/lit/ - Literature

>>19455916
Although I'm happy to retype the whole series, it would be much easier for me if you could just reread the post within this Pastebin link (https://pastebin.com/r3JQEvhq)), and then we can discuss any specific questions or objections you might have? After that, if you'd like, I can write up another piece on the Papacy.

And no worries brother, I forgive you. We all lose our cool sometimes. The official Catholic position is that as long as you are validly baptized with the Trinitarian formula, we are brothers in Christ, although because of the relationship between the Protestant schism, the technical term would be something like "separated brethren" - as in, Protestants would be separated from the Church created by Jesus, but by virtue of our common baptism, are all brothers in Christ. Lumen Gentium says that, further, "Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils!
And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham.
But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.
In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives.
One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
(for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,
but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

The point is to contrast the Levitical priesthood with the high priesthood of Christ.

>>18853476
>condemns Filioque like any other additions to the Nicene creed
But you are aware that the Nicene Creed of 325 was added and subtracted to at Constantinople 381, correct? By the logic of the Eastern Orthodox, the changes of 381 should also have been retroactively considered illegitimate and condemned by canon 7 of Ephesus, and yet the reformed creed of 381 was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon. If you take the totality of the issue into perspective, the same authority at Ephesus which issued canons that sought to lock away forever all reforms, can itself reform those canons, because that authority is what locked the creed to begin with.

>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
>Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Well, /lit/, what does the atheist and gnostic non-dualist say to this?

>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
>Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Well, /lit/, what does the atheist and gnostic non-dualist say to this?

>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
>Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Well, /lit/, what does the atheist and gnostic non-dualist say to this?