Oleboy

Christian, Bible believer, Husband, Father, Dilettante, Lover of liberty

[Tim Kauffman @whpub]

Within @shubzilla8's excellent and witty response we find the real problem with Rome's epistemology: her Magisterium is not the Sola Scriptura kill-shot that we were promised. As @shubzilla8 observed, Roman Catholicism would have us believe that Sola Scriptura is the sole cause of all sectarianism. Patrick Madrid, for example, once called Sola Scriptura “A Blueprint for Anarchy," claiming that "All Protestants believe they have embraced the ‘correct’ interpretation of Scripture."

Roman Catholicism, however, claims that its three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is superior to Sola Scriptura. Ok. Then Roman Catholicism should be able to do what Protestantism cannot: put an end to the division, the sectarianism and the endless doctrinal disputes.

But despite her claims, she is ever fragmented by innumerable different and contradictory interpretations of the Magisterium. Doesn't every Catholic believe he has embraced the 'correct' interpretation of the Magisterium? Of course he does. To claim to "submit" to Rome is to claim to submit to the correct interpretation of the Magisterium.

@BreeSolstad (bless her heart), is just the latest example of this, as she claims to submit to the old (2024) kind of Roman Catholicism that still uses Co-redemptrix to refer to Mary, refusing to submit to the more recent (2025) kind of Roman Catholicism that does not.

@Timotheeology recently claimed that papal minimalism is the only real kind of Roman Catholicism, and anyone who disagrees with him isn't even really Catholic.

Archbishop Vigano doesn't think Vatican II was really ecumenical and @ClassicalTheis recently claimed that one of Vatican II's documents, Pope Paul VI's Nostra Ætate (1965), was "darn near close to error." Never fear, though! He discovered (to his relief) an unpublished 1938 draft of Pius XI's Humani Generis Unitas that provided the solid ground Nostra Ætate lacked. @ClassicalTheis, as it turns out, is the unpublished 1968 Humani Generis kind of Roman Catholic, not the published 1965 Vatican II Nostra Ætate kind.

No wonder @Timotheeology once exclaimed that nobody really knows what's in the Magisterium, and lamented that "The dumbest part about being Catholic ... is that it takes a dissertation ... to figure out what the metamagisterium is." Gosh, golly, Catholics still can't even figure out if John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra or not.

Sounds like a "blueprint for anarchy," @patrickmadrid!

All of this fussin' and a-feudin' may be easily understood when Roman Catholics finally accept that the Scripture is our Magisterium. Yes, Protestants argue amongst themselves about the meaning of various Magisterial proclamations like Romans 9 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Just as Catholics argue amongst themselves about various Magisterial (and non-Magisterial) pronouncements like Nostra Ætate and Humani Generis Unitas. (But at least we don't wonder if they're infallible!)

Catholics claim that their method of resolving disputes is superior to ours because they can always appeal to the Magisterium to get a new reading on what the old Magisterium taught. But as Timothy Gordon said, that process is so confusing that you can never really know if the Magisterium has resolved anything at all: "We need a Vatican III to explain Vatican I and to explain Vatican II." But wouldn't we then need a Vatican IV after that? What was the point of the Councils in the first place if we always need another Council to interpret the previous Council?

This is what I call the @JoshuaTCharles moment, when a convert realizes that he was sold a bill of goods, and the endless doctrinal disputes didn't stop when he crossed the Tiber: "The inter-Catholic squabbles are exhausting," he wrote. Aren't they, though?

And so it seems our dear @StNickofMyra is on the verge of his own Joshua Charles moment, verbalizing his frustration at the reality of unending magisterial contradictions: "This is likely why I won't be Catholic very long unless someone can explain this to me." I feel you, St. Nick, but nobody can explain it. They don't know how.

Oh, I know we Protestants have our disagreements. But don't worry. When we disagree amongst ourselves we simply appeal to our Magisterium, the Scripture, just like Roman Catholics appeal to theirs. But we do have one tiny benefit that Roman Catholicism lacks: our Magisterium cannot contradict itself, for the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Therefore, we don't spend our days lamenting the unending contradictions of our infallible Magisterium. There aren't any.

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, has over a billion denominations now (one for every Roman Catholic), and apparently grows a new one every time the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues another "clarification." But I'm sure the next papal proclamation will finally put an end to all "the inter-Catholic squabbles" once and for all! 😇

https://t.co/hxNVVc7nQq

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@Catholicizm1 The pope and Pachamama?

[AmericanPapaBear™ @AmericaPapaBear]

Black man was blasting his music on his phone in the waiting room of the doctors office.

White woman calls him out for it and ask him to turn it down and he freaks out!

He even went as far as to say he would have his girlfriend beat her up.

Regular folks are fed up with this!

[Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 @MLJHaynes]

BREAKING: Pope Leo on the SSPX consecrations —

“I am considering making another appeal and saying ‘don't do this, let's try to live the communion of the Church.’ But it is their choice.

We must realize what it means for them and for the Church. Certainly, the division among Christians is a painful point.

However, they refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points of the Second Vatican Council. If they make that choice, I am sorry. But we must move forward”

[Daniel Concannon @TooWhiteToTweet]

There are anti-White murders that happen literally every day that we never hear a word about.

But a White teenager says he's “not interested in working for a Jew” and it dominates the media cycle for days?

Amazin'.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

I want his life to be ruined...

[Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 @infolibnews]

"I want his life to be ruined!"

Fox News' Emily Compagno, 46, demands 19-year-old college student Austin Franco have his life ruined for saying in a private email that he's "not interested in working for a Jew."

Cancel culture is back—Fox News & Palantir are leading the charge.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

Always deserving of a repost

[Tim Kauffman @whpub]

What's ironic about this halting attempt at establishing transubstantiation from Irenaeus is that the citations are from Irenaeus' account of the Last Supper at the moment when Jesus "confessed" unconsecrated wine to be His blood and "acknowledged" unconsecrated bread to be His body. Irenaeus focuses on the fact that it is "created" wine and "created" bread to drive home a rhetorical point: that Jesus had invested created things with symbolic value in order to counter a deeply held gnostic belief.

Irenaeus' whole 5 volume work Against Heresies was addressed to Gnostics who believed the heavenly powers cannot "come in contact with any of those things which belong to creation” (AH 2.15.1) and that there were two gods, an evil one that had created, and a holy one that had not, and therefore Jesus' Father could not be the Creator (AH 4.33.2). From this they reasoned that Jesus could not have a body, could not have suffered and died, and that there could be no resurrection of the flesh. It destroyed the Gospel.

To counter this claim, Irenaeus observes that Jesus used created things to reveal the Father: "For by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator" (AH 4.6.6). Why? because of their rich symbolic value: "These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; ... that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things;" (AH 4.16.1).

So in the next chapter, Irenaeus applies the Eucharistic liturgy of the Supper to that very purpose, showing that God continued using created things for their symbolic value. This is why he keeps coming back to the fact that Jesus had used "created" wine to indicate His blood, and "created" bread to indicate His body. He was showing how concepts and truths could be symbolically "indicated by created things", just as God had been doing since the beginning of creation.

Here are Irenaeus' accounts of the Last Supper, and note his consistent theme:

Irenæus: Jesus "took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood" (AH 4.17.5)

Irenæus: Jesus "acknowledged (lit. confessed) the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood ... and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body" (AH 5.2.2).

The Catholic application of Irenaeus here glosses over the very point he was making, but don't miss it on their account. Irenaeus' sole point here is that there is no way Jesus would have called created bread and created wine His body and blood if His Father was not the Creator:

“[H]ow could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?” (AH 4.33.2).

As with those citations above, this again is a description of a moment when Jesus took unconsecrated created food in his hand and used it to indicate a truth, using something created for its symbolic value. What was He illustrating? That He had a body. That He had blood. "For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made" (AH 5.2.2). By thanking His Father for created food, He showed that there is only one God, the Creator, and that Creator is His Father. Irenaeus had demonstrated the very thing the gnostics denied, because nothing illustrates the union of flesh and spirit better than Jesus offering created food to His Father, the Creator.

Irenaeus believed that just before the Supper, Jesus had instituted a new covenant oblation of first fruits of the harvest as a thank offering, saying that He was "giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things" (AH 4.17.5). Therefore in imitation of Him, Christians "are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation" as a Eucharist tithe offering (AH 4.18.1), the new covenant oblation. Because nothing announces the union of flesh and spirit like an offering of created food to the Father:

"For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit." (AH 4.18.5)

Yes, Jesus called created bread His body and created wine His blood for their symbolic value, because the truths of the Creator God are "indicated by created things," the very point he had made in the previous chapter. Irenaeus didn't think Jesus was "confessing" that the bread was really changed into His body, or acknowledging that the wine was really changed into His blood (it hadn't even been consecrated yet), and he certainly wasn't teaching that the answer to the gnostic heresy was to offer Jesus' body and blood to the Father as the new covenant oblation. No. Irenaeus simply countered the gnostics by showing how Jesus invested bread and wine with symbolic value, indicating sacred truths with created things. Symbols.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@whpub @ReformedToRome It's quite difficult to read RTR's response because it is so filled w/ diatribe- it's like a transcription of an angry rant a at a bar or something. @ReformedToRome take it down a couple of notches and just respond to the assertions being made.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@seethroughit2 That would be Catholicism. Never mistake Catholicism for Christianity.

[Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil]

Here's a list of the reasons women provide for why they got an abortion.

The least common explanation was incest, followed by rape. The most common was that having a baby would be a lot to handle.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@HumbleFlow Come out of the great whore, repent of your sins, and trust in Christ.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

PLEASE

[Breitbart News @BreitbartNews]

Podcaster Larry Reid calls for a "mass exodus" of black Americans to Africa in response to the Karmelo Anthony verdict.

"I want you to begin to think about this America and the white people problem that we have... As a collective, let's drain this place of its benefits and make our mass exodus and go home and build."

"Civil rights did not make white people that are infected with whiteness stop being racist. They still raised racist children that run this country to this day."

"You come from a land that flows with milk and honey. They pulled you out of that land ancestrally and brought you to a place to where your royalty was not recognized. Used your black power, your black mysticism, your African spirituality, and your physiological superiority to build this country and give everybody reparations except you."

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@bigbabolat They aren't this advanced. At least one guy on the right has donations khakis and a belt from the west.

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@ClassicalTheis Ahhh the exact same way the apostles did it.

[Joshua Charles🇻🇦 @JoshuaTCharles]

Our entire system is built on this outrageous theft.

A sin that cries to heaven, as it defrauds so many of the very labor by which they have earned a living by literally stealing the value of it ex post facto, penalizing frugality in the process.

“Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (James 5:4).

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

Lovely

[American Values 🇺🇸 @AVGirl4Life]

SERIOUS QUESTION

Why are black people so violent and racist?

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@Defensofidei Check out the Borgias (2011)

https://t.co/VsL4rR2NH4

[Mostly Peaceful Memes @MostlyPeaceful]

“Stop sending your kids to these white schools”

[Oleboy @OleboyVA]

@man_of_options 1 tim 3? Are you kidding?

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Yesterday in NYC…

Jonathan Pettigrew (41) asks a "teen" on an MTA bus to lower his phone volume — the "teen" kills him: