The Joys of Catholicism

[SwordOfTruth]

The Christian faith hinges on one proposition, and it is, to put it as Keith Green does in his rendition of the "Easter Song", "Jesus Christ is no longer dead (Glory to God, He is risen, Hallelujah, etc.)." Jesus Christ is no longer dead, if someone is to break Christianity, they need to break this proposition, and anti-Christians forever have tried to do it.

Actually I think that's untrue.

The Christian faith hinges in fact on the proposition that Christ is God, i.e. that he was the divine being in human form, rather than just being a plain old (though remarkable) human. If someone wants to break or dispel Christianity they need only show that Jesus was an ordinary man, not God.

This was addressed in the book "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail" which claimed that Jesus was just a man, that he married Mary Magdalene, had children like any normal man and thus had a bloodline stretching down history. That theme was also reflected in various other books not least the well known "Da' Vinci Code" by Dan Brown and the subsequent film of the book. The Gospel of Philip also aludes to this proposition in its passage that relates Jesus kissing (often) Mary.

Once you take the divinity out of Christ the doctrine of Christianity crumbles very quickly which is why of course the extra Gospels were deemed by the Church to be wrong or unsitable for the Bible whatever excuse they chose to use.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No he didn't. Go back and read his post. He clearly stated that the first test was "whether it conflicts with Scripture."

Then he went on to describe 3 other tests. He unfortunately called those other tests 1, 2 and 3 thus potentially confusing anyone who skipped over the post looking to find fault in it.

Thank you. Also, Hanlon's razor.

 

[rstrats]

...the New Covenant celebration of the Passover is done each Sunday ("And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread", Acts 20:7, also cf. 1st Corinthians 16:2).

...the New Covenant celebration of the Passover is done each Sunday ("And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread", Acts 20:7, also cf. 1st Corinthians 16:2).

You write that the New Covenant celebration of the Passover Eucharist is done each Sunday when the disciples came together to break bread , and offer Acts 20:7 and 1st Corinthian 16:2 as support.

Acts 20:7 merely says that they got together on the first to break bread. I assume that you think that means the taking of the Lord's Supper.

However, the "breaking of bread" can simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week. The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if the breaking of bread mentioned always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.

As for 1st Corinthians 16:2, nothing is said about getting together, much less for the purpose of celebrating the Passover.

 

[Nick M]

Yet Rome, by means of its innumerable masses, perpetually tries to make Him dead, over, and over, and over -- and, if I'm not mistaken, anathematizes (and wherever possible, persecutes) all who do not believe Rome's communicants are actually making Him dead by eating a wafer they claim is Him.

That actually makes some sense as why they think it is literal. Instead of Paul clearly stating we proclaim until he comes back. Do this to remember him. That is it, there is nothing else.

 

[Idolater]

Did you forget number four?

lol. I was trying to show that Vincent's first test, of his four-part test, was basically Sola Scriptura. First, check Scripture. It's totally Berean.

Then and only then, does he provide three more steps, each crucial, and so it's in no particular order, this is what was going through my mind when assigning these numbers, first and foremost is searching the Scriptures, just like the Bereans. And this wasn't some sort of proto-Evangelical, Vincent. He was just saying this is the pattern of heresies, and here's how you can check which is true, this is how you sift facts from fiction.

The first step is his most important step, first check Scripture.

If checking Scripture doesn't settle the matter, then and only, then, proceed to the next three steps, which are themselves a three-part test, there's really only one test here, but it divides into three branches. Always, everybody (the Church), and everywhere. You have to pass each one of these before you can have a good case to accept whatever the teaching is.

The test is really for Apostolicity. Meaning that if a teaching is proposed, and it fails Vincent's tests, then it's definitely NOT Apostolic. And that means it's not Christian, and not true, and that we should dismiss it.

That's what Vincent's saying anyway, as far as I'm concerned, and I find it not unreasonable.

 

[Idolater]

Actually I think that's untrue.

The Christian faith hinges in fact on the proposition that Christ is God, i.e. that he was the divine being in human form, rather than just being a plain old (though remarkable) human. If someone wants to break or dispel Christianity they need only show that Jesus was an ordinary man, not God.

That's fair. And it's a good example of how Vincent of Lerins's test for Apostolicity would fare. Arianism is always presented as a branch of Christian theology which relies on the Scriptures, even modern Arians (JWs) always prove their claims with Scriptures. So according to Vincent, checking the Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) isn't going to help with Arianism.

So look at the other tests now. First of all, let's concede that Arianism has always been believed; as I've seen sophisticated JWs actually quote-mine the ancient Church and find passages here and there which to their minds proves Arianism is ancient. So just give them that.

They're going to fall down on one of the other tests. The everywhere test. Arianism only appears in the EAST. So therefore, since it fails Vincent's tests, it's HERESY because anything that fails Vincent's tests, is NOT Apostolic.

This was addressed in the book "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail" which claimed that Jesus was just a man, that he married Mary Magdalene, had children like any normal man and thus had a bloodline stretching down history. That theme was also reflected in various other books not least the well known "Da' Vinci Code" by Dan Brown and the subsequent film of the book. The Gospel of Philip also aludes to this proposition in its passage that relates Jesus kissing (often) Mary.

Once you take the divinity out of Christ the doctrine of Christianity crumbles very quickly which is why of course the extra Gospels were deemed by the Church to be wrong or unsitable for the Bible whatever excuse they chose to use.

Yeah and none of that was Apostolic either.

 

[Idolater]

Indeed, Jesus Christ is no longer dead; He died once, 2,000 years ago, a once-for-all blood sacrifice for all the sins of all mankind, was buried, and rose again, never to die again. Yet Rome, by means of its innumerable masses, perpetually tries to make Him dead, over, and over, and over -- and, if I'm not mistaken, anathematizes (and wherever possible, persecutes) all who do not believe Rome's communicants are actually making Him dead by eating a wafer they claim is Him. And, if Jesus Christ is not made dead by Rome's Eucharist, then Rome's Eucharist is no blood sacrifice, and is powerless to save sinners. Also, what better way for Rome to advertise their "sincere belief" that Jesus Christ is no longer dead than by brandishing a papal ferula featuring an image of Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, still dying, if not dead.

It's a non-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice. And it's ontologically real, because Paul calls the Christian altar, the table of the Lord, from 1st Corinthians 10, a real altar. And so do the earliest Christian writings, it's a real altar, and that means the sacrifice is real too, that's what makes it a real altar, in some sense. I mean you could have a real altar that's never used, and it remains real, or you could have an altar that was used once, but it's never used again, and it could still be a real altar in that case too. But the point is Paul calls it the table of the Lord, and he's contrasting that with the tables of the diabolic (and those are definitely real altars), because it's a real altar.

So the Church has always offered sacrifice on her altars. This is why it's literal, the Real Presence, because it's a real sacrifice. It's not a wafer of unleavened bread, it's the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, re-presented to the Father, on the altar, by the sacerdotal priests.

We're not all sacerdotal, that's the ministerial priesthood, while we the rest of us are just common priests, but we do have the right, when properly disposed, to partake of the sacrifice. We ingest Jesus. Just literally like he said in John 6.

And we worship Him too in the Eucharist. Leighton Flowers in the video at one point said that if Catholics really believed in the Real Presence that we would worship the Eucharist—well we do. It's Adoration, or Eucharistic Adoration. Look up "monstrance," Leighton. That's what a monstrance is for. It's to DEMONSTRATE the Eucharist (monstrance and demonstrate are from the same root).

 

[Idolater]

monstrance at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Idolater]

You write that the New Covenant celebration of the Passover Eucharist is done each Sunday when the disciples came together to break bread , and offer Acts 20:7 and 1st Corinthian 16:2 as support.

You're a Seventh Day Adventist, no?

Acts 20:7 merely says that they got together on the first to break bread. I assume that you think that means the taking of the Lord's Supper.

However, the "breaking of bread" can simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week. The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

idk, maybe.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Maybe not. idk.

But even if the breaking of bread mentioned always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.

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.

As for 1st Corinthians 16:2, nothing is said about getting together, much less for the purpose of celebrating the Passover.

Could be. Not impossible.

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

 

[7djengo7]

That actually makes some sense as why they think it is literal. Instead of Paul clearly stating we proclaim until he comes back. Do this to remember him. That is it, there is nothing else.

Another interesting, bizarre thing is, if they really think that by breaking bread they are re-sacrificing the risen LORD Jesus Christ -- which is to say, making Him dead, again, and again, and again throughout the millennia -- do they think He just stays dead from then on, or do they think He keeps re-rising, over and over, as many times as they re-kill Him by their "Eucharist"? And, if He re-rises, how long after they have re-killed Him does such a re-rising occur? Three days and three nights later? (And, once they've re-killed Him, does He get re-buried? If so, how? And, by whom?) How do they know if/when He's re-risen, after they've re-killed Him? It would seem to be a kind of important thing for them, to be able to know whether or not He has re-risen, since He would need to be alive for them to be able to kill Him again by the time of their next Mass.

 

[Idolater]

Another interesting, bizarre thing is, if they really think that by breaking bread they are re-sacrificing the risen LORD Jesus Christ -- which is to say, making Him dead, again, and again, and again throughout the millennia -- do they think He just stays dead from then on, or do they think He keeps re-rising, over and over, as many times as they re-kill Him by their "Eucharist"? And, if He re-rises, how long after they have re-killed Him does such a re-rising occur? Three days and three nights later? (And, once they've re-killed Him, does He get re-buried? If so, how? And, by whom?) How do they know if/when He's re-risen, after they've re-killed Him? It would seem to be a kind of important thing for them, to be able to know whether or not He has re-risen, since He would need to be alive for them to be able to kill Him again by the time of their next Mass.

We didn't set this up. We just received from the Apostles. You'll have to take it up with them I guess.

 

[Idolater]

Many problems with this, but I've addressed some of them already in earlier posts. The final point I'll make is that Leighton Flowers' primary defeater for the Real Presence would work just as well to prove Christ's Resurrection was only spiritual or metaphorical or symbolic, or that Christ is God is metaphorical or spiritual or symbolic.

Meaning it's plausible, but it's not a slam dunk. He needs some other way to refute it definitively than this, because his method would also rule out the bodily Resurrection of Christ and Christ's divinity. That's not what he's trying to do.

 

[Nick M]

Him dead, again, and again, and again throughout the millennia -- do they think He just stays dead from then on, or do they think He keeps re-rising, over and over, as many times as they re-kill Him by their "Eucharist"?

Sozo said to godrulz, neither of which is RCC, "you're making him a goat god". That is accurate.

 

[7djengo7]

It's a non-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice.

That's gobbledygook. Either Rome's Masses are bloody sacrifices -- killings, makings-dead, unalivings -- of Jesus Christ, or they are not. Either Jesus dies again, every time you eat a wafer you claim is Him, or He does not; and if you don't believe He's re-dying when you do so (and as an effect of you doing so), then you are not sacrificing Him when you do so.

Paul calls the Christian altar, the table of the Lord, from 1st Corinthians 10, a real altar.

"Christian altar" is a phrase not found in the Bible. As far as I can tell, every instance of the word "altar" in the Bible is in a context of Hebrew ritual, and seems to have nothing to do with Christianity. And, especially, nothing is said in the Bible about Christians qua Christians possessing or using -- or being obligated to possess or use -- one or more pieces of furniture called "altars". But, notice that Rome does not take Paul's words literally, seeing as Paul says "altar" (singular) and not "altars" (plural), yet Rome possesses, world-wide, throughout her vast real estate possessions, who knows how many? costly pieces of furniture they take it upon themselves (with no Biblical warrant) to term "altars". Which one of those thousands of "altars" (plural) is the altar (singular) to which Paul is referring by his phrase "the altar", in the passage you cited?

Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Where on the earth, right now, is the piece of furniture you'd claim Paul is there referring to as "the altar"? On what continent? In what country? In what city? No piece of furniture is located -- taking up room -- in more than one city (let alone country or continent) at any given moment.

But the point is Paul calls it the table of the Lord,

In the Latin Vulgate or something? I, for one, can't find Paul in my Bible doing anything even remotely resembling calling any altar "the table of the Lord".

and he's contrasting that with the tables of the diabolic (and those are definitely real altars), because it's a real altar.

What "tables" (plural)? There, again, you show that you don’t take literally what Paul said in the passage you cited:

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Clearly, Paul wrote "the table" (singular), not "tables" (plural). Not only that, but you have thrown out Paul' plural "of devils" and replaced it with your own, ambiguous, noun-less phrase "of the diabolic". Such license-takings don't seem like the proceedings of someone taking, or trying to take literally what Paul wrote in the passage you cited.

 

[7djengo7]

We didn't set this up. We just received from the Apostles. You'll have to take it up with them I guess.

The stuff you've said, you didn't receive it from the Bible, despite your saying otherwise. And besides, why would you even need to have received anything from the Apostles, who all died by the early 2nd century, since you have your own Romish "Apostles" living on the earth, today, in the 21st century? Why can't you just receive everything you need from these latter?

 

[Nick M]

The one thing he has right is his screen name that he thought was clever.

 

[Idolater]

It doesn't have to make sense to you. That's not part of the Christian life, to only do what makes sense to you, you have to submit to the authorities put over you, they are literally overseers of the Church. They are bishops. And what they say is to believe the Bible, and the Apostles. And the Apostles are the ones who made the bishops, and Jesus is the One Who made the pope. He gave the keys to the kingdom to His Apostles, He gave them the throne of David and the seat of Moses, the power to bind and loose, and the keys to His eternal kingdom. They belong to the papacy, and the papacy belongs to the bishops, and the bishops belong to Jesus. And ofc we lay faithful are also priests, we are not ministerial priests but we are priests, all of us, so we are all Jesus's possessions, as He is our high priest, in the order of Melchizedek, who ministered with bread and wine.

You all think it matters what you think but it doesn't, and I'm not saying this because you haven't even attempted to prove this implied claim of yours that it needs to make sense to you or else you're not converting, that's never ever been any part of the faith, and I'll prove it: Show me one Scripture where this occurs. One. I'll wait. For an eternity.

You are outmatched. By JESUS. You are losing this dispute to JESUS.

 

[Idolater]

[Pulled from another thread, I think this is the better location:]

No one says to change your behavior more than a "Paul person" or "dispensationalist".

Great. Catholicism requires a lifelong commitment, people should know that in case they don't. You are committing like you commit when you get married, it's for life, you're making a promise. It is a promise to change your life, no matter how you feel, you're going to promise to change.

Publicly, in case that's not clear, like when you get married, you make your vows publicly.

So that's a big change. And as far as what you're committing to; it's satisfying the holiday obligation and avoiding grave sins. After that it's nuance but it's not impossible to just do that and be a full Catholic forever, without much difficulty, and certainly without any grave difficulty. The yoke is easy and burden is light, like He said, but you are responsible to Him for what you do with your talent, is more or less the idea. Tons of freedom in being Catholic, iow.

 

[Idolater]

Remember that authority and power are synonyms. It's easy to confuse "authoritative" with authority or having authority in terms of power, but this is a category error if you get confused in the ambiguity. Power is something a president or a court or a legislature has and wields, the written Constitution doesn't have any power in this sense. It can't prop itself up and order people around. It's authoritative, but it has no power, in the sense, of having authority.

The Bible is infallible and authoritative in this sense, but it doesn't have power. Power resides with offices, in an organization, or an organized society, like the offices of husband and wife, there is power in those offices, we recognize that power legally, such as when a husband and wife have a child, they have legal power and the right to make choices about their own children, that is power which resides with their office. They have that power because they hold that office.

The power to bind and loose, and the keys to the kingdom, are also powers, and they too reside with or belong to an office.

No one ever says or claims except for autocrats and dictators or absolute monarchs that any office or officeholder is infallible, but the Bible is infallible. Infallibility is also a category error when we wrongly apply it to an office or any officer.

Catholics merely say that the Apostles too are infallible. Vincent of Lerins provides a basic, rudimentary way to sift false claims from true claims as to what is and isn't Apostolic. If something's believed always, everywhere, by everybody, there's a good chance it's Apostolic. Very high initial plausibility, meaning you'd need a defeater to justifiably doubt the teaching. On the contrary if any teaching WASN'T believed always, everywhere, by everybody, there's no possibility that teaching's Apostolic. No other option.

 

[Idolater]

You are outmatched. By JESUS. You are losing this dispute to JESUS.

So don't feel so bad.