The Joys of Catholicism

[Derf]

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.

Ok. It is interesting. Certainly we all struggle at times with metaphors. What else is your point?

 

[Idolater]

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

The thing I like about podcasts are when the podcaster both writes and acts. Once the podcaster is doing someone else's lines, it's like network news, which is still OK, it's just a different animal. (It's ... more corporate? Not in a terrible way, it doesn't have to be terrible anyway.) It's definitively different with podcasters, you're dealing with the writer and the actor (same person), not just the actor. You can tell.

The thing is the podcaster is an artist working on a masterpiece, while the actor is working on the most popular projects, attracting the eyes of the masses, rather than only the eyes of those who share his passion for whatever niche interest the podcaster has, like mixed martial arts for example. Not everybody's into mixed martial arts, but some podcasters are, and you'll never have network news spending a ton of time on mixed martial arts, because people start changing the channel who aren't mixed martial arts enthusiasts.

But the artist and creator, of the podcast, cares about mixed martial arts. And it's part of his fine art, in creating his personal masterpiece, to discuss mixed martial arts. If you don't like mixed martial arts, you're probably not into Joe Rogan. Or if you're not into swearing.

You give up something with podcasts compared to network news. They're more insular, unless like Rogan, you can bring the World to your studio. Literally World leaders.

Anyway Elvis never wrote a single song. He was all actor, and no creator. Even though songs were written for him, he was no different than Keith Green covering the "Easter Song". That wasn't his song, but he did cover it like a champ, like how Elvis always played music like a champ too, these guys were both really talented, and both died too young.

 

[Idolater]

Ok. It is interesting. Certainly we all struggle at times with metaphors. What else is your point?

Jesus spends the bread of life discourse saying how people need to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

At the Last Supper He says, "This is My body" and "This is My blood".

 

[Derf]

Jesus spends the bread of life discourse saying how people need to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

At the Last Supper He says, "This is My body" and "This is My blood".

And it is metaphor that we are struggling with?

 

[Idolater]

And it is metaphor that we are struggling with?

Right. So He's metaphorically talking about the metaphor of the Eucharist in the bread of life discourse in John 6.

There were people in John 6 who were struggling with metaphor too, and they all left.

Peter then says that he too plus all the Disciples were struggling with metaphor as well, and they too would leave, except they didn't have anywhere else to go.

This may have been when the Father in Heaven had revealed to the Son, that He had chosen Peter to lead His Apostles, at this moment.

You can almost imagine Christ thinking in this moment, when the Father in Heaven revealed He has chosen Peter, "Oh great."

 

[7djengo7]

Like Trinity.

Is your pointing out the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible supposed to be thought of as somehow analogous to my pointing out the fact that the phrase "Catholic Church" is not in the Bible?

The Church which Jesus and His Apostles founded.

Why would you call something Jesus founded, "Roman Catholicism"?

I'd just assume call it the Church.

Why would you want to call an -ism "the Church"?

But there are branches now, so the need for qualification and clarification.

Is affirming that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ a branch of denying that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ?

Is denying that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ a branch of affirming that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ?

Is believing that Rome's pope has divine authority a branch of not believing that Rome's pope has divine authority?

Is not believing that Rome's pope has divine authority a branch of believing that Rome's pope has divine authority?

 

[Idolater]

Is your pointing out the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible supposed to be thought of as somehow analogous to my pointing out the fact that the phrase "Catholic Church" is not in the Bible?

ofc.

Why would you call something Jesus founded, "Roman Catholicism"?

I wouldn't. He just called it the Church. It's you all other branches of Christian tradition which have made it necessary just to make sure we're not being ambiguous. We can't just say we're the Church simpliciter, because "Church" can and does mean so many different things to so many different people.

Why would you want to call an -ism "the Church"?

I wouldn't, I'd just assume keep isms out of it entirely. Christ said He will build His Church, not an ism.

Is affirming that [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus Christ a branch of denying that [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus Christ?

No.

Is denying that [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus Christ a branch of affirming that [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus Christ?

Yes. Now you're getting it. How? Because you all claim to follow and believe in Jesus. Even JWs. You're all branches of Christian tradition, but there is (not just was) an O.G. Church.

Is believing that Rome's pope has divine authority a branch of not believing that Rome's pope has divine authority?

Is not believing that Rome's pope has divine authority a branch of believing that Rome's pope has divine authority?

Before I answer, what divine authority?

 

[rstrats]

You know, we have something called Daily Mass. It's another of the Joys of Catholicism. You don't have to wait for Sunday to celebrate Mass and to be in Jesus's Real Presence, you can go to Daily Mass. Or you can go to Adoration somewhere. A lot of Catholics do both.

So, why did you reference Acts 20:7 if it wasn't as support for a specialness of the 1st day of the week?

 

[7djengo7]

ofc.

I'm not seeing any analogy between the two things. Could you explain why you say they are analogous?

---

Why would you call something Jesus founded, "Roman Catholicism"?

I wouldn't.

But you do call something "Roman Catholicism":

What I'm asking is: are you referring to anything by your pronoun "it"? If you are, then to what are you referring by your pronoun "it"?

Roman Catholicism.

You wouldn't? Yet you do.

---

Why would you want to call an -ism "the Church"?

I wouldn't,

But you do call something "Roman Catholicism". Are you not calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism"?

I'd just assume keep isms out of it entirely.

So, you are not calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism"? Or, instead, do you mean that you are calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism", but that you would just as soon not be doing so?

Christ said He will build His Church, not an ism.

Did Christ say He will build whatever it is you are calling "Roman Catholicism"?

---

Is denying that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ a branch of affirming that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus Christ?

Yes.

On the contrary, denying the proposition, P, is in no way a branch of affirming P. Your response to that question is as ridiculous as it would be to say that denying that the sky is blue is a branch of affirming that the sky is blue.

Now you're getting it. How? Because you all claim to follow and believe in Jesus.

Wow! Since, according to you, "to follow and believe in Jesus" is (is it not?) to believe a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus, what you've just handed us is this: "Because you all (people who deny that a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus) claim to [believe a wafer of bread stops being a wafer of bread and starts being Jesus]." Are you serious? People who deny Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation, claim to believe Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Even JWs. You're all branches of Christian tradition,

It's certainly not Christian to call unitarian heretics such as JWs, "Christians", or to call their Russellite heresy, "Christian" or "Christianity". Doing things of that sort is a feature of Romish false ecumenism.

Before I answer, what divine authority?

Um, God's authority. Beside God's authority, what else would you even think to call "divine authority"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

 

[Idolater]

So, why did you reference Acts 20:7 if it wasn't as support for a specialness of the 1st day of the week?

So you are Seventh Day Adventist or no? You didn't answer the question.

 

[Idolater]

I'm not seeing any analogy between the two things. Could you explain why you say they are analogous?

They are both terms not found in Scripture but which are true anyway.

---

But you do call something "Roman Catholicism":

The Church Jesus and His Apostles founded.

You wouldn't? Yet you do.

I gave my reasons why. It's for clarification, identification, definition purposes.

---

But you do call something "Roman Catholicism". Are you not calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism"?

I am. But I wouldn't call it an ism if I had my druthers, but I don't, because there is confusion now that didn't exist previously.

So, you are not calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism"? Or, instead, do you mean that you are calling an -ism "Roman Catholicism", but that you would just as soon not be doing so?

The latter.

Did Christ say He will build whatever it is you are calling "Roman Catholicism"?

Yes, but He didn't use that term. He used "Church".

---

On the contrary, denying the proposition, P, is in no way a branch of affirming P. Your response to that question is as ridiculous as it would be to say that denying that the sky is blue is a branch of affirming that the sky is blue.

OK taking your analogy. Say there was a time before anybody ever said or thought or believed that the sky is blue. Fair. Now one day someone founds the school of thought which affirms that the sky is blue. Never seen before that day, never thought, never said. Brand new.

Now later on, there exists a group which began as that school of thought, and before, there was never anybody who said otherwise, there were those who said and thought nothing about whether the sky is blue, and then, there emerged a group of people who said, contra the O.G. group which lived by and believed and taught and said the sky is blue, that the sky is NOT blue.

Without that first group or movement or school of thought, this second group, who denied the sky is blue, wouldn't have any reason to exist at all, since they live to contradict the first group. So the second group exists contingently. Without the first group, the second group doesn't exist, since it would have no reason to exist. They exist in opposition to the first group.

In this way even those who actively live to deny the sky is blue, they are a branch of the first group, because the first group was founded in order to say that the sky is blue. Before them, nobody said anything at all about the color of the sky. So the second group, the blue-sky-deniers, contingently exist, contingent upon the existence of the first group or school of thought.

Even if the school which says the sky is blue entirely died out, such that literally nobody ever said the sky is blue anymore, even still, history testifies that the second group of blue-sky-deniers developed out of the group which originally said the sky is blue.

Wow! Since, according to you, "to follow and believe in Jesus" is (is it not?) to believe [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus, what you've just handed us is this: "Because you all (people who deny [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus) claim to [believe [bread] stops being [bread] and starts being Jesus]." Are you serious? People who deny Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation

Note that "transubstantiation" is a particular theology of the Eucharist which does not obtain and is not taught or believed by all ancient branches of the Church which Jesus and His Apostles founded. But the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is believed and taught by them all.

, claim to believe Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation?

No. But before anybody ever said the sky's NOT blue, someone said that it IS blue. The branch of Christian tradition which denies the Real Presence would not exist without the O.G. Church, who does and did believe in the Real Presence.

It's certainly not Christian to call unitarian heretics such as JWs, "Christians"

I didn't call them Christians. I called them a branch of Christian tradition.

, or to call their Russellite heresy, "Christian" or "Christianity". Doing things of that sort is a feature of Romish false ecumenism.

We don't believe Arians are Christians, just like how the Apostles did not believe the Judaizers in the first century were Christians either, they believed in and promoted a false Gospel.

Um, God's authority. Beside God's authority, what else would you even think to call "divine authority"?

Then elaborate. Authority can mean different things. It can mean authoritative, like canonical, and it can also mean a power, ability, right, etc. I took you to be saying the pope wields divine power, and I was asking you, which power? So if you meant something like authoritative or canonical, then let me know.

 

[Lon]

Swept under the rug? Do you even know your own mind? Ya know, if you are the local spokesman for "Roman Catholicism" it isn't looking good presently, right?

 

[rstrats]

So you are Seventh Day Adventist or no? You didn't answer the question.

Sorry, I could swear that I did. The answer is no.

 

[Right Divider]

The Church Jesus and His Apostles founded.

Utter nonsense.

Roman Catholicism was founded by Satan.

 

[Idolater]

Utter nonsense.

Roman Catholicism was founded by Satan.

When was that?

 

[Right Divider]

When was that?

A long time ago.

 

[Nick M]

I'm going to midnight mass for 2 reasons. The secondary is I pay tuition. You need your head examined if you put them in public schools. The more important reason is this.

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

 

[Idolater]

Swept under the rug? Do you even know your own mind? Ya know, if you are the local spokesman for "Roman Catholicism" it isn't looking good presently, right?

I don't even know what you're talking about. All I know is I started a thread, arguing that the scandal and crisis of pederasty and pedophilia was not due to faggotry among the ministerial priests and bishops. I was roundly and conclusively shouted down. I licked my wounds, and considered where I went wrong. To me, the question wasn't about whether a priest or bishop was a faggot, but whether or not he was a criminal, and everybody told me no. It's about faggotry.

So I licked my wounds, and I considered all the rumors and stories I had heard, things like that the Church no longer ordains faggots.

And then ofc Pope Francis, to the rescue (as per normal), tells the whole World, we need to get faggotry out of the seminaries.

That was all before Pope John Paul II revised and updated the Catechism, saying faggotry is inherently disordered.

That was all before the electors elected Pope Benedict XVI, who had actually written the words of the Catechism about faggotry being intrinsically disordered and absolutely immoral (John Paul commissioned Benedict to revise and update the Catechism)

And then Francis was elected, and people thought, Oh look, the Roman Catholics are going to start being pro-faggotry. No. This is all based on conspiracy and "dog whistles". Let me tell you about a dog whistle. It's when someone says "faggot", that you know they're no ally of faggotry, and Pope Francis said "faggot" and he said we need to get faggotry out of seminaries. That's a dog whistle. It means to those who can hear it, The Church is never going to change the Apostolic teaching on faggotry, it is absolutely gravely immoral and disordered and diabolic. Period. That's what Francis said, in dog whistle. He's not changing the Church's teaching on faggotry.

So if faggotry in the ministerial priesthood was the root cause of the child sex abuse problem, what more would you want the Roman Catholic Church to do about it, then doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on faggotry being completely gravely sinful, and on directly working to prevent any faggots from ordination?

And believe me, I don't mean faggot in a bad way, I just mean what they do, where their proclivities lie, they can't help it, their disordered desire isn't their own fault, but a faggot is someone who engages in faggotry, and that's what faggot means, is someone who actually engages in faggotry, not just someone who's got a disordered desire or attraction, there are plenty of people who have safely discerned celibacy rather than ever indulge that temptation. Those who have not ever indulged it, are not faggots. Faggots have actually done it. They've dipped their toe in the water, so to speak. That's a faggot. But the one who never does that, even if he wants to do it, is no faggot. He discerns celibacy. There are plenty of people who discern celibacy though they have no such desire, and there are those who do have that desire or attraction or temptation. Celibacy is available to everybody. And sometimes it's just obv what you're called to do.

The pedophilia

For me as a Catholic, this is my thought on the paedophilia The Catholic priesthood used to be a good place for a pedophile violent criminal absolutely immoral man to hide out, and avoid justice. If there were criminal naïveté, then the other priests were guilty of that, but criminal naivete...

theologyonline.com

 

[Idolater]

Sorry, I could swear that I did. The answer is no.

So do you not like the Sunday obligation?