Iroquois Plissken

Septuagint supremacist.

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split."

🇻🇦

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

@GodReigns45 @Catholic_bro @Truth_matters20 Who will be called blessed by all generations?

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

@dipopotamuss @Catholic_bro @Truth_matters20 It doesn't take a leap of logic to come to that conclusion. Simply read scripture.

The error is when protbots purposefully ignore (or simply can't comprehend) the parallels of what is taught in those scriptures.

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

Lord of Life, You have given us the gift of water, source of fruitfulness, freshness, and hope. It quenches thirst, nourishes the earth, and heals wounds. We see with pain so many brothers and sisters who lack clean water, who walk for miles to find it, who become ill due to its scarcity. Forgive us for turning it into a commodity, forgetting that it is a universal gift, a right without borders, meant for all your children. Let’s #PrayTogether at https://t.co/VVI6MfRjM5

[Pray The Rosary @PrayTheRosary]

Catholicism is beautiful and true

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

@1313Marilyn_ @BreeSolstad Scripture says the opposite, actually.

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

Our Catholic priests are vital to our faith community. Please, if you would, pray one Hail Mary for them, their health and their vocation.
If you’d like to leave the first name of your priest, I’ll pray a rosary for them all🙏🏻

Below is my former beloved priest, who has passed. Please say a prayer for the repose of his soul (Father Mike).

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

I get the pictures. You think I am drawing a straight line of mitres and calling that proof. I am not. A list of bishops is not, by itself, proof that every later claim is untouched. Catholics do not say succession replaces the gospel. We say the same Church that carried the gospel also carried the office, the supper, and the power to settle a dispute.

Your second picture asks the right questions. Did Peter’s role stay Peter’s role? Did it pass in a unique way to Rome? Did the office stay the same in kind? Those are fair. What the cartoon smuggles in is the answer: “I guess we should reform a little,” then a jump back to “Scripture and the early church” as if that early church were already a book-first body. It wasn’t. You already said the apostles were the living authority and that nobody in AD 33 had a bound canon.

So “back to Scripture and the early church” still has to face the early church you say you love: bishops, baptism, a real supper, and a body that could bind. The Reformers did not step outside history into a clean first-century courtroom. They judged the medieval West with a later rule: after the apostles, the book is the final court. That rule is one of the developments under test.

You say succession is not proof of unchanged doctrine. Agreed. Descent is not the whole argument. The argument is whether the later Catholic claims are the same office named more tightly, or a new kind of power. You keep asserting the second. The pictures do not show it. They assume it.And the old gap is still there. If Christ kept His Church, and the Spirit guided her to the canon, your second drawing still has to show where that guidance stopped being trustworthy, right after the books were recognized, and right before the supper and the keys.

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

The below quote (author unknown), has been proven true in my life.
Suffering is never desired - but if we embrace it, do you believe good will come from it?

Every lesson of real weight comes from suffering, not comfort.

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

You still haven't shown why the Spirit could guide the same visible body to the canon and then quit on ministry, the supper, and the keys. You simply restated that preserving the writings does not prove later infallibility.

You are right that the word “church” in Scripture is not the later label “Roman Catholic.” That's not my claim. My claim is that the one visible Church Christ founded continued as a real body with bishops, baptism, the supper, and the power to bind and loose, and that the church in communion with the bishop of Rome is that same body, not a later brand name pasted onto the text.

You said Christ promised to preserve His Church “and He has.” Then you say the Roman institution has to be proved “uniquely and exclusively that Church.” Fine. But you cannot use that as a dodge. You already admitted the earliest Catholic Church was the Church Christ intended. The question is whether later Catholic teaching is a change in kind or the same Church naming what she already had.

On the texts: I did not say the verse equals Vatican I in one jump. I said Matthew 16, John 20, Acts 15, John 6, and 1 Tim 3:15 are the apostolic evidence of a living church that can settle a dispute, forgive sins, and receive Christ’s body, not a library that kept a list of books and lost the rest. You still have not shown where those texts expire into “no living apostles, Scripture becomes the final rule.”

On Rome: we agree Peter had real primacy and the keys. You call later language of immediate jurisdiction a new kind of power. We call it the same office stated in law so the Church can stay one. That is the disagreement. Calling it “precisely the kind of material change I am testing” does not prove the change. It assumes your baseline.

On bishops and coercion: we already agreed civil coercion was not Christ’s commission. You say attaching it to the office changed the office. I say princes misused bishops; they did not confer a new sacrament. If abuse rewrites the nature of an office, then every later church that sinned has a different ministry.

On the rule of faith: we agree dogma may clarify what was already given. You say some Catholic dogmas add obligations “not demonstrable in the earlier deposit.” Then name them and show the earlier public faith lacked the thing, not merely the later wording. “Trinity” would fail your own test if wording were the standard.

On Methodism: you changed point 3. Your original test was a later duty becoming necessary for full communion even though earlier Christians could have died without it. Now you say Methodist standards only govern Methodist office and do not claim infallible revelation over every Christian. That is a narrower test than the one you asked me to answer. Even on the narrower version, you still treat later Catholic definitions as a new kind of addition and later Methodist definitions as house rules. That is still two measures.

The missing piece is unchanged. If the Spirit led that early Church to the right books, show why He did not lead her on the supper and the keys. “She got less and less right over time” is the conclusion. It is not the proof.

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

@DelaAvemega @RoboNex666 @JoelLandis1959 @H1storyMedia Oh? And which verses in the KJV do that?

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

You already split the Church’s work. She could “recognize and preserve writings that were already apostolic,” and that “proves the Church had real authority,” but later she could still err on office, the supper, and the public faith. “A body can faithfully preserve one thing and still later err in other areas.” That is what you still have not made good.

Jesus said He would be with His disciples to the end of the age. He promised the Spirit would teach and guide them. He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. The Catechism takes those as real promises: the Spirit guides the Church, and that Church remains one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. If the Spirit could lead her to the canon, you have to show where He quit on ministry, binding and loosing, and the Lord’s Supper.

You parked the texts. John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10–11 are not a side topic if you say the supper changed. Matthew 16, Matt 18, John 20, and Acts 15 are not a side topic if you say the office died with the Twelve. 1 Tim 3:15 calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth, not a library that kept a table of contents and lost the faith.

To address your four points:

1. Rome.

Peter already had a unique role: the rock, the keys, feed my sheep. Later language about full, supreme, and immediate jurisdiction is the Church naming that office for the sake of unity, not inventing a second head beside Christ. Tighter law is not a different priesthood.

2. Bishops.
A bishop’s job is to teach, sanctify, and govern in communion with the others. Imperial courts and later state power were the setting, not the sacrament. When bishops acted like princes, they misused the office. They did not turn it into another office.

3. Rule of faith.
Public revelation ended with the apostles. Dogma does not add a new gospel. It defines what was already given when the Church has to speak clearly. A first-century Christian did not need the word “Trinity.” He still had the same Lord. That is development. A new saving message would be material change. We do not claim a new one.

4. Coercive civil power.
Christ gave the Church a spiritual mission, not a police force. Using the state to punish dissent was a historical tangle, and a bad one. Abuse does not rewrite the nature of the keys. The office remains teaching, sacraments, and discipline of the flock, not civil execution.

Now use your own point 3 on your house. You said it is a material change when a later duty becomes necessary for full communion even though earlier Christians could have died without it. Methodist clergy are bound by Wesley’s sermons, the Articles, the Discipline, and in many churches infant baptism as the normal rule. If those are development, you still have to show why later Catholic definitions are a different kind of addition.

Until you do, the four examples are not a test. They are the conclusion you started with.

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

You can keep repeating your test as much as you like... that doesn't make it valid.

You said that while the apostles lived they were “the authoritative witnesses… and could settle disputes with apostolic authority,” and that “with that generation gone” there were “no living apostles,” so Scripture “becomes the final rule” as “the surviving, public apostolic witness.” You also accepted that nobody in AD 33 had a bound canon.

That is not the apostles’ own practice. They did not treat a later recognized New Testament as their highest court. You then try to keep the list without the body that made it: “The Church did not create the New Testament; it recognized and preserved writings that were already apostolic.” Recognition of the canon, you say, “proves the Church had real authority,” but not that later claims about office, jurisdiction, or the supper stayed continuous.

That split does not hold. The same public Church, claiming the same Spirit who led her to recognize those writings as apostolic, also received the supper as Christ’s body, treated ministry as a continuing office, and settled disputes as a living body. If the Spirit could guide her to the correct canon, you need a reason why that same guidance suddenly fails the moment she reads those same books on who can bind, who feeds the sheep, and what the supper is. “Test each later claim against the apostolic deposit” still uses the deposit that Church handed you.

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

The test you’re using treats the apostles’ authority as something that died with them and left only a book. Catholics read the same texts differently. Christ gave Peter and the Twelve a real office that continues: bind and loose, forgive sins, feed the sheep. The early Church didn’t treat that as a one-generation gift. Bishops in succession from the apostles were how the Church stayed apostolic. That’s not a later invention; it’s how they understood the job from the start.

You trust the Church enough to accept the New Testament she recognized, then say she lost the plot on everything else. That doesn’t add up. The same bishops and councils that said “these books, not those” also said the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood and that the Church can settle disputes. Acts 15 isn’t a suggestion box. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church the pillar of the truth, not a library. You kept the table of contents and dropped the body that produced it.

Development isn’t the problem; calling every later clarity a “material change” is. The Trinity, the canon, Sunday worship, all took time to name. Catholics say the same process happened with the papacy and the sacraments. James 2:24 and John 6 weren’t flattened into “faith alone” and a memorial meal until much later. The Church didn’t invent a new religion. She kept teaching what she received and spelled it out more clearly when she had to.

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

Matthew 16 and 18, Acts 15, 1 Timothy 3:15. Christ talks about a visible Church you can go to, that can bind, that is the pillar of the truth. You turned “the Church” into a body of believers plus the Methodist shop you like. That is not those texts.

Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2. There is a living ministry that continues. After the apostles die you leave only a book and later readers. Elders are biblical. A Church that can no longer settle a dispute the way Acts 15 did is not.John 6, 1 Corinthians 10–11. The supper is his body and blood, and unworthy eating is guilt of that body. Flatten that into a memorial and the object changed. We kept the hard reading.

James 2:24. Not by faith alone. Where “faith alone” made the Church and the sacraments optional extras, James got left on the table.

You trust that same historic Church to hand you the New Testament. Then you say it can’t be trusted with the supper, the ministry, or who speaks for the Church. You kept the table of contents and dropped the body that recognized it. That’s the stray.

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

Four very important words.
But are they enough?🤔

“Jesus, forgive my sins.”

Where does true repentance enter the scene?

The photo below I took in Portugal, in a small side chapel.
The picture doesn’t do it justice.
It literally brought me to my knees.

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

If you are seeing this, I will be going to adoration in a few hours and praying a Rosary. I will also lift up all your needs in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m always here if you need extra prayer🙏🏻🙏🏻

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

Real Men Pray the Rosary…

all over the World!

[Iroquois Plissken @Un2TheBreach]

Your account is one of the shining lights of Catholic X. Many of our brethren's accounts are not... even I am guilty of this, but your posts are always a welcome sight on my feed and always seem to act as a compass as to what's important when it's so easy to get distracted by the comment sections, lol.

If you do decide to step away, I pray the best for you, but you will be sorely missed.