Immaculate Conception

[Thursday]

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

==========================


The Faith Explained – Page 350
“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351

A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC teaching?),mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

================= end quote


Catholic Catechism
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

Why do you think your opinion is more valid than that of those who learned the gospel from the apostles?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Scripture can be twisted to mean almost anything. That is why hundreds of protestant churches who follow the bible teach contradictory doctrines.

I see you have been busy posting again, this time mainly to a heterodox Prot after ignoring the reproofs i gave you by the grace of God.

But once again you are parroting an invalid argument, for simply because something can see disagreement does not invalidate it as a means to unity, and hundreds of Protestant churches also concur on core Truths because of the manifest degree of Scriptural warrant, and the strongest real unity is testified to by those who profess the strongest esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, in contrast to the real (not paper or rote profession) unity of Rome, and who is simply one of those churches which teach doctrines contradictory to others.

For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

If this is not your basis for assurance that Rome is the one true church, but if it is the weight of evidence, than you cannot fault us for rejecting claims of Rome on the same basis. If your argument is that we need an infallible magisterium to tell us what is of God, rejecting private interpretation, then how did souls know what was of God before there was a church of Rome which imaginatively presumed it was essential for this?

Jesus started a single Church. If you want to understand the bible, you need to listen to his Church.

Which is another of your mere assertions, but implicitly trusting leadership, with the "one duty of the multitude" being to "simply follow the pastors" as per papal teaching, is cultic, and contrary to how the Christian church began, thus even that presumption alone disallows the church of Rome from being the one true church.

 

[Thursday]

I see you have been busy posting again, this time mainly to a heterodox Prot after ignoring the reproofs i gave you by the grace of God.

But once again you are parroting an invalid argument, for simply because something can see disagreement does not invalidate it as a means to unity, and hundreds of Protestant churches also concur on core Truths because of the manifest degree of Scriptural warrant, and the strongest real unity is testified to by those who profess the strongest esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, in contrast to the real (not paper or rote profession) unity of Rome, and who is simply one of those churches which teach doctrines contradictory to others.

For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

If this is not your basis for assurance that Rome is the one true church, but if it is the weight of evidence, than you cannot fault us for rejecting claims of Rome on the same basis. If your argument is that we need an infallible magisterium to tell us what is of God, rejecting private interpretation, then how did souls know what was of God before there was a church of Rome which imaginatively presumed it was essential for this?

Which is another of your mere assertions, but implicitly trusting leadership, with the "one duty of the multitude" being to "simply follow the pastors" as per papal teaching, is cultic, and contrary to how the Christian church began, thus even that presumption alone disallows the church of Rome from being the one true church.

Jesus only started one Church.

Which one do you think it is?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You pretty much need the institutional church in order to celebrate the Lord's Supper, though, no matter which interpretation of "This is my Body" you consider correct.

True: having "communion" with yourself is a contradiction in terms, and contrary to the Lord's Supper as described in 1Co. 11.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The scripture makes it clear that there is a single Church and that the Church has authority.

Actually we see that the apostles were manifestly men of God in word and in power, and thus under such the NT had its limited degree of unity, while Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

And we further see that the authority of the church of Rome is so weak that even proabortion, prohomosexual public persons find a home here, and attack conservative evangelicals.

We also see this in Acts 15, when Paul and other Christians had a dispute regarding requirements for gentile converts. They didn't make a decision there, rather they consulted the Church leaders for a resolution.

Indeed, and a centralized magisterium is the ideal, which Rome idea has poisoned with her unScriptural imitation.

For it is was James who provided the Scripturally substantiated final judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, with the basis for the veracity of which being Scripturally substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

In addition, there was not one single minister there who was distinctively titled a "priest." Thus Acts 15 is an argument against Rome.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

In fact, it isn't even that. The reference to "church" in this case is to the people of God collectively, not to the institutional church.

Actually, Mt. 18 is referring to a organic community, while the one true church is the corporate body of Christ, as it only consists of blood-bought born again believers, while the visible church contains both wheat and tares.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

According to you.

John 6 35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

David distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “ be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “ He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “ the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify.

Paul confirms this here:
1 Cor 10
6Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and here:
1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Some Roman Catholic apologists invoke 1Co. 10 as supporting transubstantiation in saying, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

However, as examination of the next chapter will reveal, this refers to believers showing fellowship with Christ in His death through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning:

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 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. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.
The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “ Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)

And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “ in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “ For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “ Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.

While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead it often results in seeing the Lord's death as simply being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.

And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is a contradiction in terms to its manifest description of communion. And the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, and in which service many Catholics sees interaction with others as an intrusion, and with man with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.

While the superficial observance of this ordinance may not always result in manifest chastening (which judgment is relative to light given) unto death, yet “not discerning the Lord's body” as described does result in the corporate body being “weak and sickly” a compared to the NT church. And I must repent of being selfish sometimes myself.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Here's what Jesus said:
Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

And which refers to all who are believers (relative few of which are RCs), for while Caths exclude those outside herself from having authority to minister in the name of the Lord, He reproved such sectarian spirit:

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are just making things up.

Can you find a single Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity who agreed with you?

Not with that all that poster holds, but can you find a single Christian in the first 50 years of Christianity who agreed with all Rome teaches? Can you even find prayer to anyone else in Heaven from creation to post apostolic times, or one NT minister being titled "priest" and exampling a unique sacerdotal function?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

We consider the bread and wine to be Christ's flesh and blood in a supernatural, heavenly sense,

And according to a RC researcher, the term "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term and distinctive from Catholicism Neoplatonic metaphysical explanation.

From a RC monk and defender:

Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...

The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...

That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.p...iation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)

Edwin Hatch:
...it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr. But at the same time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful for men to touch, the elements were taken by the communicants to their homes and carried about with them on their travels. (Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church;" pp. 308-09

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ha! Fair enough.
I have a challenge for you, though.
Do some research into what the early Christians(those who learned the gospel from the apostles and the next couple of generations of church leaders) believed and practiced.
I think you will find that it is quite a bit different than many of your beliefs and practices.

And you will also find some that it is quite a bit different than some of your beliefs, while these uninspired writings (and it is estimated that we see relative few) simply cannot be determinitive of doctrine, as Scripture is the only transcendent substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If the bible was sufficient then why are there so many Christian beliefs that contradict each other?

Because sufficiency refers to ability, which can be used to build or destroy. Scripture is an instrument, and while a car can be sufficient to get you to Alabama, it can be used for wrong purposes also.

Likewise under the premise that the church is sufficient, a church can do good or evil.

Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one.
Do you think they disagree about what is true?

Do you even think about what you are arguing? Do you really things Catholicism is one with each other? In reality, evangelicals (in which we find the only real Protestants) are more essentially unified in the sense of Jn. 17:21, with Christ in them and they in Christ and manifesting more basic unity than RCs, thus the liberals as well as many RCs see them as their greatest Western threat.

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.

Actually the Lord began a church upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as per the past, (Exodus 17:14) the word of God was committed to writing for preservation.

His Church then both wrote down his teachings and preserved them in tradition.

His church which did so was fundamentally different than than that of Rome, while the argument that the instruments and stewards of Scripture are the infallible interpreters of it (thru the magisterial office) effectively nukes the church.

What would it hurt you to read about the early Church? Do you think you know more about what Jesus taught than the men who learned the gospel from the apostles?

Indeed, what would it hurt you to read about the early Church in the NT can compare it to the progressive deformation which Catholicism is, with so-called "church fathers" somewhat exampling that with the accretion of traditions.

How do you even know if the right books are in the New Testament?

The same way souls before the church began knew that certain men and writings were of God, and thus enabled the Lord and church to appeal to them as they abundantly did!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That sounds like protestantism to me, which is full of teachers who allow gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc.

That is an invalid argument since you cannot compare one church with a group of loosely defined others, and the real (versus paper or professed) unity of Rome is not necessarily greater than other particular churches. In fact cults have the greatest actual unity, while the convenient one-size-fits-all definition of protestantism" is typically so broad that you can fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it.

The real issue is the basis for unity in the NT with its manifest apostles, (2Co. 6:4-10) which was not that of Rome, nor easy.

But the idea that one can support gay marriage, abortion etc. and be a Protestant is like saying that are Christian. One must define such by the source, but as RCs are to simply follow the pastors, and Rome, from pope to local prelates manifestly consider even proabortion, prohomosexual pols to be members, then you must consider them so.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How do you know which books belong in the New Testament?

The truth is, the Church was on its fourth pope before the book of Revelation was even written.
Which is another argument against you, as he as well as another pope is utterly absent in the book of revelation, despite the letters to the churches with their commendations and condemnations. Moreover, even one command or exhortation to specifically pray for, submit to, or look a pope in Rome as the supreme infallible head of the church is also utterly absent, even among the 30 odd people in Rm. 16!

Likewise absent is any manifest apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)

Even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the propaganda of RCs of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme heads:

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
The Church predates the New Testament...

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...

the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
More by God's grace.

How did the early Christians learn the gospel? How did they worship?

By hearing leaders who established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) not the the novel and premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Jesus only started one Church.

The question is, which Church is it?

It cannot be that of Rome, as it stands in critical and substantial contrast to the NT church.

Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as [/FONT]

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Tells us.
Is it the Church that teaches this?
John 20
If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Which is understood in the light of the rest of the NT, and which is never shown to be that of souls regularly coming to leadership to be forgiven, but it shown to have to do with special cases of discipline, with the judicial power of binding and loosing belonging to the OT magisterium in settling disputes, (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 18:15-18) we all as fathers over daughters, and husbands over wives, (Num. 30) and even civil powers, while the spiritual power, which includes intercession for deliverance of chastened souls, (Mk. 2:1-11; Ja. 5:14,15) also is provided for all holy souls of fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound and loosed the heavens.

And thus the only exhortation to confess sins is a general one to each other,
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; (James 5:16-19)

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

or this?
John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

And as this is just an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements, then if the literal view is correct then it has to mean that those who do not believe in the Catholic "Real Presence" and consume it have no spiritual life in them.

Which relegates you to being in dissent from V2 and akin to SSPV type RCs.

The fact is that only the figurative understanding is what easily and substantively is conflative with the rest of Scripture, as seen here in part by God's grace.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Not if he rejects the Church.

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Which actually flows from the OT magisterium, (Dt. 17:8-13) and refer to settling personal disputes here, but it can also extend to doctrinal disputes, as the SS Westminster Confession affirms "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith," etc.

But the key difference leads to the key question, which is, where you see ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as essential for authority, and the preservation of faith?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Jesus started a single Church, gave that Church his authority to teach and to forgive sins, and that Church still exists.
Why wouldn't you want all that it offers?

If everything that Rome bound on earth was bound in Heaven then the apostles would be bound, and the sword of men loosed on believers. "Separated" brethren in-deed.

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church ; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That is not an answer.
You seem to be saying that your interpretation of scripture is infallible and whatever you think the bible says is doctrine.

I do not know what the poster is claiming, but SS means the veracity of Truth claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. not the premise of ensured personal veracity, as per the pope. Which is the epitome of personal interpretation being definitive.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm like hundreds of former protestant pastors who are now Catholic. I've learned the truth.

Highly dubious considering your poor responses, or lack thereof, and while your idea of Protestant as supporting gay marriage, abortion etc. also impugns you.

Meanwhile, the amount of souls who leave Rome for evangelical churches is far greater, and it was the common people who heard the Lord gladly. (Mk. 12:37)