re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.

quote:

---

I could go on, but the point is that Jesus frequently used metaphorical language to describe His mission and what benefits His people receive through Him.

---

Yes, you are correct that he used metaphors, but not in this instance. Go back and research the old testament rules of sacrifice. A burnt offering is half offered to God and half consumed for the reparation of sin. That's exactly what he was doing. He literally was foretelling that he would offer HIS body and blood in a new covenant. A covenant that takes the place of the old covenant.
So, since we're debating the exact meaning of scripture, what does " Do this in memory of me" mean to you? We Catholics take this literally, maybe many protestants don't but it is scriptural.

quote:

---

OK, I believe it now.

It's very evident right here on Political Talk.

Protestants who are Conservative probably think that all Catholics are Politically Left. I'm angry at Leftists, too. But, I don't think that most Catholics are Leftists. They seem to be mostly Conservative to me.

But there's a shift now - what was once mild disdain from Evan Trump supporters has now turned into hostility towards Catholics.

---

I don't think this is true at all, but perhaps I'm not evangelical enough

Here's what I see culturally:

- Growing up in the 80s/90s, being Catholic in America was probably at an all time high in terms of being "acceptably Christian" to the broader culture. Catholics were understandably perceived as being pretty lukewarm and moderately Democrat - think union workers, etc. and the power base of Catholicism was close to cultural centers.

- That peaked in the early 2000s and began to decline with the scandals. The contracting that followed is the lead to today. I certainly viewed Catholics as being less likely to ally with us in any cultural battles and more akin to to the ever-liberalizing mainline.

- In recent years, what's left is a smaller, more intense Catholicism that is probably more consistent in practice on a per capita basis. There is no need to be culturally Catholic anymore, it doesn't get you anything in business or culture - you can just be nothing. So many of those types (or their kids) are just entirely lapsed now.

- The remnant is stronger, more intense and definitely more invested in the culture wars. I definitely see them as more of a political ally now that in any prior decade. I do think they're having the same issues reformed Christians are having - there is an exceedingly political "trend" toward both that is ugly (this is a very online thing, but with tentacles into the broader culture - see Candace Owens).

- But I'm not seeing any of this disdain really. I see tons of Catholic (again, very online) people trashing protestants as being insufficiently rigid, which perhaps we have coming after doing it to you for 30 years.

quote:

---

You need to check your facts - because I did already.

---

My facts are sound. The numbers for the dozens of Protestant offshoots will only continue to get worse as the boomers die off.

quote:

---

on top of everything squirrel said you can’t forget the fact that disciples straight up left after Jesus proclaimed this.

---

Jesus was rejected frequently for His teachings. He even straight up told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and follow him to be saved, not because selling possessions did anything towards salvation, but because Jesus knew that this man's possessions were his god. That man walked way. Jesus didn't clarify what He meant further, but let him go.

Jesus had "hard sayings" in His ministry. One that seems to be extremely hard is Jesus' saying to hate your own family for His sake: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26).

quote:

---

And trying to draw parallels to him speaking symbolically fall short because he explains those after questioned. After he was questioned on eating his flesh, he kept
doubling down.

---

He actually did explain what He meant earlier.

In verse 35, He says, "whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

In verse 47, He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life."

To come to Him (by faith) and believe in Him is to eat and drink of Christ. That is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings, as well as the rest of the teachings of the New Testament.

quote:

---

In Protestantism, the disagreement is over what the standard means, and there’s no mechanism to settle it definitively. That’s why sincere, Bible affirming Christians end up with mutually exclusive doctrines and new denominations.

---

Again, you're talking about Protestantism, generally. In Presbyterianism, for example, there are mechanisms for settling issues. We have elders that meet together to make decisions. The difference is that we accept that we could be wrong, and therefore remain open to correction and reformation. We can't settle anything "definitively" because we all are fallible, and there may be correction or clarification that is needed. That's why the Scriptures are our standard, not ourselves. We teach that we are to seek reform in the church before separating, precisely because we have a mechanism for change.

quote:

---

In Catholicism, the content of the teaching is actually defined. Yes, people can misunderstand or reject it, but that’s dissent from a known position, not competing definitions of the standard itself.

---

Again, Protestant churches also know the content that they teach; it's clearly defined. People likewise misunderstand it and reject it, and that rejection often times does lead to separation and a new denomination springing up. The disunity is not typically due to lack of clarity or definition, though.

Going back to my denomination again: we adhere to the Westminster standards, which, like your own catechism, lays out in greater detail what is taught as truth according to the Christian faith, at least on core doctrines. It's "definitive" in the sense that it defines what we believe, and it is clear.

quote:

---

That’s not the same outcome.

---

Yes, it is. The outcome is that there is disagreement over what the standards are teaching. The difference is that it's more common in Protestantism to leave that congregation or denomination over a disagreement. While that does happen in Catholicism, typically Catholics remain Catholics and are allowed to simply disagree or remain in their ignorant or false belief.

The end result is still a bunch of people who do not align with the teachings of the church, including many who reject those teachings without consequence, creating disunity of mind.

quote:

---

Saying “both have disagreement” skips the key question, which is where interpretation is finally resolved. If every dispute ultimately lands on the individual’s judgment, then that individual is the functional authority, even if they say otherwise.

---

I'm not skipping the question but addressing the logical outcomes of the issue. Saying your standard is perfect and unchanging doesn't say anything different than what Protestants say when we hold the Scriptures as infallible and unchanging, so we both have disagreements about doctrine even through we both hold to an infallible and unchanging standard.

In addition, I keep pointing out that resolution of interpretation doesn't actually solve the problem if it isn't enforced. If everyone is allowed to judge for themselves and reject the teachings of the church, then having an authority to define and clarify doesn't actually produce to results of unity that you want to have. Paul and Peter encouraged the people of God to be of "one mind", not one organization. Nominal adherence to a group doesn't mean anything if you aren't actually in agreement with that organization. People would look at me funny if I said I supported PETA but ate meat, because my association to others doesn't align with what unifies us.

If the RCC doesn't discipline members for causing division and confusion through false teachings, then what good is it to say you have a final interpretation?

quote:

---

On ex cathedra, the fact that people debate edge cases doesn’t mean the doctrine is unclear. It means most people haven’t studied what the Church actually teaches about when it applies. The boundaries are defined, not guessed at.

---

The issue isn't merely what the doctrine is (that is clear), but how it is applied to resolve controversies. That's the point of the clarification in the first place.

quote:

---

And on your main point, the Magisterium doesn’t “push the problem back one step.” It answers it. Christ didn’t leave us with a book and no interpreter. He left a Church with authority to teach in His name.

---

Catholics keep saying this, but Jesus left us His teaching, which was codified and preserved in the Scriptures. He gave us teachers to help us understand it, but He never claimed those teachers would be infallible.

But you aren't addressing my point: all messages need to be interpreted. You are claiming that the Bible needs an infallible interpreter, but the final receiver of any teaching is the common Christian, and that receiver would need to be infallible to interpret the infallible interpreter, if infallibility was needed in order to receive the infallible message in the first place.

Since Catholics need to understand and interpret the teaching they receive, there will necessarily be misunderstandings and misinterpretations on the part of the person being taught these things. So as I said, you're merely pushing it back one step. Instead of those receiving the Scriptures misunderstanding its teachings, you have Catholics misunderstanding the Magisterium, but the result is the same.

quote:

---

Without that, you don’t just get people failing to understand the standard. You get multiple incompatible “standards” in practice. That’s the difference.

---

You keep saying "multiple standards", because you keep treating Protestantism as one organization. It isn't. I keep trying to tell you that.

I don't lump Catholics in with the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic church and say that you non-Protestants have "multiple incompatible standards in practice", even though that would be a true statement, because you all are not part of the same organizational structure, and yet you do that with Protestants. Most Protestants also agree with one standard: the Scriptures. Difference in understanding of that standard doesn't invalidate the standard, itself, just as you are claiming for the Magisterium.

I believe most Protestant churches are part of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, because I don't believe that belonging to a particular organizational structure determines whether or not someone is engrafted into Christ, though I do believe we are obligated to join with a faithful branch. However, I belong to the denomination that I do because I believe it is the most pure and faithful to the Scriptures, even through I don't believe that less faithful or less pure denominations are not part of Christ's church.

So with that, I don't have multiple "standards", but one: the Scriptures.

You’re saying “we have one standard,” but then admitting every individual and even each denomination decides what that standard actually teaches. That is multiple functional standards, whether you call it that or not.

If two sincere, Bible-affirming Christians read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions, who decides which one is correct in a binding way? Your elders? Another denomination’s elders? You personally? That’s the issue.

Your Westminster standards prove the point, not solve it. They’re an interpretation of Scripture. Other Protestants have different confessions that contradict them. So which one is right, and who settles it definitively?

And on the “you’d need an infallible receiver” argument, that doesn’t follow. The question isn’t whether people can misunderstand, of course they can. The question is whether Christ provided a living authority to definitively settle disputes. In Acts 15, the Church doesn’t say “go read Scripture better.” It issues a binding decision.

So no, it’s not “the same result.” In one system, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter. In the other, disagreement is measured against a defined teaching that can actually be pointed to and authoritatively clarified.

If your system ultimately lands on “we all just do our best and can be wrong,” then practically speaking, final authority is still the individual judgment. That’s the difference you keep sidestepping.

Exactly!

But Foo and others can never admit this. They never will admit this.

It's a disagreement between on how to interpret the Bible.

We know what the early Church thought of the Eucharist and of Baptism. Those who wanted to break away from the Church cannot follow those two doctrines and remain separate. They had to find another interpretation, and, they did.

quote:

---

We know what the early Church thought of the Eucharist and of Baptism.

---

We do. The early church believes that the Eucharist was a means of transmission of grace. And that believer’s baptism should be practiced in running water by immersion if possible. But, in a pinch, throw some water on a baby. Same thing, I guess.

Did you have Gregory of Nyssa in there? The Didache? I didn’t click the links.