The Joys of Catholicism

[Idolater]

That's a whole other reason to eschew from the top-down.

OK, well I was just guessing—why don't you just come out and say what you're thinking—your post was mysterious so I hung a breaking ball there to see if you'd swing at it.

Here's your sign? When it is as prolific, and not until these issue became public (had been happening over 50 years!)

, then 'holiness' and 'real-presence' must necessarily be questioned.

Ex opere operato - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It isn't like this is the first time in 2000 odd years the Church had ever dealt with grave sinners and criminals among the clergy. It WAS questioned, and it was SETTLED.

Educate yourself in the faith you left, without even really knowing what it is.

It is very odd, as a Protestant, you moved to Catholicism during this period in time.

It isn't. You're just not "up" on things. Ever hear of Scott Hahn? He was a pioneer, a Calvinist even, who discovered, without trying to, that Jesus's actual Church, is the Roman Catholic Church. More recent converts are Keith Nester, he's on Youtube, and Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin over at Catholic Answers. There are actually tons of converts to Roman Catholicism simpliciter from Protestant Evangelicalism in these times.

The troubling fact is that current Roman Catholics are leaving Catholicism about 20 times as much as new converts are coming in, so even though the numbers right now are awful writ large, there is still a healthy infusion of former Evangelicals coming into the Church nowadays.

Educate yourself.

When an organization has indulgences, abuses, etc. etc. etc. it is time to question reality, which I certainly did.

So indulgences and abuses are your two big things? that made you leave? I mean that and—not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ofc. Can't rightly say, as Peter said, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist. Meaning that you can go ANYWHERE, because He's NOT there. If you don't believe in the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist.

So BEYOND not believing in the True Presence of Him in the Eucharist, indulgences and abuses are your two big issues, or reason why you had to leave? (I'm asking to avoid mystery, so I don't have to take a flier on that I'm reading you right, in the future.)

You simply must begin questioning.

I did. That's what started this whole thing for me, this journey or what have you. I said, or thought, "Why don't we take Jesus literally when He says, 'This IS My body'? why do we just assume He must be being metaphorical—and are there any branches of the Christian faith that DO take Him literally?"—and it turns out, there are. Literally every single of the ANCIENTEST branches ALL take Him literally! It turns out that is what the WHOLE ENTIRE CHURCH took Him as, from the very beginning, all the way to like 1500. The only exception, were the Gnostics, who didn't even believe He really came in the flesh in the first place! that's why THEY didn't believe in the Real Presence. This is all according to Ignatius of Antioch btw, he wrote this [in] like the year 100 or 105 or thereabouts, Ignatius knew the Apostle John personally! And he's also the first one who ever used the term "CATHOLIC CHURCH" too, just btw.

I appreciate your stick-to-it-iveness but it has reached a point to where you have to ask yourself what you are willing to eat and drink with your Eucharist.

"With"? The Eucharist is LITERALLY Jesus! I don't have to ask [myself] what I'm willing to eat and drink WITH Him. I just need to continue to eat and drink Him. Just like He says.

$$ Joh 6:57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Next? I went to a United Methodist Church and in 1980 the vote went through to allow gay ministers. I was gone. The next church I went to was very serious about protecting families and children. Fingerprints, FBI checks, the works. Good group where I became associate pastor. Serious about their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and one another. The Eucharist has never been so meaningful to me as there.

And it isn't even real there. So imagine receiving the real Eucharist now, with no non-celibate ministerial priests, with protecting families and children, fingerprints, FBI check, the works, etc. Roman Catholicism has all of that. And the Real Presence.

You see how I'm begging the question? So are you. You can't prove what you're saying, not from Scripture, not from anywhere, you're just emoting.

 

[Right Divider]

Remember, the oracles of God were comitted to the Jews, not the RCC.

Sounds like another reason why the RCC tries to steal Israel's place.

 

[Derf]

"For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." That's literally HOW we are One Body [of Christ], is through PARTAKING of the One bread. Right? So no, we don't WORSHIP the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ because we EAT the Body of Christ, PARTAKING of the divine nature.

You've merely said that we don't do it (worship the church), but gave no reason why? If the bread becomes the body (however it happens), and sinners become the body (however it happens), and if we should worship the bread because it is His body, we should worship the church.

 

[Lon]

And it isn't even real there. So imagine receiving the real Eucharist now, with no non-celibate ministerial priests, with protecting families and children, fingerprints, FBI check, the works, etc. Roman Catholicism has all of that. And the Real Presence.

You are deluding yourself, granted because the experience is significantly meaningful to you, but 1) Does the bread literally become human flesh before you swallow it? Of course not, but you'll argue it is 'real flesh' just the same. 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) Dp you need His physical being? No, you need His Spirit in you and around you. That, my friend, is actually real presence and no wafer or touch of wine is going to take His place. Catholics always have something in the way, 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.

You see how I'm begging the question? So are you. You can't prove what you're saying, not from Scripture, not from anywhere, you're just emoting.

If I hadn't yet, I just did. I've had many mountain top experiences where His presence is palpable. You? Seems only the Eucharist?

 

[Lon]

Answer me.

I have a N.T. all by itself. Word of God? Of course it is. I have a Catholic Bible. I have Greek with all variance listed. Internally, the Bible is consistent with itself and is its own authentication. Entertain for a moment Rstrats 'agrees' with Luther. Suddenly there is no problem as you assume: You take another's (Authority) word for it, Rstrats simply ratifies it for himself. Both 'authority' and 'self' can have big problems. One is not ideal over the other except that one who self-investigates which books are in his Bible, has done a lot more homework and has a direct relationships with those scriptures and demonstrably is better equipped and invested than the one who just takes 'authority.'

 

[7djengo7]

Well then according to you, you've just ruled out the New Testament, since Paul here without controversy delimits "Scripture" to only the Old Testament or Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which Timothy, a Gentile, would have known from his youth).

Contrary to your falsehood, Paul does not delimit "Scripture" (or "the holy scriptures") to only the Old Testament. Paul wrote:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Paul did not write:

And that from a child thou hast known ALL the holy scriptures...

Paul did not write:

And that from a child thou hast known EVERY WORD OF the holy scriptures...

Paul did not write:

And that from a child thou hast known EVERY TEXT OF WHICH the holy scriptures ARE COMPOSED...

Paul in no way whatsoever excludes some or all of the New Testament from being some of "all scripture" when he writes "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

 

[7djengo7]

The Apostles also did teach with their mouths and not just with their pens.

Taught whom "with their mouths"? You?

The Church.

Do you agree with the fact that no man who lived in the first century, to whom Scripture refers by the word "apostle", taught you, or any other man or woman living on earth today, with his mouth?

 

[Nick M]

We call it Apostolic, oral, Sacred Tradition. Tradition isn't a charged word here, it just means, we inherited it, we received it, meaning, we didn't develop it ourselves, it was given to us, or handed to us, handed on, transmitted. We were born and it already was there.

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?

 

[Nick M]

Remember, the oracles of God were comitted to the Jews, not the RCC.

2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Long before the council of Nicaea. Actually they had another, more important council in terms of actual doctrine as determined by God.

1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.... 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Funny how this is avoided like it the bubonic plague. Jesus demanded they keep they law of Moses, and pass it to everyone. Don't feel bad Idolater You aren't the first RCC to not be able to make your case from scripture.

 

[7djengo7]

This is just begging the question.

What "is just begging" what "question"?

It HASN'T always.

To what are you referring with your pronoun "it": to 1) what I refer to by the phrase "the Old Testament", or instead, to 2) what you refer to by the phrase "the Old Testament"?

Begging the question!

"Begging" what "question"?

No—in YOUR Bible's, which is LUTHER's Bible, which he changed.

Luther changed Luther's Bible? In what way did Luther change Luther's Bible? And, if he did, why would that even offend you? Why not instead be content that Luther did not change your "Bible"?

it very VERY obv just being LUTHER's Bible

That's kind of funny, since, out the other side of your mouth, you (addressing me) called the Bible "YOUR Bible":

YOUR Bible

I'm not Luther.

According to LUTHER.

According to lots of other people, too, so what's your "point"?

And you're having LUTHER decide for you

Decide what for me?

why not some other guy instead?

Why not some other guy what?

Defend your position

Against what?

Why do you think LUTHER's Bible is THE Bible?

To what are you referring by your phrase "LUTHER's Bible"?

To what are you referring by your phrase "THE Bible"?

By your phrase, "THE Bible", are you referring to books titled Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees? If so, who decided for you to call those things "THE Bible"?

What sustains and supports and substantiates that ASSUMPTION?

If you think something is an assumption, why would you need to ask if is supported? By saying something is an assumption, are you not saying that it is unsupported?

Luther's Bible was INVENTED in history

So, when Romanists say things like "The Catholic Church gave you the Bible," do you mean y'all gave us what you variously call "Luther's Bible", "LUTHER'S Bible", "YOUR Bible", etc.?

The divine power, which Luther presumed to exercise validly and licitly, is to set the BIBLE's table of contents!

Are you saying Luther exercised something you call "divine power"? Or, are you saying he did not?

Oh, yeah, you said that he did, rather than that he did not:

He exercised that divine power, to decide on the table of contents in the Scripture.

If Luther exercised what you call "divine power", then why do you hate his guts so bitterly? I mean, wouldn't you also say your pope exercises what you call "divine power"? Yet, somehow, you don't seem to hate your pope like you hate Luther.

 

[Nick M]

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.

When you die there is 2 deaths. The first is physical as you know, and your eternal fate is already sealed and judgment is issued. Eternal life or death, and it is because of what he did at the cross.

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.

 

[glorydaz]

My point was that truth is still hidden from the Jews, even after it was revealed 2000 years ago.

Agreed.

It seems, like so many RCC doctrines, to be a grand distraction from the simple truth of the gospel.

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.

 

[glorydaz]

You've merely said that we don't do it (worship the church), but gave no reason why? If the bread becomes the body (however it happens), and sinners become the body (however it happens), and if we should worship the bread because it is His body, we should worship the church.

Good job following that circle.

I’m thinking a lot of people are incapable of understanding SYMBOLISM. We serve a mighty God, Who‘s ways are past finding out. So in His wisdom, He gives us word pictures we lowly humans might be able to understand. His provisions are bread (manna from heaven), His Word we should eat of daily, and His body on the cross. So a bunch of silly men make a deal with Rome after the destruction of the temple, by adding some of the local idol worshippers practices, and they start their own church where they claim what they are doing has anything to do with truth. There is no truth in the Catholic Church because Satan is there. There could very well be believers there, but none that ever really pick up the Bible. Thus all the talk about Luther and eating a piece of bread thinking it’s God, are man-made traps. Full circle, as you point out.

Sorry, Derf, didn’t mean to vent, but you seem really kind. I appreciate that.

 

[Derf]

Good job following that circle.

I’m thinking a lot of people are incapable of understanding SYMBOLISM. We serve a mighty God, Who‘s ways are past finding out. So in His wisdom, He gives us word pictures we lowly humans might be able to understand. His provisions are bread (manna from heaven), His Word we should eat of daily, and His body on the cross. So a bunch of silly men make a deal with Rome after the destruction of the temple, by adding some of the local idol worshippers practices, and they start their own church where they claim what they are doing has anything to do with truth. There is no truth in the Catholic Church because Satan is there. There could very well be believers there, but none that ever really pick up the Bible. Thus all the talk about Luther and eating a piece of bread thinking it’s God, are man-made traps. Full circle, as you point out.

Sorry, Derf, didn’t mean to vent, but you seem really kind. I appreciate that.

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.