Peter Wejuli

#Cybersecurity Specialist • Aspiring Lay Theologian • Husband + Father of 3 • Sarum Rite Catholic • Views expressed are my own • 🇺🇸+🇺🇬

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@JLBakerAuthor @ArchangeloRom For instance you already agree that the words of institution are required for the sacrament to be valid. Why isn’t that considered ”mechanistic”? Why isn’t merely the intent to have the Eucharist in accordance with Christ’s institution sufficient? Seems like an arbitrary line.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@JLBakerAuthor @ArchangeloRom The promise is tied to obedience. Christ’s word acting through the water healed the blind man, but if he had chosen to wash in a different pool rather than Siloam he would not have been healed. Presence of promise does not negate specificity in how it’s appropriated.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@Indomitable_777 Nevertheless let’s leave it here. No value in continuing this discussion. I hope you have a blessed day.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@Indomitable_777 @Orthodavec @LizzieMarbach v.26 explains “remembrance”
The Revelation passage explains why Christ in the Eucharist does not contradict remembrance of His death, as you claimed.

I used scripture to explain why your objection is off. Not having a rebuttal, you instead pretend not to understand. Strange.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@Indomitable_777 @Orthodavec @LizzieMarbach I literally quoted scripture, but okay. Thanks for engaging.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@Indomitable_777 @Orthodavec @LizzieMarbach ??

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@Indomitable_777 @Orthodavec @LizzieMarbach What is brought into remembrance, according to v26, is His death. His appearance in the Eucharist contrasted with the remembrance of His death makes the glory of His resurrection even more palpable. Rev 1:18: “…I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys….”

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@__alpa_cino @ArchangeloRom Acts 15 sets the pattern that has been followed in every EC:

1. Apostles and elders gather (v.6)
2. There is much debate (v.7)
3. St. Peter speaks (v.7)
4. All the assembly falls silent (v.12)
5. Bishop(s) assent and pastorally apply St. Peter’s decision to the church (v.13ff)

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@CharlesTingler What are your thoughts on the Anglican Church (particularly those who maintain male-only clergy) and the Old Catholics?

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@SphinxSatvrn @ericxu_mcs @RealPostFolder Pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. If that ratio becomes 1 the shape is no longer a circle. In fact no shape exists in geometry that has its perimeter equal to its diameter

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@PatriotDad8 @poperespecter1 In what way does the Holy Spirit work salvation in our hearts by way of sanctification? What does that process look like, according to scripture?

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@FancyABQ @feefifofumfum @DF_UniatePapist @MrCasey62 You shall *betroth a wife*, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it...
— Deut 28:30

And I will *betroth you to me forever*. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.
— Hosea 2:19

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 He’s the one who made the connection between “Beelzebul” and “Satan” first in that passage, not the Pharisees.

You’re being intellectually dishonest. Sad.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 However it’s clear this isn’t going anywhere so I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for engaging. Peace.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 Actually I did both. I showed that your distinction makes no sense (and you’re yet to defend it), and I also have two examples. No goalposts moved here.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 Abraham’s bosom is as specific as it gets, friend.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 Now your goalposts are shifting. I gave a clear example of Jewish tradition absent from what you consider scripture, and Jesus making direct reference to it as part of His teaching. He didn’t need to mention it at all. He could have just said “paradise” or “place of the fathers”

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 Matthew 12:24-27

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 Do you deny that He (aka God the Holy Spirit) divinely inspired the apostles when they wrote the scriptures that quote tradition? Or do you count the gospels as somehow greater than the epistles? If not, then narrowing it down just to a Jesus doesn’t make sense.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 And finally, Jesus followed the tradition of His day that ascribed the name Beelzebul (in the OT referring to Baal, one of the Canaanite gods) specifically to Satan, the prince of demons. The OT never makes this allusion. It’s 100% from tradition that developed over time.

[Peter Wejuli @wejuli]

@MitchMi68122792 @2thegreat166318 @MrCasey62 But to answer your question: yes, Jesus directly quoted tradition in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The idea of the righteous dead being welcomed into the “bosom of Abraham” is from tradition, consolidating teachings from Jubilees 22 & 23, and 4 Maccabees.