Splougy

Cradle Catholic | Fool from Proverbs 30:2 Operator, V.I.A. Office of the General Inquisitor | Vitamin K Deficiency | AI-conoclast is a Condemned Heresy

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon “I won” is not an argument. It’s what people say when the receipts stopped helping.

I’ll pray for you.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Yes. And the part you keep missing is “same sacrifice,” not “new sacrifice.”

Hebrews refutes re-crucifixion, not the Eucharistic participation in Christ’s once-for-all offering.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@defenestrat1ons I think the biggest turn off was the no tip.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@kirawontmiss Hope he was able to open a CD before he went to jail.

[Splougy @Splougy]

Real talk you keep changing the claim. First it was “Catholic wasn’t mentioned until the 4th century.” Then it became “not Roman Catholic with later papal supremacy.” Then when asked to pick a sacrament, you shifted to proving the full medieval Mass exactly as later defined.

That’s the problem. Development is not invention, and moving the target every time evidence appears is not an argument.

[Splougy @Splougy]

This is a strawman. Catholic teaching is not that Christ is sacrificed again, it is that the one sacrifice is made present sacramentally.

Your own Catechism screenshots say “re-presents/makes present the sacrifice of the cross,” not “crucifies Christ again.” You asked for apostolic roots, got Paul and Ignatius, then moved the goalpost to proving every later liturgical formulation exactly as later prescribed.

[Splougy @Splougy]

Catholics don’t teach Christ is re-sacrificed repeatedly. You’ll learn this in RCIA.

Hebrews proves the sacrifice is once-for-all; the Mass is the Eucharistic participation in that one sacrifice. Paul calls the cup participation in Christ’s blood and the bread participation in Christ’s body, and Ignatius says the Eucharist is Christ’s flesh. That is already far beyond “mere remembrance.”

[Splougy @Splougy]

Paul says participation in the cup is participation in Christ’s blood and participation in the bread is participation in Christ’s body, not “just a symbol” 1 Cor 10:16.

Then Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, condemns those who deny the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, so the apostolic and early Church clearly did not treat communion as mere memorial theater.

[Splougy @Splougy]

Pick one. I’m not doing a doctrine speedrun because you moved from “the Church didn’t exist” to “prove every later Catholic practice exactly as prescribed.” Baptism, Eucharist, confession, bishops, apostolic tradition, and sacramental authority all have apostolic roots. Which one do you want first?

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Congrats on winning the debate you invented after losing the one you started.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ So how does a list of later doctrinal definitions prove the Catholic Church wasn’t around earlier? You keep jumping from “doctrine developed” to “the Church didn’t exist.” That does not follow.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ So even your “I won” screenshot says your original 4th-century origin claim does not hold. That was the claim being challenged.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Bro, let it go. It’s okay, sometimes we get bested. Don’t be the fool from Proverbs.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ @grok

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Since you asked to see how I’d “twist it,” here’s the overall verdict from a source you trust.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Twist, okay~

[Grok @grok]

Thanks Splougy. Exactly. The goalpost shift is obvious. “Catholic” (universal) for the apostolic Church appears with Ignatius of Antioch ~110 AD. The 380 Edict simply gave imperial preference to the already-existing Nicene faith centered in Rome and Alexandria after persecution ended in 313. It did not create the Church Christ built (Matt 16:18).

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Are you actually reading what Grok is saying? You keep posting Grok like it helps you, but it keeps saying my point back to you.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ You asked Grok to prove I was wrong, and it conceded Ignatius used “Catholic Church” around AD 110. Now you’re retreating to “but it wasn’t Vatican I yet,” which was never the claim.

[Splougy @Splougy]

@YanagitaRon @CatholicDrip___ Development is not invention, and Ignatius already kills the 4th-century origin story.

[Grok @grok]

Thanks Splougy. Exactly. The goalpost shift is obvious. “Catholic” (universal) for the apostolic Church appears with Ignatius of Antioch ~110 AD. The 380 Edict simply gave imperial preference to the already-existing Nicene faith centered in Rome and Alexandria after persecution ended in 313. It did not create the Church Christ built (Matt 16:18).