A Momentary Life...

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Watching a PBS World production with Jack and, of course I'm doing rifftrax for the fun of it...at one point the subject is manatees and the narrator is describing how in the winter it's crucial for the manatee to find really warm waters. At first he speaks to the majority heading for hot springs, then...


Narrator: But some manatee are heading for a surprising hot-spot.


Me: A small nightclub on the outskirts of Tampa.


Jack: (giggles)...I get it. And they dance there.


Me: It could happen.


I love PBS.


Oh, the surprising place actually turned out to be the outflow from an electrical power plant.
You are such a Democrat. You talk about PBS (and probably NPR if I'm not mistaken) like how I gush on about Catholic TV. Aside from baseball, I don't know of television that is more grabbing for me than Catholic television---with a possible exception being this Netflix I'm watching now; just video of an actual wood fire burning, real time, which is honestly just about the best television ever in some ways. I have stared with intense interest at fires my whole life, and even the most gripping television hasn't had a hold on me like one of God's own creations, fire. I can and have watched it for hours. Even Major League Baseball hasn't held my interest like fire does, not even five Patriots Super Bowls, and three MLB World Series (the last of which I didn't even watch, this is how humdrum world championships have become in Boston), can entrain me like how fire does.

The other matter wrt which you're a Democrat, along with your penchant (de facto French pronunciation) for 'public' television and radio, is gun control. You believe in an inalienable right to bear arms, I believe, like [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] does, but you don't believe in the Second Amendment, so please stop being dishonest---you think the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.

The only thing that makes you a non-Democrat is that it sounds like you vote Republican on the matter of abortion. You believe that abortion ought to be statutorially outlawed, you just believe in case law to sort out when it ought to be de facto decriminalized. I believe that it ought to statutorially be decriminalized in particular form, like killing people; which is statutorially outlawed as murder among other specific forms, and, in free states, decriminalized in the form of self defense or in defense of other innocent people. And even sometimes, perhaps immorally, in defense of property, even particularly worthless property.

The Catholic Church is Jesus's Church, it's the one He established/founded, and even more importantly than that, because it grounds Jesus Christ in history, she is the Church the Apostles built. The real Apostles. All Twelve of them, including Paul. That Church is the one that spread around the Mediterranean basin from AD 33 to AD 67 or thereabouts, when both Peter and Paul had been immorally put to death in Rome, under Mr. 666 Caesar Nero (gematria). We get the Bible from that Church, who ran largely without any New Testament, with the primary exception being she was pastored by the actual Twelve Apostles, especially once the Apostle James, brother of the Apostle John the Beloved Apostle, was immorally put to death in Jerusalem, the old Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem is the kingdom of God, and the Church is the kingdom of God in seed form, here on earth, in actuality.

Pope Francis said the death penalty is no longer admissible. It was, but it's not any more. Is this a change in Church teaching, in your estimation? Here is what it is. It is what Peter would have done, because he'd have his finger on the pulse of the whole world, which is where the whole Church exists, and he'd know when it's time to change a Church opinion on a matter of public policy, which is not a matter of faith or morals. Pope Francis, the successor of Peter the Apostle, has decided that in an effort to save lives, even lives of murderers and rapists, the Church's official political opinion is that the death penalty ought to be outlawed.

The previous reasoning behind supporting it as admissible is when it is the only thing that can protect innocent lives. Since this is rare now, with the status of prisons, Pope Francis, or Pastor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or just 'Pastor George,' says that it is no longer moral to permit the death penalty.

If you support the death penalty, then you must realize that Pastor George is right in saying that it is no longer possible realistically for murderers or rapists from murdering or raping again.

As long as Pastor George isn't saying that lethal force is immoral in matters of self defense or defense of other innocent people, then there oughtn't be any difficulty in the Christian agreeing with Pastor George.

America had a President George to begin things, and we had two Presidents George just recently. Pastor George, President George---it's a rank. It's a de jure thing. Among Protestants, it's surely de jure only---they even deny the de jure, something the Orthodox don't, so they're not the same as true, full Protestants.

The Netflix fire is excellent, in part because what you've missed, you feel no need to go back and watch. It's fine right where you're picking it up, right now is a good time to start watching that sucker. It's God's direct creation, fire, and it is like watching Rick Porcello one-hit the Yankees for nine straight innings. There's nothing else like it.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Doesn't look like we're separated on the point.


I'd say there's a difference between scripture and what men do with it and how they see and connect it within their own mind. When you do that and create traditions born of that, elevating them to equal authority with scripture I think you have a problem, and the Catholic Church has that problem...though to be fair, it's not only a Catholic problem, merely more obvious and institutionalized.


Amen. :)


I'd say that as a pragmatic matter, it is worse to kill a man than to lie to him. The latter robs him of the truth, the former robs him of any hope to approach it. But given any sin is sufficient to warrant my separation from the perfect and good, it's a distinction that matters more to me than it could to God, whom I will not meet save by grace.

I'm omitting a good deal, but consider it read and I appreciate your sharing your particular beliefs, whether or not we are of one mind.


Thomas Merton was a Catalan trappist monk and a profound writer who died in the late 60s. His writings were broadly popular and respected. Among them was the book that introduced me to Merton, The Seven Story Mountain. He was probably the most highly regarded and certainly the most well-known Catholic writer of the last century. Brother Lawrence died in the late 1600s and is known for Practice of the Presence of God, put together by the Abbe de Beaufort, envoy to Cardinal Noailles. The envoy was sent by the Cardinal to investigate Lawrence and they had four conversations that were put into written form. I believe you can find them online for free. It's not a lot of writing, but it's a remarkable thing to read.
I have to engage you in your non-Catholicism. It's in the nature of the site. 'Theology Online' means, from the start, way back at the beginning, 'We're going to fight about theology.'

Your non-Catholicism is de jure wrong.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.
No, it wasn't. You just need for it to be so you're digging heels.

Scold: [FONT=&]to criticize (someone) severely or angrily especially for personal failings[/FONT]
  • He scolded the kids for not cleaning up the mess they had made in the kitchen.
[FONT=&]Synonyms of scold
bawl out, berate, call down, castigate, chastise, chew out, dress down, flay, hammer, jaw,keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rag, rail (at or against), rant (at), rate, ream (out),rebuke, reprimand, reproach, score, tongue-lash, upbraid

[/FONT]
Those are fairly emotional and sharp. None of that accurately describes the incident, at least my son's part of it.
How was it not a reprimand?
In what way was it not a reprimand. :confused:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You are such a Democrat.
That will come as some surprise to most of the candidates I've voted for in my life.

You talk about PBS (and probably NPR if I'm not mistaken) like how I gush on about Catholic TV.
I do enjoy it and it's on our local classical station, which has a disappointingly narrow window on jazz. PBS is great when it comes to science programming and I love the way it gets my son excited about the topic. The programming tends to be beautifully photographed.

Aside from baseball, I don't know of television that is more grabbing for me than Catholic television---with a possible exception being this Netflix I'm watching now; just video of an actual wood fire burning, real time, which is honestly just about the best television ever in some ways. I have stared with intense interest at fires my whole life, and even the most gripping television hasn't had a hold on me like one of God's own creations, fire. I can and have watched it for hours. Even Major League Baseball hasn't held my interest like fire does, not even five Patriots Super Bowls, and three MLB World Series (the last of which I didn't even watch, this is how humdrum world championships have become in Boston), can entrain me like how fire does.
I've largely fallen off the sports wagon. I watch the World Series, maybe some of the games leading up. I watch a little more of the NBA, but nothing like I did a few years ago. Looks like my Celtics are on their way back. It would be nice if they and the Lakers could get really good and tangle again in an NBA finals. I like college and NFL football, but again don't spend the time I once did. I don't have a particular team in the pros, though I've been fond of the Saints since Brees showed up. Maybe he'll have one last run. In college ball I follow Alabama.

The other matter wrt which you're a Democrat, along with your penchant (de facto French pronunciation) for 'public' television and radio, is gun control. You believe in an inalienable right to bear arms, I believe, like @The Barbarian does, but you don't believe in the Second Amendment, so please stop being dishonest---you think the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.
I don't answer anything that contains a "you're not being honest" clause. Drop that and I'd be happy to talk about it with you. Add it and there's no point in talking about it to you. Why would you believe anything I have to say?

The only thing that makes you a non-Democrat is that it sounds like you vote Republican on the matter of abortion.
Actually, I'm a registered Republican. In my state we have to declare and most of the local candidates I like and judiciary candidates are conservative Republicans. The Democrats have only managed to win my support for a handful of elections, but I don't consider myself in either camp. They're both too extreme for me these days and I'm an independent by nature. I have a number of issues where I'm fairly conservative and a number where I'm fairly progressive. It's issue by issue for me.

You believe that abortion ought to be statutorially outlawed, you just believe in case law to sort out when it ought to be de facto decriminalized. I believe that it ought to statutorially be decriminalized in particular form, like killing people; which is statutorially outlawed as murder among other specific forms, and, in free states, decriminalized in the form of self defense or in defense of other innocent people. And even sometimes, perhaps immorally, in defense of property, even particularly worthless property.
I've put up a couple of different arguments against abortion for years. Both center on right, agreement, and the logical necessity of defending against a thing we all agree at some point cannot be permitted, as it would work an abrogation of right on the part of a vested citizen. The only exception I can see to that would be the life of the mother being immediately imperiled where the infant cannot live independently and the basis for the exception would be self-defense, but it's complicated and there's more to unpack on the point.

The Catholic Church is Jesus's Church...
I certainly hold that it's one of them. I'm not qualified to speak on Catholic doctrine, though my Episcopal background isn't very far removed (I'm not longer an Episcopalian, though I was reared as one). But my understanding is that he's really only moving the margin a bit and he's within his rights to do so.

I oppose the death penalty on less philosophical grounds. We have and likely will continue to kill innocent men and women in the name of justice. That should be unacceptable. Unlike being falsely imprisoned, there's no restitution for someone deprived of every right. If we feel that strongly about the infringement we should protect against our own fallible capacity to err on the point.

The Netflix fire is excellent, in part because what you've missed, you feel no need to go back and watch. It's fine right where you're picking it up, right now is a good time to start watching that sucker. It's God's direct creation, fire, and it is like watching Rick Porcello one-hit the Yankees for nine straight innings. There's nothing else like it.
I live in the country and have acreage. With all the soft wood (darn pecan trees) about I never lack something to put on the fire if I'm of the mind for one, though I tend to use the pit these days, as the fireplaces are ancient and we have central heating and air.

How was it not a reprimand?
In what way was it not a reprimand. :confused:
You're choosing one word that can be softer than a list that gives you the clear context for usage. I can't help you see what you're determined not to but I've said what I can about that prior.

I have to engage you in your non-Catholicism. It's in the nature of the site. 'Theology Online' means, from the start, way back at the beginning, 'We're going to fight about theology.'

Your non-Catholicism is de jure wrong.
We're not going to fight about it. I have no problem with you getting the non-salvific wrong and so I'm not often engaged in arguing those sorts of particulars. I'm a Presbyterian. We have a kind of mantra: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
We're not going to fight about it.
Will you give me odds on that? :D
I have no problem with you getting the non-salvific wrong and so I'm not often engaged in arguing those sorts of particulars. I'm a Presbyterian. We have a kind of mantra: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
I used to be a Presbyterian. RPCNA. Small, ultraconservative, we only sang Psalms, and only unaccompanied (acappella; it is beautiful). The Catholic Church leaves it up to us to self-police wrt Holy Communion, largely. An exception is formal excommunication, in which case Communion is not served. Another case is invalid marriage, such as same-sex marriage, or marriage after divorce. Beyond that, each individual Catholic is trusted to decide for themselves whether or not they are in full communion with the Church. Disagreeing with an infallible teaching of the magisterium's on a matter of faith or morals constitutes a break in communion, and so should correspond with abstaining from the Eucharist, just as I do, me not being Catholic. That is the technically correct course. But even those who violate 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV or 1st Corinthians 11:29 KJV, just commit another sin, and there's a reason that the Church is so quick to construct and raise up crucifixes, beyond the scriptures in support of this practice of hers (Jn3:14KJV Jn 8:28KJV Jn12:32KJV 1Co1:23KJV 1Co2:2KJV), and that is to remind us of 'how that Christ died for our sins' (1Co15:3KJV).
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's an undread certainty.


I once belonged to the Rotary. I don't recall any singing, but there was always a chicken dinner. :chew:
For 1000 years there was one Church Town, it was the one that Jesus Himself founded, and more importantly, wrt historical validity, the one that all His Apostles worked to build.

Are you of the opinion that that one Church is no longer extant? Do you think that His one Church is now a multitude of Churches instead? Or do you believe the Reformers, who say that the one Church He founded was actually 'invisible?' Is there another option?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
For 1000 years there was one Church Town, it was the one that Jesus Himself founded, and more importantly, wrt historical validity, the one that all His Apostles worked to build.
When I was a kid, the only fast food place in the county seat was a Hardee's.

Are you of the opinion that that one Church is no longer extant?
I'm of the opinion that things change. Now we have a McDonald's, Arby's, even a Ruby Tuesday's.

So many places and they all serve food, even if they didn't serve it first.

Is there another option?
Sure. Wendy's...though as with most they're fond of possessives.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
When I was a kid, the only fast food place in the county seat was a Hardee's.


I'm of the opinion that things change. Now we have a McDonald's, Arby's, even a Ruby Tuesday's.

So many places and they all serve food, even if they didn't serve it first.


Sure. Wendy's...though as with most they're fond of possessives.
OK. I'll play along.

So McDonald's we'll say is the first fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain.

This'd be the Church that Christ founded, and the one that His Apostles developed, and that was the only fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain for 1000 years.

In AD 1054, McDonald's experienced a rift, we'll call it a 'schism,' and so, we'll say, Hardee's was born in AD 1054.

The McDonald's managers were the only authentic fastfood drivethrough hamburger restaurateurs until AD 1054, and they were in lockstep with the Roman McDonald's restaurateur, who was the successor of Peter the Apostle, who managed the Roman McDonald's, until his death at the hands of Nero, around AD 65-66.

No matter what else happened, the Roman McDonald's is the McDonald's that Peter managed, that's just historical fact.

The Hardee's managers were otherwise still authentic McDonald's restaurateurs, except that they were no longer in lockstep with the Roman McDonald's restaurateur, which was enough to make Hardee's a distinct fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain from McDonald's.

Hardee's restaurants are the Orthodox churches, the Greek, the Antiochan, Georgian, etc. There are about a dozen of these organizations, all in communion with each other, but each operating as independent organizations. I suppose it could be like if Hardee's had regional organizations, but that Hardee's itself was not a single entity.

So back to Rome, to McDonald's. In 1517 McDonald's lost a bunch of customers, all because a McDonald's employee (Martin Luther was a monastic priest, not a bishop, so not a 'McDonald's restaurateur') didn't like McDonald's corporate policies. He began another fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain, let's say that was Arby's. Then other people who weren't even McDonald's employees created their own fastfood drivethrough hamburger chains, like the Presbyterian ecclesial communities, maybe this was Wendy's. The Anglicans were maybe Burger King (seeing as how the king of England is the head of that ecclesial community, 'seems apt).

So, sure, things change, and now instead of just McDonald's, we have choices as to where we get our fastfood hamburgers. But the historical fact remains that Jesus Christ and His Apostles founded and built up only McDonald's, and Peter was the restaurateur of the McDonald's in Rome when he died, and for 1000 years there wasn't any dispute that Peter's successor was the 'first among equal' McDonald's restaurateurs, and that this management position was the standard for how every McDonald's was to be managed.

Since your parallel is limited, and Church isn't about eating and drinking, but is a single Body (of Christ), then we may have to leave it at this.

Thoughts?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
OK. I'll play along.
Great job, by the way. Very entertaining particulars. :thumb:

So, sure, things change, and now instead of just McDonald's, we have choices as to where we get our fastfood hamburgers. But the historical fact remains that Jesus Christ and His Apostles founded and built up only McDonald's, and Peter was the restaurateur of the McDonald's in Rome when he died, and for 1000 years there wasn't any dispute that Peter's successor was the 'first among equal' McDonald's restaurateurs, and that this management position was the standard for how every McDonald's was to be managed.
I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure. The first among equals franchising argument is apt. I think Christ in this was the founder of the product, not the particular chain in the form it evolved through tradition and consideration, but that's a longer bit.

Since your parallel is limited, and Church isn't about eating and drinking, but is a single Body (of Christ), then we may have to leave it at this.

Thoughts?
I think the limitation applied to the principle is all we need to understand that no matter how loyal some are to McDonalds, being first isn't a guarantee of being best, or at least best for every customer. The product is the thing, not the wrapper.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Love someone without reservation. Give without a thought to yourself. Connect who you are, meaningfully, with the moment you find yourself in. Dare to risk what matters for what matters more.

If you fail, you can laugh to yourself about it. And if you succeed then others can laugh with you too...which is a bit wonderful.
 
Last edited:

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's an undread certainty.


I once belonged to the Rotary. I don't recall any singing, but there was always a chicken dinner. :chew:

My local activity that keeps me busy is my church Worship Team. I can't claim anything as classy as the rotary. My husband and I used to be with the Elks way back when.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Almost every great success story is a study in aspiration, hard work, disappointment, and perseverance. We may stumble in our journey, but so long as we stumble forward we will eventually arrive.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That will come as some surprise to most of the candidates I've voted for in my life.
My kingdom for any politician who would stand for, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Democrat or not. But there's no such thing as a Democrat who stands for that, at least not around here. (Where's the 'tumbleweed' smilie?)
PBS is great when it comes to science programming and I love the way it gets my son excited about the topic. The programming tends to be beautifully photographed.
I like the science too, and I hate the gun hating.
Looks like my Celtics are on their way back.
That's funny. They're 'my' Celtics because I live here. You? :D
...I've been fond of the Saints since Brees showed up. Maybe he'll have one last run.
He is great. No Brady (or Rodgers), but great nonetheless.
I don't answer anything that contains a "you're not being honest" clause. Drop that and I'd be happy to talk about it with you. Add it and there's no point in talking about it to you. Why would you believe anything I have to say?
You've said that gun control does not infringe the right, and instead equate possession of machine guns, assault weapons, and rocket launchers, to libel, slander, or yelling 'fire' in a crowded, non-burning theater. You've further depicted the prefatory clause of the Second as anachronistic and obsolete. So please do, instruct me as to why you don't believe that 'the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.' I'll believe you---promise.
...I'm an independent by nature. I have a number of issues where I'm fairly conservative and a number where I'm fairly progressive. It's issue by issue for me.
I'm one-issue, until that one issue becomes more commonly supported and defended: Guns/weapons/'all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.'
The only exception I can see to that [prohibiting abortion] would be the life of the mother being immediately imperiled where the infant cannot live independently and the basis for the exception would be self-defense, but it's complicated and there's more to unpack on the point.
I don't think it's complicated. Coming from today, where any pregnant person can elect to abort for no reason at all, it'd be a step in the right direction to at least compel the person to testify that they feel endangered to continue with their pregnancy. Pregnancy while of course natural and necessary to propagate the species, is traumatic for the pregnant person, radically altering their bodies and body chemistry, and while we Christians might prefer to force them to endure it to full term, being that it's natural and not an ailment or disease or illness, it would be a step in the right direction to at least compel them to testify that the prospect is too daunting for them, for whatever reason.

Perhaps in effect, it's largely what we already have. :idunno:
I oppose the death penalty on less philosophical grounds. We have and likely will continue to kill innocent men and women in the name of justice. That should be unacceptable. Unlike being falsely imprisoned, there's no restitution for someone deprived of every right. If we feel that strongly about the infringement we should protect against our own fallible capacity to err on the point.
The primary reason in the Holy See now condemning the death penalty as I see it, has to do with the state of modern prisons, and our ability to with virtually 100% reliability, contain capital criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) and protect other innocent people from them. In the past, this was less reliable, and it was due to these conditions that the Church previously permitted the death penalty, in order to best protect other innocent people from capital criminals.
I live in the country and have acreage. With all the soft wood (darn pecan trees) about I never lack something to put on the fire if I'm of the mind for one, though I tend to use the pit these days, as the fireplaces are ancient and we have central heating and air.
Fire is glorious, do you enjoy watching them?
You're choosing one word that can be softer than a list that gives you the clear context for usage. I can't help you see what you're determined not to but I've said what I can about that prior.
You're the one who brought up 'reprimand.'
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure.
But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church. They are all one, for, as I said, 1000 years. They were all one during the Apostolic era, all united and all under the authority of the Apostles as their supreme pastors. That there is more than one, is a new thing, a thing that appeared first 1000 years ago, and that seed then sprouted and grew into a wide range of different ecclesial communities and traditions, none of which operating as a single body with any others, starting in the 1500s.
The first among equals franchising argument is apt. I think Christ in this was the founder of the product, not the particular chain in the form it evolved through tradition and consideration, but that's a longer bit.


I think the limitation applied to the principle is all we need to understand that no matter how loyal some are to McDonalds, being first isn't a guarantee of being best, or at least best for every customer. The product is the thing, not the wrapper.
Then what is the product? What is the 'hamburger?'

My submission: It's either the Eucharist, or it's the teaching.

Background on me: I took to the study of Christian theology like a fish to water. I buried myself in the study of Scripture and of works of theology for decades. I am a biblical literalist. I used to be a staunch, convinced Clavinist. And my conclusion, after all this, is that Holy Catholicism is the only authentic expression of the one (Eph4:5KJV) Christian faith. It's because of the biblical literalism. Our Lord said,

"this is my body" Mt26:26KJV
"this is my body" Mk14:22KJV
"This is my body" Lk22:19KJV
"this is my body" 1Co11:24KJV

and there's only one ecclesial community/tradition that teaches this literally, and that is the Catholic Church. There are the Orthodox churches also, who also lay claim to being ancient, original communities/traditions, and I conclude that Catholicism is the authentic Church because of the first 1000 years of unity around the papacy, and, again due to my biblical literalism, John's Gospel, written after Peter died, vacating his pastorate over the church in Rome, him being succeeded by Linus, a non-Apostle, a bishop, created by one of the Apostles, when John could have, being the last surviving Apostle, claimed the supreme pastorate of the Church for himself. Instead, John provides Christ's verbatim commission to Peter, in chapter 21, where He said to Peter and to Peter alone, "Feed My sheep." Here, John bolstered the office of the Roman archbishop, cementing it and its holder, as the first [bishop] among equals. A thing undisputed for 1000 years.

So my answer is that whether it is the Eucharist that is the 'hamburger,' or the teaching, either way, 'McDonald's' is the Church that Jesus Himself built, the one that the Apostles developed, cultivated, and presided over, and the one that Paul and other New Testament authors meant whenever they invoked 'the Church.'
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church.
Well, the one Catholic Church, to be sure. I'm equally sure they aren't Baptists, by way of.

That there is more than one, is a new thing, a thing that appeared first 1000 years ago, and that seed then sprouted and grew into a wide range of different ecclesial communities and traditions, none of which operating as a single body with any others, starting in the 1500s.
Then what is the product? What is the 'hamburger?'
What are they all selling? Christianity, to continue to use the model.

Background on me: I took to the study of Christian theology like a fish to water. I buried myself in the study of Scripture and of works of theology for decades. I am a biblical literalist. I used to be a staunch, convinced Clavinist. And my conclusion, after all this, is that Holy Catholicism is the only authentic expression of the one (Eph4:5KJV) Christian faith. It's because of the biblical literalism.
A Biblical literalist in what sense? That it's the literal word of God? I think Protestants are on board with that one too, though most Protestant denominations would argue against the elevation of tradition found in the Catholic understanding. My attitude is that so long as it isn't salvific I'm not going to get bent out of shape by it.

Our Lord said, "this is my body."
The Body was never meant to be a structure, but the people who rely on Christ and on grace. And in that there is one body, one catholic and apostolic faith.

and there's only one ecclesial community/tradition that teaches this literally, and that is the Catholic Church.
No, there's one body that teaches that it is the only body (actually, the Church of Christ does that too)...at least a couple that teach they are literally that thing and that outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another. I think that's lamentable.

There are the Orthodox churches also, who also lay claim to being ancient, original communities/traditions, and I conclude that Catholicism is the authentic Church because of the first 1000 years of unity around the papacy, and, again due to my biblical literalism
I conclude that men have a way of turning nearly everything into politics, after a fashion. True when a couple were arguing over seating arrangements and true in too many expressions of faith today.

, John's Gospel, written after Peter died, vacating his pastorate over the church in Rome, him being succeeded by Linus, a non-Apostle, a bishop, created by one of the Apostles, when John could have, being the last surviving Apostle, claimed the supreme pastorate of the Church for himself. Instead, John provides Christ's verbatim commission to Peter, in chapter 21, where He said to Peter and to Peter alone, "Feed My sheep." Here, John bolstered the office of the Roman archbishop, cementing it and its holder, as the first [bishop] among equals. A thing undisputed for 1000 years.
See, I think you're wrong about Peter too. You're narrowing your understanding to fit your need.

So my answer is that whether it is the Eucharist that is the 'hamburger,' or the teaching, either way, 'McDonald's' is the Church that Jesus Himself built, the one that the Apostles developed, cultivated, and presided over, and the one that Paul and other New Testament authors meant whenever they invoked 'the Church.'
And I'd say Jesus built a stand and men have been mistakenly trying to improve it ever since.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
If we only delight in God when the sun is on our face and the wind is fair then we might as well have worshiped the weather.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I told Jack that my idea of heaven was a library filled with great books that I haven't read.

Jack told me his idea of heaven was riding around in a tank...but he allowed it could have a book or two. :poly:
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Apologies for the delay in reply, if any of my questions or comments exceed your memory of this conversation, mea culpa.
I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure.
But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church.
Well, the one Catholic Church, to be sure. I'm equally sure they aren't Baptists, by way of.
I don't understand what you mean here.

But I'll add to my answer. Not only is the 'particular shape' a number of parishes all in communion with each other, but it is also that all Christians are under the authority of her supreme pastors. Those pastors are called bishops, and they were created by the Apostles themselves. Nobody could become a bishop until the Apostles created the first one, through the imposition of their own hands, which is what we now call the sacrament of Holy Orders, 'Orders' being akin to the word 'Ordain,' as in 'ordained priest' or 'ordination.'

So the bishops are also integral to the 'particular shape' of the Church. And the physical lineage (through the physical imposition of hands) of the Apostles are only so many men right now, and they are all Catholic and Orthodox clergymen, since both have celebrated the sacrament of Holy Orders from the beginning, with both Catholic and Orthodox churches being the originals.
What are they all selling? Christianity, to continue to use the model.
What's 'Christianity?'

Here's my own view, and it's the Catholic (and Orthodox; although it's not so easy to tell what the Orthodox believe, because they don't publish anything approaching the depth, breadth, and thoroughness of the Catholic Church's 'Catechism of the Catholic Church') view. The Eucharist, or 'Lord's Supper,' is the center of Christianity. Everything else about the Christian faith emanates out from the celebration of this sacrament, for Christians.

More below.
A Biblical literalist in what sense? That it's the literal word of God? I think Protestants are on board with that one too...
In the sense that unless the genre of the text indicates otherwise, that the Word of God should be taken in its plainest, 'literal,' ('wooden,' even) sense, taking into account the whole witness of all of the Scripture (perspicuity; comparing/interpreting Scripture with Scripture). And, no, Protestants are not on board with that one, because of the Eucharist.

I laid out Christ's words on the matter, when He instituted the Eucharist; He said, "This is My body." Only the Catholics (and the Orthodox) take Him literally. That is what I mean in calling myself a biblical literalist. The Scripture is the literal Word of God, and I take it literally.
, though most Protestant denominations would argue against the elevation of tradition found in the Catholic understanding.
The Gospel of Luke is admitted to be the written version of Sacred Tradition. It has since been authoritatively declared to be Scripture. This gives some idea of how the Church views Sacred Tradition; it is a body of knowledge, a knowledge base, that has come either directly from the Apostles, or it is knowledge that was authorized by the Apostles, much like how Peter authorized Paul's epistles to be declared Christian Scripture. Peter didn't write Paul's epistles, but Romans-Philemon have been given Peter's authorization, and so they have the same authority as if Peter himself wrote them.

The Church from the beginning kept this Apostolic knowledge base safe, through word-of-mouth, through oral tradition, but now we have possibly the whole Sacred Tradition recorded for us in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' which was the first new catechism the Church has published since the 1500s.

So in short, the place of Sacred Tradition is on par with Sacred Scripture, and there is no disagreement between these two authorities, but rather they integrate together to form the full Word of God. Both Tradition and the Scriptures have come down to us through the authority of the Apostles, which is Christ's own authority. And the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is on full display in the introduction to Luke.
My attitude is that so long as it isn't salvific I'm not going to get bent out of shape by it.
No one's trying to bend you out of shape. My gift is the desire to see the one Body of Christ, the one Church, His Bride, reunited. If I can change your mind, then you'll be an asset.
Our Lord said, "this is my body."
The Body was never meant to be a structure, but the people who rely on Christ and on grace. And in that there is one body, one catholic and apostolic faith.
You're talking about the Body of Christ who are the Church. In this quote, Christ is talking about the body of Christ that is 'this bread,' as in, "For as often as ye eat this bread . . . ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come" (1Co11:26KJV).

Along with bolstering the place of Peter's pastorate in the Church, John also in his Gospel, written after Peter's murder, bolstered the notion of the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist, in chapter 6 of that book. Yet again, an example of what had been only Sacred Tradition, that knowledge base that hadn't been written down, being committed to writing, and it then turning into Sacred Scripture.
No, there's one body that teaches that it is the only body (actually, the Church of Christ does that too)...at least a couple that teach they are literally that thing and that outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another. I think that's lamentable.
The whole notion of there being a choice in the matter, is not scriptural. For 1000 years in fact, there was no choice. Back then, if you believed the one Christian Gospel, then there was only one choice, and that was the one Christian Church, which is today known as the Catholic Church.

You're a JD. You understand probably better than most that the Reformation was primarily about the human right of religious liberty, and that at the time, Christians in their civic capacity (not acting as the Church, iow, but as citizens) did not recognize, affirm, or protect the right to religious liberty, because they condemned Martin Luther to death, and only through the assistance of a powerful friend did he avoid execution.

The Reformation of course also produced a competing theological position to Catholicism, but it had to, in order to justify the legitimacy of Protestants, because as I said, the notion of there being a choice in 'which church,' is not scriptural (cf. 'Sola Scriptura').

And as to "outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another," I suppose you could accuse the Catholic Church of this, but what I find in her authorized teachings on the matter is extreme grace, and reason. Her position is that she is the Body of Christ, full stop. But, she believes and teaches that membership in the Body is not identical to membership in the Catholic Church, because it depends upon Christian faith, believing the Gospel. As such, she describes those of us who are not Catholic as "separated brethren," with more emphasis on 'brethren,' and "imperfectly united"* with her, but with more emphasis on 'united.' She calls us 'Christians.'

(* I believe this is the precise phrase, but I have not double checked at the time of this writing.)
I conclude that men have a way of turning nearly everything into politics, after a fashion. True when a couple were arguing over seating arrangements and true in too many expressions of faith today.
I'm not sure if you're referring to entanglements between the Church and civil authorities, or the Church's magisterium claiming to teach authoritatively and infallibly in matters of faith and morals.
See, I think you're wrong about Peter too.
Fair enough.
You're narrowing your understanding to fit your need.
I'm not sure which 'need' you're talking about. I set out how I've arrived in the Catholic school of theology, coming from a Protestant school. I used Protestant methods to get here. My only need is to know my faith. And being a history buff, as I learned more of the history of 'Christianity,' what I saw was that it was the same as the history of the Catholic Church, for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence. Using this fact, I dove back into Sacred Scripture, and found that the only Christian traditions that take the Lord literally at His word, when He said, "This is My body," are the Catholics and the Orthodox. Settling on Catholicism was simply acknowledging both the historical and the biblical data on the matter of Peter's primacy as supreme pastor of the Church. The Church was the Catholic Church in the beginning, and there is no compelling reason to doubt that she remains that, to this day.
...I'd say Jesus built a stand and men have been mistakenly trying to improve it ever since.
So here's one way I read that: You acknowledge that the Catholic way, is the same way that Christ Himself instituted. But I doubt that's what you meant. Instead, here: 'McDonald's' serves drivethrough hamburger sandwiches, and then there are a wide variety of other drivethrough hamburger restaurants. The difference between them is that at McDonald's, you actually get a hamburger sandwich, but at the other non-Orthodox drivethrough hamburger restaurants, they don't actually give you anything, and it's your job to imagine, like Peter Pan's Lost Boys, that you're enjoying a hamburger sandwich, but there's actually nothing there. And that is because 'McDonald's' (and the Orthodox 'drivethrough hamburger restaurants') only employs authentic restaurateurs, the ordained priests, who consecrate 'this bread,' and when you receive communion, you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, just as He taught when He said, "This is My body."

When we repeat something over and over again, the repetition physically changes us, and this change infects everything that we do, think, and say. The Lord Jesus instituted the Eucharist, and it is explicitly celebrated in His memory, so it is His original plan for all of us believers to continually receive Holy Communion, and to me, speculatively, it is due at least in part to the physical change that repetition imparts upon us, and imprints within us. When we remember Him, we get better at everything. He feeds us with His own body, in the Eucharist, which is a thing that in many, many Protestant churches, has been relegated to mimicking once a month, or even as infrequently as once a year. Categorically different from the Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking, which is that the gathering together to worship Christ centers around the Eucharist, just as it always has, going all the way back to Acts 2:42 KJV, "they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

So, fwiw. :)
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
...Not only is the 'particular shape' a number of parishes all in communion with each other, but it is also that all Christians are under the authority of her supreme pastors. Those pastors are called bishops, and they were created by the Apostles themselves....
Apostolic succession was for centuries the litmus test for whether or not a 'church' was Christian, or was rogue. If they did not have apostolic succession, in the person of an ordained bishop, then they were out of full communion with the one Church that Jesus Himself founded. This was the only test of authenticity until Nicaea, when the first authorized confession of the one Christian faith was written into history (before this, what is now the Nicean creed was only known among the bishops who received it orally from their elder bishops, who ultimately received it from the Apostles themselves, who received it from Christ).

Town, I wanted to point out something.
I'm ahead of 97% of the folks playing the ESPN Pick'em against the line.
To someone unfamiliar with you, this comes across as bragging/boasting. But I know you, and I also know that the context here indicates that you are merely providing/volunteering relevant/pertinent information to the discussion, so that others know that you're not just making things up in what you're sharing. It's helpful to provide it. You've got an algorithm that is performing really well, and you rightly think that's helpful for others to know. It's like offering up that you're a lawyer or a doctor, when the topic is law or medicine.

And that is the same spirit in which I've mentioned how long I've been at the diligent and faithful study of both theology and of Sacred Scripture. I've got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. It's Holy Catholicism.

:e4e:
 
Top