught—symbolism in the Eucharistic liturgy. It's also symbolic of much more bread and much more wine even though we're only dealing with a wafer of bread and a touch of wine.

It really doesn't look like Rome's "priests" do much of anything in their "Mass" resembling what Jesus did, or what He said to do in remembrance of Him, at the Last Supper.

You say EEther, I say EYEther. You say NEEther I say NIGHther. At any rate, the words of consecration are straight out of the Scripture.

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
$$ 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.

 

[Idolater]

@Idolater It's hard to know where to start to address the completely retarded and idiotic "story" that you and your RCC promote.

You pretty much ignore the Bible (quoting it occasionally out of context and forcing your meaning onto it).

There is MORE than ONE of the following in the Bible:

• Church
• Gospel

There was a body of believers called the remnant of Israel.
There was and is a body of believers called the body of Christ, which began with Paul. Paul is OUR pattern, per the Bible.

Your devious and abominable RCC has tried to steal Israel's place from the beginning. We in the body of Christ will have none of that nonsense. We know what the Bible teaches because we can read. God gave us His Word so that we would not need any corrupt organization to "interpret" it for us.

I grant you all this. You all Dispensationalists have a putative advantage over the Evangelicals wrt my analogy, since you already admit that the movement that emerges from the first century is NOT the Church in the Bible. You're good. I mean I captured that, didn't I?

 

[Right Divider]

I grant you all this.

Thank you so much for admitting the corruption of the RCC!

You all Dispensationalists have a putative advantage over the Evangelicals wrt my analogy, since you already admit that the movement that emerges from the first century is NOT the Church in the Bible.

That seems like complete nonsense.

You're good. I mean I captured that, didn't I?

The church for today began with Paul. Paul is OUR PATTERN.

1Tim 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:16) Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.​

​

We are admonished to follow Paul.

1Cor 4:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.​

​

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

​

​

 

[7djengo7]

That makes perfect sense, IFF He didn't say

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body,

But He did.

It makes perfect sense, and would make perfect sense either way, so you can keep your superfluous F. It's your grade.

Again, what He said: "...this is my body..."

• What He did not say: "...bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this broken bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this is bread..."

Your admission that...

His body had not yet been "broken" for us

...at The Last Supper, is you conceding that the breaking of the bread was not/could not be the breaking of His body, and thus, that the bread was not/could not be His body.

 

[7djengo7]

Also idk if you're familiar with symbolism, but when the ministerial priest presiding over the Supper of the Lamb breaks his own host, that represents the breaking of all the bread.

So, according to you, this "priest's" breaking of something you claim is Jesus's body rather than the bread that it is symbolically represents breaking of bread.

Your "priest's" breaking of "his own host" is him symbolically "breaking" the "host" he hands you? What? So now, you've just told us that the bread that you, personally, eat in your "Eucharist" is not even broken bread -- that it is merely symbolically represented as "broken" by the breaking of some other piece of bread you, personally, don't even get to eat. In other words, that the bread your "priest" eats is broken bread, but the bread he hands you to eat is only "broken" bread, rather than broken bread. By your own testimony, here, you're not even eating broken bread in your "Eucharist". In your "Eucharist", you are eating "broken" unbroken bread, and somehow you imagine that Christ told people to do the same "in remembrance of Him".

 

[Nick M]

I started to tear up and almost starting weeping at Eucharistic Adoration

It is idolatry. If you have called upon the name of the Lord, if you believe God raised him from the dead and confess his name, then the Father does not see it.

 

[Nick M]

You see as we all do how but ONE movement emerges and emerged from the first century,

One church was cut off, and another started. It is in scripture. It is the words of God, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to get the details right. Your claims outside of scripture that contradict scripture are discarded. No matter how old or new they are.

 

[Idolater]

It makes perfect sense, and would make perfect sense either way, so you can keep your superfluous F. It's your grade.

In the literature it means if and only if. It's not superfluous.

Again, what He said: "...this is my body..."

• What He did not say: "...bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this broken bread is my body..."
• What He did not say: "...this is bread..."

Nah. What He said was

$$ 1Co 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I 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.

What He said was

$$ 1Co 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake BREAD, and said, Take, eat: this BREAD is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
$$ 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.

Your admission that...


...at The Last Supper, is you conceding that the breaking of the bread was not/could not be the breaking of His body, and thus, that the bread was not/could not be His body.

You wish. Instead you just demonstrate your limited theology of the cross. At or from the foundation of the World, which is recorded for us, the foundation of the World, in Genesis, IS the New Covenant. The cross is at the center of the New Covenant, the cross is the sacrificial system of the New Covenant, the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, and all prior sacrificial systems going back to Cain and Abel, all foreshadow the sacrificial system of the New Covenant, which is embodied in the cross.

From the foundation of the World. Or at. But at any rate the Scripture says the New Covenant in some sense ontologically existed, metaphysically, in Genesis chapter one and two. It was already there, it just hadn't obtained yet in the physical, material, visible World yet, but it existed, invisibly.

And so while this eternal New Covenant hadn't yet collided with our temporal region of reality, the material Universe, that the diabolic hate with unending passion, at the Last Supper, it still existed from the foundation of the World already, and its collision with physical reality was going to occur literally later that same waking period, as the Last Supper.

We don't know very much about how eternal things and temporal reality interact. One thing that generally seems unsurprising is that any eternal thing that interacts with the Universe ought to appear to be unending and ceaseless. But eternality, being unlimited by time (in contrast to temporality), allows for two things. One is prophecy, in advance of a collision and combining together of eternality and temporality, and the other is a reviewing of that prophecy, in order to prove that this eternal thing indeed did already exist, even before it became visible, and emerged, and obtained in the physical World. That prophecy is proof not just of an accurate prediction, but of a truth which existed even before the prophecy obtained.

Prophecy is not just a prediction, it is, in the case of the New Covenant, proof that the New Covenant already existed, before it collided with the World. When it did collide, was the cross. Now it has combined together with the World, ever since the cross. It can't be uncombined. The cake's baked, you can't extract any of its ingredients anymore, it's even harder than putting toothpaste back into the tube, or passing a camel through the eye of a needle.

All's to say, is that the Last Supper was indeed a genuine Eucharist. The host did change into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord that night, because the Eucharist pierces the veil between eternality and temporality, and so it did that at the Last Supper too, and therefore also in Genesis with Melchizedek. Our Lord is a Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek celebrated the Eucharist, he broke bread, he ministered with bread and wine.

The Eucharist is said to re-present Our Lord's sacrifice on the cross. But at the Last Supper, it pre-presented it. It "recalled" something that hadn't happened yet visibly, although eternally the New Covenant somehow, ontologically existed going back to the foundation of the visible World.

Your theology of the cross is limited.

 

[Idolater]

So, according to you, this "priest's" breaking of something you claim is Jesus's body rather than the bread that it is symbolically represents breaking of bread.

Your "priest's" breaking of "his own host" is him symbolically "breaking" the "host" he hands you? What? So now, you've just told us that the bread that you, personally, eat in your "Eucharist" is not even broken bread -- that it is merely symbolically represented as "broken" by the breaking of some other piece of bread you, personally, don't even get to eat. In other words, that the bread your "priest" eats is broken bread, but the bread he hands you to eat is only "broken" bread, rather than broken bread. By your own testimony, here, you're not even eating broken bread in your "Eucharist". In your "Eucharist", you are eating "broken" unbroken bread, and somehow you imagine that Christ told people to do the same "in remembrance of Him".

He didn't say to break bread. He broke bread, and then said, this bread is My body. The words of consecration don't mention the breaking, in context they commence after the breaking has already occurred. It doesn't matter if you break the bread or not, or if you break the bread after the consecration of the elements, which is when the ministerial priest breaks his own Eucharist. The Eucharist is called "breaking bread" in the Bible as a shorthand. The re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross commences with the words of consecration, quoting Our Lord's, "This (bread) is My body", through the offering to Our Father ("Through Him and with Him and in Him, O God almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is Yours, forever and ever"), to the consumption of the Victim by the presider.

 

[Idolater]

Thank you so much for admitting the corruption of the RCC!

That seems like complete nonsense.

The church for today began with Paul. Paul is OUR PATTERN.

1Tim 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:16) Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.​

​

We are admonished to follow Paul.

1Cor 4:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.​

​

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

​

​

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.

 

[Idolater]

It is idolatry. If you have called upon the name of the Lord, if you believe God raised him from the dead and confess his name, then the Father does not see it.

It's either idolatry or it's not—that's for sure. He certainly sees sin, but He doesn't see our guilt. Not if we're not guilty. And if we're not guilty, it's because of the cross, and the cross applies to the Father's view of us from His throne. When we believe. There certainly is an argument for universalism on this view, but the Church has never advocated universalism. The extent to which the Lord intercedes for us with the Father, on behalf of those who don't believe in Him, and maybe who won't believe in Him ever, is an open question. Does the cross apply completely the those who don't believe in Him? Does the Father see guilt in the sins of those who don't believe in Him? He does not see guilt in the Church's sins, He only sees the sacrifice of the cross, a pleasing aroma to Him, an eternally pleasing aroma. But what about those who don't believe in Him? He sees the sin, does He see the guilt, or is He so blinded by the cross that He doesn't even see the guilt in those who don't believe in Him?

It's a good question. I'm unclear on it myself. What if He looks forward and sees that a person who is not a believer rn, is going to believe in the future? Does the Father only see this person who eventually will come to believe, through the lens of the cross, even before the person believes? The cross forgives temporal penalties of sin. That forgiveness definitely applies to those who don't believe, just because no man is an island. The connection to society, and the application of the cross's forgiving power in the physical World, means you're going to get spillover. Everybody is being blessed by the cross today, due to spillover.

Vincent of Lerins in France lived in the 400s. He listed like 12 ancient heretics and their heresies and heretical movements. We know independently of Vincent, of these 12 or so ancient heresies. But Vincent knew about them all too. He corroborates what we know independent of him. And he lived in the 400s.

 

[Idolater]

One church was cut off, and another started. It is in scripture. It is the words of God, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to get the details right. Your claims outside of scripture that contradict scripture are discarded. No matter how old or new they are.

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.

 

[Idolater]

You finally got it right.

Even a blind squirrel and broken clock.

You are to boast in the cross. And we proclaim [His] death until he returns.

It's why we always have a crucifix with the corpus. It's "shew" not proclaim, in the KJB.

That doesn't mean he wasn't resurrected. And there is no way to the Father but through the death of the Son. Someone had to pay the fine, and he did.

The Real Presence is the real presence of Christ on the cross, it's the real presence of the cross, which is another reason we always have a crucifix. The True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ on the cross. We partake of the divine nature. We offer Him to the Father forever and ever and ever. Even as He sits at the right hand of the Father. We don't understand it. It's a mystery, hidden from us. We just believe and obey.