No. It. Isn't. Okay, you bought the line. It is not shared by any means.
This line of discussion started with you saying you “ cannot argue with a man who loves his organization "no matter what." ” Put yourself in my shoes. The standard Roman Catholic Church is Jesus's Church, the Church singular, the One Church, in the literal Bible. Paul and Peter wrote epistles to this One Church, we have them. They are letters written to the Church simpliciter, and that Church still exists today, and why wouldn't it? Jesus said He's not going to build on sand, and that the gates won't prevail. He said He's going to build on rock. Rock.
But so here I'm not arguing standard Roman Catholicism's right. I'm merely defending my right to love what is Jesus's. I know, you don't believe the standard Roman Catholic Church is Jesus's, but I do, and so I'm going to treat the Church that way, and I have that right, and, in fact, it's asking me to just cede the whole discussion to you, to say something like that I "love my organization no matter what". That's ... sneaky, Lon.
I love the Church like I love America. Can America do no wrong? ofc not! America's done very much wrong, but I still love America. And I have a right to love Jesus's Church, for the same reason, for an even more powerful reason, but at least for roughly the same reason, that I haven't abandoned America because Americans used to countenance slavery.
To say that because America did something wrong, like maybe invading Iraq the second time, as some people say, or slavery, or fighting a Civil War to prevent Americans from packing up and taking their land with them when they wanted out. We fought a war where the victors said you are free to leave, but you have to leave behind your land, because it really belongs to the rest of us and not, at the end of the day, to you. It was a pivotal, crucial point in our history. And many Americans even say that it was wrong, but no matter what, I can still love America.
No, of course I cannot prove something to someone who doesn't care about facts. I gave them. Done deal.
Facts are great, I love facts, even inconvenient ones, because they sharpen my intellect. But you're not providing an argument, you're just fact dumping, and acting like they speak for themselves WHICH IS FAIR. I grant you you can do that. But now I do the legwork of explicating what I'm gathering is your implicit argument, an argument you think is so clear it goes without saying, so I'm saying it, I'm saying what I think it is, i.e., what the facts you provide mean, all on their own. And you're not engaging, at all. Like fingers in the ears and eyes shut tight.
Not in the church building where they are supposed to be safe! My fellowship has FBI checks.
We all do too. And every day almost it seems, another Evangelical pastor is revealed to be a predator, it's not confined to the Church by any means. You're pointing to a societal problem, but you want to hang it on the Church, when it's rather a social and criminal plague that also infected the Church, along with most other organizations.
You said "organization." I'll keep it. It is exactly how I think of the RC.
One among interpretations. It fits nicely into your expectation, whether that expectation is wrong or not. You are unwilling to entertain anything else.
That's false. What evidence do you have to support this wild claim? I already went through the "entertainment" part, thoroughly, that's WHY I made the choice for standard Roman Catholicism. Meaning to say, I came into TOL decades ago as an Evangelical Clavinist, a five-pointer. I entertained what everybody else was selling. I also fought for my own view, as you're supposed to do here, if you want to be interesting, and add value, you can't just be a gainsayer here.
My view was defeated, it was un-alive on its feet. I was able to salvage quite a bit of it, as you know, JP2's Catechism (the only current catechism of standard Roman Catholicism, quoted from even on the Daily Wire as authoritative) agrees with mainstream Evangelicalism in terms of enumerated doctrines 80-95% in all likelihood. So I didn't change much, as far as intellect, but it is a big change to go from having no grave obligation to "go to church", to having one. I mean there's zero evidence that I don't know how to change my mind. Zero. You don't go from having less obligation to having more without changing your mind. You can even go from having more to having less, and that's still proof positive of a changed mind, and I have the opposite, so I know how to change my mind. I can just as easily go back to having less obligation, if I want to change my mind again, I know how to do that, obv.
You haven't critically read Acts and it shows.
I have. But much, much more importantly, I have considered what all Mid Acts parties have to offer, their best stuff. So while I myself can critically read Acts, and come away with a different view of it than Mid Acts has, so that I don't miss anything, I engage with Mid Acts arguments, testing them to see if they are true. It's a both-and, and not an either-or. There's one correct view of Acts, so it's the Scripture plus that correct view, which ultimately boils down to just the Scripture, but without the correct view, that is a misleading thing to say, because now you're just encouraging folks to read and interpret it prima facie, just according to whatever their education level is, fifth-grade reading level or whatever it is. And that's fine, as long as they don't end up as some kind of heretic! Docetists, Marcionites, Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Mormons all came out of that facile idea that you should just believe what the Bible says, all these people would tell you they believe the Bible, and its plain meaning. And they're all wrong. So there is a correct view. It's either Mid Acts, or it isn't. No other option.
You haven't read Paul's letters to see what the early churches looked like (there were 7, not one, amongst Jews for another instance, all responsible for their own congregation).
Seven what? And are you saying Jerusalem wasn't one of the seven? Doubt.
You don't pay attention because you've bought someone's interpretation and you don't like anything else.
I do pay attention, since I've been fooled before and I don't want to be fooled again.
I believe what the Bible says.
What I like, doesn't enter into it.
So, of course it fits your expectation. Of course it does. I'm not a dupe. I dig for understanding the scriptures.
So do I.
Just men of God, ministering (never abusing) the Body. The RC adopted Levitical status.
You mean what? that there's no Church offices in the Bible? That there are no duties which associate and cluster around certain individuals in the Bible? I mean you think "bishop" and "deacon" are just ... I don't even know, nicknames? What exactly do you mean here, when you say that deacons and bishops are "just men"? I mean I never said they were anything other than men, I was saying they were holding offices. Are you saying there were no offices? If not, I guess I have no idea what you're saying. I need some clarity from you.
Yes you did! When you remained, you consented.
First off it all happened BEFORE I converted, so I consented WHEN I CONVERTED, for sure, but it was not PASSIVE like you're intimating here.
Secondly, I "consent" in the same way that I consent to American slavery, see above. America too has committed sins, crimes. I still love America. And really, where else would I go? Is there some white-as-snow alternative? No, not unless you're talking about seclusion and removing yourself from society, which I wouldn't recommend. That's a hallmark of the diabolic.
Yes. It is no longer in keeping with a 'good' church on the scale we are talking about. It was pervasive.
So you are saying that literally the standard Roman Catholic Church did consist of valid, extant Church offices, right up until the 20th century child sex crime crisis which infected the Church at that time? And only now are those offices destroyed? That seems extremely weird. So basically anything before this child abuse crisis infiltrated the Church, would have been back when those offices were still valid? And it's only the sex abuse crisis that invalidated everything?
That doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm sure I'm just missing something.
Yes. It is no longer a church (gathering) in Christ on this massive of a scale. It doesn't matter if you chose United Methodist to support by the same token. Wrong is wrong is wrong on such a staggering massive scale. I left the United Methodist Church over these same type of problems, scriptural disobedience, and abuses. It was the righteous thing to do.
So what's your alternative? Do you think that valid Church offices actually exist "in the wild" or something? That you can just find them anywhere basically? That they can just spontaneously spawn or something?
Or do you think that Church offices aren't a thing at all anymore, since I'm sure so many of them have been held by enough bad men that they are all by now invalid?
What is your theology of Church offices?
It is as simple and long as reading your bible. The early churches had no centrality.
Yes they did, they had the Apostles. Acts 15 proves that, it's not extra-Biblical proof. The centrality of the Church held a global convention, and all the Apostles and many bishops were there.
There 'can' be good in centrality, but the problem is that in centrality, when abuses start, they are full church with little [or] no accountability. Such, in the hands of unbelievers, becomes an abusive 'organization.'
That's an interesting political take, but are you saying that because abuses are possible with offices, that offices therefore cannot exist rn?
Just to mention it before I forget, the closest thing to a c. Church that I know of which resembles a movement without centrality or offices is Quakerism. I know they don't have anything like a leader. So to my eyes you're arguing for something like Quakerism, so I'm mentioning it so I don't forget to [ask you to] please submit or nominate what [your] actual alternative is, if you're arguing that formal Church offices don't exist.
Tradition is fine, but relationship is the thing. If the relationship is shallow, so is the tradition.
WE EAT Jesus, there's nothing shallow about our relationship with the Lord.
"Churches." Revelation was written to 'churches.'
Seven, yeah. It was a menorah. One menorah, seven lampstands.
Rome, in arrogance, thinks it the only legitimate church, as if Christ isn't the One who builds His churches.
There is no other serious option. Orthodoxy is not One, even though they profess to believe in "One Church," since the schism between the Papacy, they have been nothing but schism, even today, there is formal schism between multiple Orthodox ChurchES. They are not One Church. They confess with their mouth to believing in One Church, but only in standard Roman Catholicism is unity actually found. It's part of the Papacy's purpose, is to establish and secure Church unity.
Being faithful to Jesus is not the same as being uncritically dedicated to a group of people
No, dedicated to the offices they hold. This is like again, America. I may not like the guy holding the offices of President, Chief Justice or Speaker of the House rn, but I am devoted to the offices. ofc with America we also have the Constitution, which every politician and jurist swears to uphold and protect, and we as standard Roman Catholics have a similar bargain, where we too can judge our leaders according to the moral law of God.
who show no love for the Savior over decades.
Who does, perfectly? And you're not saying it explicitly so I have to surmise you mean by this the child sex crime crisis that infected the Church (and a lot of the rest of our society)?
Jesus said 'church' singular not at all meaning Rome
Prove it. Declaratory.
Rather, He was establishing the Papacy, which is HIS, meaning HIS THRONE.
(an organization by your defiinition).
Because offices exist. Offices ipso facto make an organization. Again what is your alternative? Some form of Quakerism, without any offices or leadership or formal duties? Meaning, NOT organized? Or do you have some other idea that DOES involve at least one office? Because even just one office establishes organization. Not everybody is holding that office, that's a distinction, and so there is organization. Structure. Hierarchy. Not everybody is the same. Not people, because people are all the same, but because offices are not the same. I hold the office of man of the house, for example. The rest of my family do not hold the office, just me. It's organized. As basic an organization as that is, it is organized. Sometimes the man of the house has to take care of something. Or at least if it is undone, then it's the man of the house who's responsible. It's because of his office, not because he's inherently different from the other family members, ontologically.
Not all Israel is Israel and not all church organization attenders are His church, that He was building.
Granted. JP2's Catechism says this explicitly.
You conflate physical with spiritual as does the RC.
No. And never. Rather, we understand the relationship between physical and spiritual like nobody's business. Like none of you, like no Evangelicals do. Nor can you, really, not without, converting.
It does exist: Jesus Christ Himself, on an individual basis.
Then you have the same problem as above, with Mormons and JWs and Christian Scientists crawling out of the woodwork. Yes we all agree that Jesus is Highest Priest. It's an office, and He's the One officeholder of that office. But so do Docetists believe that. Marcionites. Arians.
You have to discriminate.
"Churches" won't stand before the Judgement Seat, individuals will and you and I will give account for what we found acceptable. You stay with your abusers because you want to, no matter how bad they are.
Just like as an American, I stay with America, no matter how bad Americans are. I thank God for America, in spite of blemishes. The Framers didn't prevent abuses, they formed a government, composed of offices. I believe in that government. I will uphold and defend that government. And I will support and pray for good men to hold all those offices.
That is your choice, your responsibility. A joy? I'd rather think 'a commitment' however misplaced.
Oh it's a commitment, yes. Like matrimony. It's a public commitment, a public promise. You convert before the faithful, if you do it traditionally. (I'm not talking to you here, since all you need to do is go to confession, already having been Catholic—this is for the benefit of others who are not cradlers.) Basically, to sum it up in a nutshell, you're making a public promise or vow, to satisfy your Mass obligation, and avoid grave sins like adultery, forever, for the rest of your life. It is a big life change, it's a big moment in your life.
I can't explain how, but Joy comes out of it. We believe in "graces", or blessings. We also believe when we ask the Father for the Holy Spirit, He's not going to offer us a scorpion instead.
Commendable? I don't know, I can't answer that for you nor will question it, but I do oppose it.
Of course not
No. ofc. If you're wrong, then ofc the Eucharist is not "a shadow" (your words) of Christ's Real Presence.
: When the only time you 'feel real presence' is only at the Eucharist, that is much much less than my fellowship with the Creator. Much.
This is unfalsifiable nonsense, and very thick emoting.
Of course, because you'd have to entertain uncomfortable things otherwise.
I have and continue to entertain everything you folks set out. My point is You do not understand standard Roman Catholicism. You have a passing familiarity, and most likely, far more familiarity with your local Catholic cultural customs and favorite devotions, rather than with Catholic theology.
This is TOL, we're here, to hash out theology. I have found the correct theology, and that's what I'm here to discuss. It wasn't like the treasure buried in a field. I didn't have to sell all that I own to buy it, all I had to give up was one or two hours a week, and swear off adultery in all its forms (adultery is the umbrella for all offenses against chastity), along with all the other grave sins, like unforgiveness. I've committed to not commit adultery. I've committed to it in marriage, and I've committed to it in religion.
That lack is in you, not me. You don't have a great-uncle who is a priest I'd wager.
You keep saying it as if it matters. Standard Roman Catholic theology doesn't depend on anybody's great-uncle or priest, it depends on JP2's Catechism. If your uncle contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church—he's wrong—and that's that. It means nothing, who your uncle is. It's a red herring, completely irrelevant.
You can talk about your experiences all you like, they do not trump mine. Sorry, fact. You are condescending
Where am I condescending? Quote me or it didn't happen. Show me the receipts.
because you must be to protect what you want to protect. You must deny my experiences with the RC else they'd cause issues.
I don't deny your experiences! I deny your conclusions you've inferred from them.
You are the one bringing up [Father] Dan [Reehil; exorcist of Nashville] repeatedly: You need to do so, he has very little to do with me and the inordinate attention is your need, not mine. Fact.
He's just a black swan, and your theory can't tolerate a black swan, your proposition is that all swans are white, so therefore, if a black swan exists, then you're theory is (somewhat) wrong, and you're the one who can't personally tolerate the prospect of being wrong here—not me—and yours is the theory that falls apart if even a single black swan is ontic—not mine.
And that's a fact. A black swan kills your theory, it un-alives it, it murders it.
