Bennett Bernard

@rickbrennanjr Is this a joke post?

I keep seeing posts celebrating Protestants becoming Roman Catholic. What I don’t often see is the same level of celebration when a non-believer comes to faith in Christ. Shouldn’t that be where Christians rejoice most? The movement from unbelief to faith: that is the miracle worth highlighting.

@BibleInContext1 You elevated scripture above God…

Let me explain it to you…. The Roman Catholic transubstantiated Eucharist is another Jesus! The Eucharist does not exist without the Mass. The claim that Jesus can wholly and entirely be present, even in the smallest element of a crumb (1377), is utter blasphemy, degrading the King of Kings, the Lord of Glory, down to a crumb. If Jesus is wholly present in each individual wafer, then how many Jesus's does Catholicism have? But it gets worse. They believe that by consuming their consecrated host, it actually removes sin & preserves you from sin (CCC 1393-95). We become closer to God by being sanctified by his written word. It's God's Word that washes us and cleanses us. It's God's Word that sets us apart from this world. In the Eucharistic Mysterium, it describes Jesus as immolated, a sacrificial victim! Jesus was never a victim on the cross, he was a victor on the cross. He came for the cross. It gets worse and outright heretical. In the Eucharistic Mysterium, it says that, "The celebration of the Eucharist, which takes place at Mass, is the action not only of Christ but also of the Church." It says, "The Church, the spouse and minister of Christ, performs together with him the role of priest and victim, offers him to the Father, d at the same time makes a total offering of self, the Church, together with him." In the Presbyterorum Ordinis, it says this: That, "The priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father, the divine victim in the sacrifice of the Mass..." So they're instructing people to join to the offering of Christ on the cross their own lives. Then in the Catholic Catechism 1368 it says "...the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his body, and that Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering." The Christian does not offer themselves along with Christ on the cross. There's nothing we can do to add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross two thousand years ago. So not only is the Roman Catholic transubstantiated Eucharist blasphemy, but the entire Mass itself is heresy. Jesus himself was never a victim, but a victor on the cross, and at the Last Supper, he said, "Take and eat," not, "Make more offerings and sacrifices to the Father." Catholic theology describes the sacrifice of Christ as also the sacrifice of the Church Body! "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same (CCC 1367)" & "The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering her Head. (CCC 1368)"

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 I have been very clear. There have been no half thoughts. For example, The dates you listed for those dogmas are the dates they were formally defined. Not the dates they were believed.

@BennettBernard7 @Rblv73 Yes, I am confused because you're posting with half thoughts and half sentences. Just write coherently & fully.

Nope, it’s your ego that’s holding you back

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 I think you’re very confused. I never said sola scriptura isn’t in the Bible And you brought up a random list of doctrines. I’ve directly responded to each point you’ve made.

I’m genuinely trying to follow you here. You jumped from “Sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible” then suddenly started talking about the Trinity, then said “the belief and truth of a thing is separate from the formal definition of it.” None of that was in response to anything I actually said in that post. So let me ask you plainly: What exactly are you trying to say? Are you claiming that doctrines can be true even if they’re not taught in Scripture, as long as the Church later “defines” them? Because if that’s your point, please just say it clearly instead of jumping around with half-sentences and vague analogies.

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 The belief and truth of a thing is separate from the formal definition of it.

@BennettBernard7 @Rblv73 Okay, so what are you asking me? Pardon me for not being on your wavelength. lol

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 The Trinity is another doctrine

@BennettBernard7 @Rblv73 Where was the Trinity mentioned in the post you're replying to?

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 No. What you’re arguing is that no one believed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one until the word Trinity was used. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say about the rosary…

You’re saying the dogmas didn’t “show up” 1200+ years later because they were only “defined” later. That’s like saying the iPhone didn’t show up in 2007, it was just “defined” then. The underlying reality (the invention) still happened centuries after the apostles. There’s a long list of later Roman inventions that were never even dreamt of in the past. And “the rosary is just a devotional, not a sacrament” is still a dodge. It’s a massive, central part of Catholic spirituality that involves directing prayer to Mary 53 times per rosary with titles & repetition the apostles never once modeled or commanded. Calling it “just a devotional” doesn’t make it any less of an unbiblical accretion that developed long after the New Testament. So yes, these things did show up 1,200+ years after the apostles. Claiming they were always there, just waiting to be “defined,” is comical.

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 Great. Dogma are those things defined a true which are specifically defined. So they did not “show up” 1200+ years later. Calling the rosary just a devotional, is not a dodge in any way. It’s not a liturgy or sacrament.

Yes, they did “show up” centuries later: Transubstantiation: officially defined in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council (over 1,200 years after the apostles). Immaculate Conception: dogmatically defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Papal Infallibility: dogmatically defined in 1870 at Vatican I. These were not taught by the apostles or believed as binding dogma in the early church. They were later Roman developments that became mandatory for Catholics only when Rome declared them so. The rosary being “just a devotional” is also a dodge. It’s a major part of Catholic spirituality which also has no apostolic example or command. So yes, these things did show up 1,200+ years after the apostles. Claiming they were always there is simply not accurate.

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 None of those “showed up” 1200 years later. (Except the rosary, but that’s just a devotional practice. You don’t have to pray it or believe it).

You’re saying rejecting your church’s later inventions (1215 transubstantiation, 1854 Immaculate Conception, 1870 papal infallibility, rosaries to Mary, etc.) is “rejecting Christ”… …while those same inventions were completely unknown to the apostles. If “what Christ taught his apostles” includes stuff that showed up 1,200 years later, then the apostles must have been really bad at taking notes. We’re not rejecting Christ. We’re rejecting the unbiblical, heretical Roman add-ons Christ & the apostles never gave us.

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 It’s a rejection of Christ because it’s a rejection of what he taught his apostles.

That's actually hilarious! You’re accusing me of “rejecting Christ” because I want to stick w/what Christ & the apostles actually taught. The Bible isn’t “my sole criteria of truth” because I feel like it. It’s because it’s the only infallible record we have of what Jesus & the apostles actually said & did

@ChristySimm23 @Rblv73 Why make the Bible your sole criteria of truth? Its a rejection of Christ

The Bible is exactly what should hold anyone back from Rome’s later additions: mandatory private confession to a priest (1215), transubstantiation as defined in 1215, the Immaculate Conception (1854), papal infallibility (1870), praying to Mary with rosaries, indulgences, etc. None of that is in the New Testament. The apostles never taught it. Jesus never commanded it. So no, it’s not his ego. It’s the clear teaching of Scripture. If your best response to “the Bible holds me back” is “you’re just proud,” that tells us everything we need to know about how strong your biblical case actually is.

@needGod_net How can you know you’re in the remnant? You preach a Gospel not found in the last 2000+ years, nor in scripture.

@JoshuaTCharles Not a good reason. There’s always a remnant who is saved & the church are believers. Luke 13:23-24 “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And Jesus said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”

A huge reason I am Catholic today is I realized that if protestantism in its various forms were true, literally millennia of my Christian ancestors had no clue about vast portions of the Christian faith, and Christ’s promise to guide the Church into all truth was falsified.

@SecretFire79 @taco_talks Why be hateful to him. Let’s respond sternly but in charity.

Plot twist: the Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus established which means that by a false preposition you are worshiping a man-made Institute filled with idolatry while bathing in your Stockholm syndrome

@ChristySimm23 @Guillermoishere @5Solas2 I already told you there are no direct examples in scripture.

Then why bring it up at all? You tossed out Luke 16 as your example of “someone speaking to the dead,” despite it being a parable set in Hades. If it’s not proof, not a command, and not even a positive model, then you admit there's nothing in Scripture that actually supports directing prayers to departed saints.

@ChristySimm23 @Guillermoishere @5Solas2 I’m glad I didn’t say it was “proof”… Nor did I say Jesus commanded it there. I’d love to hear your hypothesis.

In Luke 16, a damned rich man in Hades begs Abraham (also in the afterlife, not glorified in heaven) for two things: relief for himself & a warning sent to his brothers. Abraham refuses both requests & explains why. This is a parable Jesus told to condemn hard-hearted unbelief and love of money, not a how-to manual for Christians on earth to start invoking dead saints in prayer. Key problems with your “proof”: It’s not prayer to a saint in heaven; it’s a conversation in the realm of the dead between two deceased people. Abraham doesn’t intercede or grant anything, he says no. Nowhere does Jesus say “therefore you should pray to Abraham/Mary/saints like this.” The New Testament never once shows any Christian doing this, commands it, or models it. Zero. If this single parable in a story about hell is your best evidence for the rosary and Hail Marys, eesh. 😳The apostles taught direct prayer to the Father through the one Mediator, Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).

@ChristySimm23 @Guillermoishere @5Solas2 I’d love to hear your hypothesis. It wasn’t something the “church later decided”. One example of someone speaking to the dead is in Luke 16, the rich man speaks to a deceased Abraham.

Great, we agree there’s one mediator --Jesus. And you're admitting there’s zero example or command in Scripture for praying to departed saints. Therefore, your entire practice rests on “the Church later decided the saints can hear us and intercede anyway,” even though the Holy Spirit never bothered to mention it even one time in the inspired Word. I have a hypothesis for why the Catholic Church invents these things but I'm sure you don't want to hear it.

@taco_talks Taco: (makes something up) “You can’t make this up”

You can’t make this up. Roman Catholics literally worship their church as a god.

@ChristySimm23 @Guillermoishere @5Solas2 I agree there’s one mediator, Jesus. I didn’t say scripture “forgot” anything.

So you’re openly basing your practice on something the Holy Spirit somehow “forgot” to include in the inspired Word, while the apostles were busy teaching direct prayer through Christ alone. The departed are part of the Body? That doesn’t magically grant them omniscience, make them hear millions of simultaneous prayers, or turn them into intecessors. Come boldly to the throne of grace through the ONE MEDIATOR (Heb 4:16, 1 Tim 2:5). It can't be any clearer.

@justme6696 @Truth_matters20 Generally no.

@BennettBernard7 @Truth_matters20 What about the confessions? Augsburg Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession of Faith or Second London Baptist Confession of Faith?

If you're relying on sacraments, baptism, commandment-keeping, going to church, and your own efforts to get to heaven, you won't ever make it. You need to repent and turn to Christ.

@justme6696 @Truth_matters20 That’s a generic question. Generally, Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Apostles

@BennettBernard7 @Truth_matters20 Do you believe the historic Christian creeds & confessions?