Bill Masur

Respectfully, these teachings and quotes from councils, Pope's, Church Father's, and Saints disagree with Dr. Joy "For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor" Vatican 1, Pastor Aeternus

Every Protestant reformer had to explain away John 6. None of them agreed on how. That should tell you something. When Jesus said "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), His audience didn't ask for a metaphor. They left. And Jesus let them walk away. Think about that. If He meant this symbolically, He just watched disciples abandon Him over a misunderstanding — and said nothing to correct it. He turned to the Twelve and asked, "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) That is not how you handle a metaphor gone wrong. Now look at what the early Church actually believed: St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD), a student of the Apostle John himself, warned against heretics "who do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." St. Justin Martyr (150 AD): "Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but as the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." St. Irenaeus (180 AD): "The bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood." St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD): "Do not see the bread and wine as merely that, for they are the Body and Blood of Christ according to the Lord's declaration." No metaphors. No symbolism. No "spiritual presence." The Real Presence — for three hundred years before a single creed was formally codified. The symbolic interpretation doesn't appear until Zwingli in the 1500s. That's fifteen centuries of Christians who read John 6 and understood exactly what Christ meant. The question isn't why Catholics believe in the Real Presence. The question is: when did some Christians stop? Which Church Father — even one — taught a purely symbolic Eucharist? Drop a name below if you can find one.

ANYONE can claim to be “honest” about history, and “faithful” to Scripture. That’s partly why Christ established the Church with a visible and perpetual authority structure, because only some can claim to be a successor of the Apostles (bishop), or a successor of Peter (Pope). These are the only ones who can claim to possess the authority to “bind and loose” (render judgment) that Christ gave to His Church. The visible authority structure of the Church immediately tells every “sheep” who to listen to on such matters, and conversely who to drown out when issues of the faith are disputed.

Every Catholic parent needs to watch and hear this 🥺

I get that the sins of others are fascinating, but it’s our own sins that will send us to hell The latest gossip won’t save you and will only increase your guilt. Seek first the Kingdom of God, not the illusion of moral superiority

It seems to me that many SSPX defenders pull a motte and bailey. If the SSPX merely celebrated the TLM and used older books for catechesis, they would be much more defensible. I would still think they are wrong for disobedience to the Church, but it would not be as bad. The issue though is that the real position of the SSPX is not that they prefer to the TLM, but that they consider the NO to be illicit and they also reject the ordinary magisterium when it conflicts with their private judgement. I do understand their concerns given the bad interpretations of certain documents like DH or NA that float around popularly, but I do not think that such a position of persistent rejection of the ordinary magisterium can be maintained. Defenders of the SSPX need to defend the latter position, not merely the former. I also spent some time with an SSPX priest and he was wonderful. I really want the SSPX to be fully reconciled to the Church, as I'm sure they are far more orthodox than a lot of priests who are not only allowed, but enabled by bishops to promote heresy. The application of law here is being done inconsistently, and often for a weaponized purpose. If I were pope, on my first day I would allow any priest of the Latin rite to celebrate the TLM if he wishes. But two wrongs do not make a right, and the unjust suppression of the TLM does not mean the SSPX has the right to call into question the teachings of the magisterium.

The “sinner’s prayer” for salvation is a modern invention Salvation is not an event. It is a lifelong process Presumption of salvation is a great sin Assume that you’re not saved, live as if you long to be, and trust God with your soul This is the Christian life

Dr. John Bergsma—one of the great Catholic converts biblical theologians of our day—has a son with deadly brain cancer. The medical expenses have become overwhelming, exceeding what is covered by insurance. Please support them in their hour of need. gofundme.com/f/support-fran…

@gonefishin1948 @jonharris1989 👌

@jonharris1989 So, the babies have to DO something to be welcomed by Jesus.

I am perfectly fine with baptizing babies. If they make a profession of faith.

This reminds me of when my husband and I met with a monk and my husband asked him how he could be better at loving his enemies, as he really struggles with it. The monk said “worry less about that and worry more about loving your wife, people right in front of you. Love them when they frustrate you, when you are annoyed with them. Through that, you can learn to love your enemies.”

Not too busy let’s give God all the praise our God is faithful. just a few days after Micah when to be with the Lord God is comforting Micah’s family. God continues to bring comfort to them in Jesus name Amen Listen to Micah’s dad 👇 🙏 Micah Joseph Kim Intercessory Novena Prayer Lord, we thank You for the example of Micah Joseph Kim, whose short but radiant life reflected Your joy and goodness to all those around him. We ask for the grace to grow in childlike faith, hope, love, and purity of heart as Micah did; and that the following intention would be answered through his intercession: (Mention your specific prayer intention) We ask this through Christ Our Lord. Amen. Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be. Conclude with the St. Michael Prayer (Micah’s favorite): Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. Micah Joseph Kim, pray for us. 🙏 Message me if you receive answers to prayer through his intercession.

And had Twitter existed, we would have a point here. Instead, I have Clement writing at least one Epistle (the second is iffy on whether he wrote it himself) to another Church to address problems. This occurred while one Apostle was yet still alive. I have the disciple of that Apostle in an Epistle to Rome in 107 AD indicating that their Church "presides in love." I have Ireneus in around 180 explicitly saying that it was important for every Church to be in communion with that one. If I tell you that a style of management is chosen, you will tell me it was the wrong management style. Yet, Christ said that his Apostles were to be servants, and that the chief among them be a servant to those who serve. "Righteous Dominion" is the LDS word for it.

The criteria that the Papacy look exactly like it does today in 100 AD is ridiculous. It is the true Church born out of the mustard seed. You are criticizing a seed for not resembling a tree at the moment it’s planted.

Before Constantine, before councils, before empire support. Rome intervenes outside its diocese. Rome expects obedience. Rome judges disputes. Rome is treated as the source and guardian of unity. No other see(Bishop) behaves this way.

“Just a bishop in Rome with local authority” This is false. “If anyone disobey the things spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small sin and danger.” - 1 Clement 59:1 (c. AD 96) Clement of Rome