Upon now having gone back and reviewed the context of where you had quoted Elsie having utilized a passage from Titus, himself (for emphasis) having displayed that with selected colored font thusly;
I believe that I understand what he most likely was intending to express, and can agree with him, but possibly not entirely, and that part of where I do not, may possibly be able to agree with yourself, at least to some degree (as for an inherent aspect or consideration which had been germane to his earlier discussion with yourself -- and the other whom I told to shut up).
Knowing him as I do (and he does seem to have a good memory as for comments persons here make) I can even guess that he will know immediately upon his own reading of this note --- what I would possibly be disagreeing with him concerning.
You had replied to him;
And I could possible agree with yourself -- but only in a much smaller way which had reservation --- and not entirely with the rest of where you then went with things --- which altogether leaves his usage of Titus 1:11 not altogether lacking righteousness...leaving it not altogether as you put it "gross misapplication of scripture".
What I could possible agree with you, H-R, concerning, is the "bread" or wafer becoming the body of Christ in context of communion, with this being more than mere perfunctory or sentimental memorial, for as those whom have had the Lord minister deeply within themselves know, He is truly present.
This is very important, and I do much appreciate, for those who truly know Him in and by this manner, how important this is to them, for I am one of them. But I am still and have always been distant from the narrowest visible confines of the Church of Rome. ANd yet --- He has come in with me to sup with me (and me, with Him) regardless of the seeming fact that the RCC "teaches" that this not be possible -- because I do not submit myself to them visibly and directly -- yet still can enjoy, be blessed by Him with valid communion.
I do not know if you would recall myself having touched upon how Christ remarked, even in note of correction -- that it was not Moses whom provided to the children of Israel, the manna.
Gotta' news flash for ya'.
That teaching, is still in effect. I can bear witness to the fact...
Now for the really bad news---
What aspects Elsie is very near to being ENTIRELY correct concerning, is the notion of exclusivity as towards Eucharist (if his own consideration included that subject) whereby those of the Church of Rome make noises that this be afforded from on high, only to those in submission or acquiescence to the full teachings of Rome ---- including all which have emanated from and accumulated around such things as "popery", with that singular "popery" and the clericalism as that exists too, said to being necessary for valid communion with even Christ Himself.
A shading of strong disagreement must at times and places be addressed to other RCC "teaching" also, which can veer this way and that (within certain bounds) and still be not opposed from within the RCC, in fact is seemingly widely supported -- as long as salvation itself is kept quite difficult to come by, even a thing which persons can and even must work to earn.
On this point the Calvinists are likely as not to say something along the line that; the unregenerate man cannot at all earn OR do a worthy-of-Him thing. The born again/born from above regenerated man, when that man does a good and Godly work, even then it is not the man who works, but God working within and through the man, leaving us still unable to "earn" one single penny of heavenly sort, but rather only able to put to good use the coinage bestowed upon us to do good with.
Yet, going back to this past, 16th century age and all those pesky, insubordinate Protestants;
What was one of the most reprehensible things which the RCC engaged in but engage in sale of indulgences? (AND I DON'T CARE HOW MANY TIMEs I HEAR "oh, but that was not the Church which did it, that was just bad people doing it" NOISE, I will never believe those excuses as far as they are frequently stretched by the White Legend white-wash brigades).
Even leaving issues ancillary to indulgences (what a screwed up mess that is -- not true Apostolic doctrine!) aside, the RCC from highest levels and on down through the ranks, can most certainly be seen to have eagerly swallowed up widow's houses, that and more, much more, for they were indeed in temporal-realm business of many sorts, mixing in and blending the things of this world with those of Christ's own kingdom, which as Christ said of His own -- was not of this world.
No, H-R, you are in part at least quite wrong, as is particular aspects of Romanist teaching, particularly as *some* of those were asserted in the centuries leading up to the Reformation.
Though the Reformers were arguably themselves not without reproach, that does not equate with many of the objections which they did raise --- were not justified.
The demand for complete subordination itself, is wicked sinful in itself. If it is not -- then it sure is tough to get over how it once was, spread out over many centuries time, showing itself a bloody stinking beast. The Lord did not establish Romanism.
True apostolicity, transferred by the laying on of hands -- always was and shall always be a thing of hope, for there is no guarantee that all whom are such appointed will be and do and convey only that which the original Apostles themselves taught as for the things of the Lord, if varying only by shading, degree or extent, which sort of shifts of things put all together can and HAVE BEEN in the history of the RCC (as elsewhere too, in more recent memory) leveraged by the unscrupulous in and among the Church, wherever that is to be found... Learn.
Accept the facts.
Allow the negatives of past history to teach oneself...consider those most carefully-- then ask yourself this question;
Would an all-knowing and Most High (whom would know in advance every detail of all which would transpire, centuries in advance of whatever it was come to pass) set up such a religious system choke-point which made it impossible to fulfill what He required all whom would know Him, namely, to eat His flesh and drink His blood --- unless one also entirely subjected themselves to an "ecclesia" which can be plainly seen to have indulged in many excesses with the most grievous contra-scriptural of those all be related to haughty Sola Ecclesia --- a literal "do as wesay" whom set themselves beyond all correction to the degree and extent the correction must be FORCED in order to finally bring them to "seeing the light"???
Because that IS what happened, my FRiend.
Maybe; but where have I lain my glasses?