Replies

Meaning, like them, you make RC teaching subject to interpretation.

No not subject to personal interpretation, and not like them at all.
You misunderstand.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church. It may not always be the way “I” like it to be-
But God’s Will is not mine to question. He’s driving the Bus… not men.

My point being- those tradcaths you seem to have some affinity with, some reject Vat2 outright, some reject the Papacy since 1965, some reject the current Pope.
There are many types of dissension in the Church too- world-wide.
Like your SS shell game, there are different varieties and definitions of this “traditional” phenomena to homogenize.
And yet, We are all put to a test.
But none of this defines the Church as many might like that to be the case.
It never has. What defines the Church, proven throughout history, is it’s ability to combat dissension, for the greater good of the Body of Christ.

When Catholics think of Papacy- Bishop of Rome- we are to think of the “office” Christ established in the Chair of Peter- NOT A MAN.
Good gravy – look at the corrupt Pope’s throughout history.
We observe Christ’s desire for a human administered Church in the Office of a Pope,
But any single Pope does not define the Church.
Was Peter the best role model for that job?
We falsely think contrary to human history that the Church is supposed to be perfect, shining, and spotless.

Trusting in God to guide his Church is no problem.
We know how it all ends.
Submission to His Church should not be a problem.

To the tradcaths credit, it is hard to interpret Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) as not being infallible, and as including in regeneration and salvation those…

Well I have to party poop on that, give tradcaths all the credit you want…
But remind them a Pre-Vat (read “Traditional”) Pope who excommunicated a (Jesuit ) Priest who held to their understanding of hardlined EENS, and now the Church holds that Feenyism is a heresy.
To note is refusal to obey the Pope is what got him the axe.

But none of that matters. We have to live the lives we were given. Trusting in God.
Can’t go into the EENS/LG hole with you, but I can understand the harmony in the infallibility of EENS.
Yes, there is an obedient reverence that can be established over history between EENS and the recent LG.
It just depends if one wants to see it.
From its origin form Cyprian 250ish AD, along with Origen-
and 100 years later from St. Augustine to modern day.
The Church has grown- and expanded though not in ways anyone in 250AD could have imagined.
The Schism of 1054. The Reformation years. Even to a degree the DIY American revival.
All of this has emanated from the One, Original Church.
In a way, whether you like agree or not, or realize it,
to be Christian is to be able to submit to Peter, and in the same vein, as that found in EENS. (LG speak)

Transport yourself back in time with those guys. The Church was new, and ALL that there was.
Everything else was pagan.
Don’t build into that later Catholic Church dogma that did not yet exist.
Outside of that Early Church there was not even a possibility of Salvation, nothing outside but heresy.
The infant EENS was a method to protect Christ’s Church- not make it exclusive.
From that starting point, looking back then over the centuries,
Anyone can understand how this Church teaching would have to evolve,
how we would want it to evolve, and still for believers, infallibly so.
How else could one abide with: But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty
work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.
For he that is not against us is for us.

OR:

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d]
12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we ALL attain to the unity of the faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been
baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to
separate themselves from the unity of the Body.",
- Pope, Pius XII: encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same
thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging
to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
- Pius XII, Humani Generis (27)

As mentioned above these quotes you cite are from the SAME Pope who excommunicated Father Feeney for his resistance, namely to the notion that EENS means “We Catholics are in, you guys are out”.
I say this Pope harmonizes EENS… you are your tradcath friends will claim in contradicts.
Whats it gonna be?

Which means that your prior invocation of Jn. 6:53 and stating thereby that 'how
many times do you need Christ to tell you to Eat His Flesh for Life within in Him?
6 times? 10 times? 20 times? How many would convince you?"
Seems like Jesus is pretty dang adamant there," must be abandoned as meaning just that,
despite your double-down dare you.

Why do you apply a new context to what I wrote? I getothers do that,
but I know you are a smart individual.
You don’t need to do that.

The topic was “eating the Flesh of Christ” and to what avail -
whether John 6 was metaphorical- or if Christ really meant what he said there 4-5 times over.
Yes I was hyperbolic in my 6-10-20 times commentary… but no matter
there are some who would still not believe in the Grace of the Sacrament.
OK So be it.
So THAT was the context.
Now you want to shift that and claim Lewis and Bonhoeffer should have held that belief- or they would not have life in them-
As Catholics identify this as life-giving. Yes I believe Jesus really meant what he said there in John 6- AND at the Last Supper.
To that end I feel I am living out what St. Paul said as cited above As : the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e]
to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

It’s a fullness of Christ I feel in my life- everytime I go to Mass.
While I don’t understand why anyone would not want that for themselves, I cannot condemn them for not wanting the Eucharist- AS the FLESH and Blood of Christ.
And my example of a baptized infant, dying without ever receiving the Eucharist would not be penalized-JUST the same.
Now having realized that fullness of Eucharistic Grace in my life…
AND THEN I walk away from that… yeah I’ve got splaining to do why I walked away from Christ in that manner- even if I still keep the other commandments.
So "somehow it was ("must have been") which recourse to ambiguity is one of the valid grievances against V2 by TradCaths.

Well of course I mean’t “must have been” in a less threatening manner…
afterall it was in reference to the documented evidence of the Early Church Fathers and their reverence for the Eucharist… with quotes from Ignatius such as:

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life.
I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST,
who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD,
which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God:
FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,
and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR,
as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,
because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

My point was that Jesus words there were real and meant for his Presence to be with us always- physically with us on the Altar. If I believe them to be real as well, then the Blessed Sacrament brings Christ physically into my body…The one who does not believe then I think they are not bound by this Sacrament.

Really?! Meaning not only that Jn. 6:53 only applies to those who believe in the Catholic "Real Presence" but by extension, all other "verily verily" statements as well.

But then a young Baptized Child who dies, without ever receiving the Eucharist, would not be sent outside the Body of Christ.

The the Eucharist has nothing to do with it, since those who are not morally culpable of sin - which includes the unborn - will not be punished for what they did, nor for what their ancestors did and affected them with, as is taught many times,

So ALL HAVE NOT SINNED THEN...
What a shell game you liven with.
Yes, there is no sin allowed in heaven.

Where? From your persistent comprehension that teaching in 1 Co. 11, wih its blatant ignorance of context and persistence eisegesis, which I labored for some time (typing with my stiff arthritic fingers) just 2 days ago showing you, only to have you ignore such again!

Cutting and pasting "your" ideas over and over doesn't make anything correct there ...
It's just your confirmation bias- extra-biblical and NO authority but over yourself.
Why can't you grasp that.

Scripture materially provides, "the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works,"(2 Timothy 3:17)
though from Adam and Eve onward,
God has always provided what is necessary for man to obey Him, ...

Really Jim? Really?
JUST WHO THE HELL IS THE "MAN OF GOD"?

Is it you? Are YOU the "man of God"?
Is it the Lutheran ?
Is it the Calvinist?
We know for sure though it isn't the Catholic, huh?
Is it the DIY Protestant who grasps a but of Christianity beyond their false SS faith?
Just who is the "Man of God" is this clear reading of Scripture?
Exegete that when you get a moment...

and that somehow the Eucharistic Mass just popped up out of nowhere, illegitimately.

No, that is not even logical, but like other examples of ignorance, this was a later development, for as shown, nowhere interpretative of the gospels was the Lord's supper taught or exampled was being a sacrifice for sins and and spiritual food as conducted and confected by Catholic priests. And seeing as you persist in posting the same polemics, blithely ignoring refutations of such, why should I take more hours typing more on the same.

Your refutations are all in your head.
You treat scripture like your own Rubiks cube, manipulating verse after verse to give you your pre-determjned outcome-
As if there is some secret code to be solved.

It's a man made tradition unattached to ANY Apostolic teaching.

You think you can exgete around the fact that Eucharistic Worship
was foundational abd central in the New Testament Church.
The evidence is there.

You twisted scripture and yourself in such a large knot-
you cannot even see what God is trying to give you.
And it's NOT a book.

From the beginning...
God has ALWAYS wanted to feed us...
From the Garden where Adam and Eve could eat everything so they could LIVE, but except that from the One Tree.
He fed his people in the desert with His Manna, so they may Live.
God gave this people a Passover meal do that they would live free of slavery.
The high Priest would preside over the Bread of Presence in t he Temlle
Bethlehem ... Means House of Bread...
Through his Son, he would eat with us sinners.
Jesus told the world - HE was the Bread of Life, from Heaven
From the Last Supper, God would Feed us His Body, this New Covenant promise.
Christ spent his first Resurrected hours on Easter Day in Emmaus revealing himself over Blessed Bread.
The reverence of the Eucharistic Bread in Worship was done things that began in the Garden,
and fulfills the new Christ life within us.

It's really not rocket science.

Pt. 1, by the grace of God.

No not subject to personal interpretation, and not like them at all. You misunderstand. The Holy Spirit guides the Church. It may not always be the way “I” like it to be- But God’s Will is not mine to question. He’s driving the Bus… not men.

To the contrary in ignorance, the RC interprets your interpreter, from judging which magisterial level a teaching belongs under (some say 3, others, 4 - http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt) and thus what manner of assent to provide ("it will often be difficult to determine what in fact is being taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church" ...what degree of certitude they are attaching to their teaching. All of this entails a somewhat exhaustive study and one in which it can be expected that the experts (i.e., the theologians) will not always come to a meeting of minds. — Fr. James T. O'Connor, The Gift of Infallibility (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986); p. 106. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2697)

(Faced with such, one bewildered soul on a RC forum dealing with this said in exasperation: rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31 [now defunct]) to the meaning of such, to varying degrees.

The CCC itself is not infallible, and Ratzinger stated, “The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess,” ( Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Optimism of the Redeemed,” Communio 20.3 (1993): 479.) but which leaves the reading needing to judge what authority each reference has, and often as well as what the CCC means, to varying degrees.

An egregious example of your own interpretation is that of Providentissimus Deus, 20-21 ("For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost) as not teaching plenary inspiration, as well as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as meaning, "many parts out the Bible do INSPIRE ME...But that does not mean every book in the Bible WAS INSPIRED by God....1 Cor. 7:10-12). That is certainly not inspired....."1 Cor. 7:25.. His human opinion...again...2 Cor. 11:17.. Same thing....Paul's own writing proves he was self-aware that he was often writing without inspiration. — https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3867413/posts?page=27#27)

Like your SS shell game, there are different varieties and definitions of this “traditional” phenomena to homogenize.

A vacuous accusation in the context of your ignorant unsubstantiated strawmen, since if you cared to actually read responses you would have seen that what I said is based upon what is documented, as here .

What Scripture and provides and is able to do simply does not translate into the idea that souls must be able to read to be saved, nor that a SS preacher must have and read from a copy of Scripture to preach and call for obedience, but that the veracity of all such ultimately rests upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did that of Christ and His apostles, as shown. What defines the Church, proven throughout history, is it’s ability to combat dissension, for the greater good of the Body of Christ.

Sophistry, for combating dissension means more teaching which itself is subject to interpretation, and which is not simply what is variously written by the magisterium, but as is manifested by how the Vatican applies it in action. Thus, when Rome manifestly treats even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (with the pope even sending Ted Kennedy a nice letter, read at his funeral) as members in life and in death, then she is showing her understanding of canon law, such as canons 1184 and 915.

And rather than combating dissension, the living magisterium can effect it, due to its manner of "clarification" as well as ambiguity. Thus as another one poster wryly stated of V2,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)

Pt. 2, by the grace of God.

When Catholics think of Papacy- Bishop of Rome- we are to think of the “office” Christ established in the Chair of Peter- NOT A MAN.

Damage control. I certainly know that it is the magisterial office that is said to be promised conditional ensured veracity, but the point is that the magisterial office is occupied by men, man to which RCs are to look, and actually follow the living magisterium which interprets the past. Yet required catholic submission is itself is manifestly subject to interpretation. How Rome treats such

But remind them a Pre-Vat (read “Traditional”) Pope who excommunicated a (Jesuit ) Priest who held to their understanding of hardlined EENS, and now the Church holds that Feenyism is a heresy. To note is refusal to obey the Pope is what got him the axe.

You mean you have one occasion of censure, that of a a persistent public preaching prelate making waves in a very liberal city. No, it was not simply a refusal to obey the Pope that got him the axe, nor that of lay RCs with their expression of dissent that you do not debate here, but that of a priest vocally contending against EENS so as to even reject baptism of desire, and I assume, the possibility of those of "invincible ignorance, and thus were judged as too strict of an interpretation of what modern clerics not doubt saw as too strict a declaration of EENS.

Yet your citation of this is not an example of consistent teaching, but of the variant interpretations of Catholic doctrine that are taught or sanctioned by Rome at different times. For perhaps aside from baptism of desire the censure of this persistent prelate in America was before V2, and would hardly be considered radical when such statements were made such as

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ..." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, during the dispute with Philip the Fair, King of France) "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928) "There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation." (Pope Pius IX 1856) "outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar" (Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV, 1215). "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence, 1441 )

Thus you have arguments as https://catholicism.org/has-the-church-changed-its-teaching-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church.html. And what liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures, and what TradCaths here have been manifest excommunicated as a standard, and with whom you should be arguing with as to whether V2 contradicts past teaching.

The point is that the magisterium which RCs point more basically unified evangelicals to as the solution to disunity does not provide that, except unity in various errors.

The Schism of 1054. The Reformation years. Even to a degree the DIY American revival. All of this has emanated from the One, Original Church.

No, as one can only imagine that the NT church was Catholic.

to be Christian is to be able to submit to Peter, and in the same vein, as that found in EENS. (LG speak)

That is an absurd interpretation of EENS and "submit" such as expressed above.

Transport yourself back in time with those guys. The Church was new, and ALL that there was. Everything else was pagan. Don’t build into that later Catholic Church dogma that did not yet exist.

believed Nonsense. The Catholic Church (EO or RC) certainly does not hold that her beliefs did not exist until she formally defined them, though that is the case with her distinctive teachings. From the papacy of Peter to the Lord's supper to PTCBIH being just some.

Anyone can understand how this Church teaching would have to evolve,... For he that is not against us is for us

You are engaging in an interpretation to justify an interpretation that conflicts with a quite apparent contrary position. Which, even if it was not contrary is contrary to the perspicuity of the magisterium, which is said to be necessary due to the lack of perspicuity of Scripture, with Rome providing "authentic" understanding under premise of ensured magisterial veracity, which she interprets Tradition as providing her.

for building up the body of Christ,

Which is simply not that of one organic church, while RCs make up a very small part of true believers. As mentioned above these quotes you cite are from the SAME Pope who excommunicated Father Feeney for his resistance, namely to the notion that EENS means “We Catholics are in, you guys are out”. I say this Pope harmonizes EENS… you are your tradcath friends will claim in contradicts. Whats it gonna be?

It is going to be that this is actually an amelioration, that of affirming members of the Church those who have been baptized and profess the true faith and excluding those who chose to leave, but not defining "true faith" as requiring being "subject to the Roman Pontiff accept," to "recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. outside which no one at all is saved," in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar." Thus not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

This paved the way for Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 which states

"For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.

I am sure Boniface VIII, who (basically excluded even Greek Orthodox or "others who say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors... are not of the sheep of Christ" from being sheep, would object to this. And note that the immediate context here does not ameliorate or negate the authority of this statement. Historian Philip Hughes affirms in his "A History of the Church", Vol. III, that "The Bull 'Unam Sanctam' is a document which contains a definition of the Pope's Primacy as head of the Church."

The main aspect in all the exclusion and inclusion of the EENS debate is the understanding of the above, that of exclusion of heretics and schismatics from salvation, such as that.."no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," and being the work of competing factions, in LG 14 we read.

In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) 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.

Yet not only in Catholic doctrine can anyone baptize, and not just members of the RCC, as long as they "intend to do that which Christ and the Church do" (Summa Theologica, Question 64., Article 8) which is understood in a very basic manner, but "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" is also variantly interpreted.

I myself can say I do not know as a truth "that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" except in the case that even Judaizers were/are, but I know that she claims to be. But the magisterium does not clarify this, though some may interpret it as doing so, and leadership elects a pope who embraces evangelicals, among others.

Moreover, LG also actually affirms that Muslims worship the same God (not an "unknown god") as Catholics:

" the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore [worship] the one and merciful God... (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

Which results in RC apologists trying to argue that this does not mean what the clarifying V2 most evidently says. Advice: don't even try.

Pt. 3, by the grace of God.

In all this the real issue is whether anyone can be saved in submission to the pope, for due to her false gospel, relative very few, those of simply pious penitent faith inthe Lord Jesus to save them solely on His account, see past the trappings of that religious system, which deludes souls into presuming that they became regenerated spiritual children of God via the act itself of baptism, and thus are made inwardly just (CCC 1992) via in "a real, interior sanctification.. which... makes it permanently holy before God." Whereby the baptized is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace).

Thus, those who quickly died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism, before it became apparent they were in need of further purification would directly go to heaven. (Cf. CCC 1023) However, since the baptized soon realizes that he not all that holy inside, then unless he once again becomes good enough for a direct flight into the presence of God, and needs to make no more atonements for sins, then after death they must undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC 1030) Which is what many RCs depend on, a play now, pay later delusion.

In vain do RCs damnably attempt to wrest Scripture to support RC Purgatory. Ansd In contrast to which is that of Scriptural gospel, that of penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating, effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) being what is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) who was sent by the Father to be the savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)

And those who come to God with this faith are those who the Spirit of God thus spiritually baptized into the body of Christ, the church. (1 Cor. 12:13) And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21)

And those who die in that obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)

Why do you apply a new context to what I wrote? I getothers do that, The topic was “eating the Flesh of Christ” and to what avail - whether John 6 was metaphorical- or if Christ really meant what he said there 4-5 times over. OK So be it. So THAT was the context.

I did not apply a new context to what I wrote, but legitimately targeted a plain statement relative to it which you invoked in trying to justify your belief in your essential eucharistic wafer god. For taken literally, Jn. 6:53 means consuming your eucharistic is the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself. But which is nowhere taught, as instead. as shown, regeneration is always by believing the word of the gospel, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and with the consequent living by Christ as He lived by the Father (Jn. 6:57) means living according to His word, with the doing of it being the believers "meat," as it was for Christ (Acts 4:34) in living by Him, doing His will. For indeed His words are spirit, are life. (Jn. 6:63). Glory to God.

documented evidence of the Early Church Fathers

Which selective recourse to some uninspired words of men as definitive of what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly God-inspired record of what the NT church believed, only further impugns the Catholic attempt to justify what the latter does not teach.

the unborn - will not be punished for what they did, nor for what their ancestors did and affected them with, as is taught many times,

So ALL HAVE NOT SINNED THEN... What a shell game you liven with. Yes, there is no sin allowed in heaven.

There is no shell game, such as what Catholics play in asserting that Mary was sinless, and a perpetual virgin, for in the case of infants who do not "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16), it is well established that children are not culpable for sins their ancestors did, as shown and ignored. And if they cannot be punished, and thus do not belong in the resurrection of damnation, of those which have done evil, and will not be judged for having done any, (Rv. 10:11-15) then based upon what is revealed, there is only one other class for the morally unaccountable, that of being part of the first resurrection, (Revelation 20:6) and receive incorruptible bodies and shall forever be with the Lord. (1 Ths. 4:17) Thereby nothing unclean shall enter the Heavenly City.

Cutting and pasting "your" ideas over and over doesn't make anything correct there ...

It does indeed, as not being mere assertions but soundly substantiated statement sby the grace of God, which remain unrefuted.

Just who is the "Man of God" is this clear reading of Scripture?

Those who, contrary to you, recognize what Scripture says, which here is not that reading Scripture will necessarily render one perfect in every accomplishment, but that Scripture is so constituted that it instrumentally the man of God may be "perfect [artios], throughly furnished unto all good works." Which complete furnishment of a complete supply train for every good work does not mean the provided believer will necessarily attain to perfection of character and of doctrine. Much less that it means all one needs is the Bible, which is not what SS means.

From the beginning... God has ALWAYS wanted to feed us...

Indeed, but despite your attempts to extrapolate obtaining spiritual life literally eating something, then this never happened in Scripture. Repeat, never.

From the Garden where Adam and Eve could eat everything so they could LIVE, but except that from the One Tree.

But which was not to obtain spiritual life within. And they were forbidden to eat from the Tree of life, which is not the Lord's supper, but is not mentioned again until Revelation, in which it is "in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7) which the overcomers in faith will eat of. (Revelation 22:14) glory to God.

The reverence of the Eucharistic Bread in Worship was done things that began in the Garden, and fulfills the new Christ life within us.

More eisegetical reading into Scripture. There simply was no worship, or reverence of Bread in the Garden, and the Tree of life is as said above, while regeneration is always be effectually consuming God word of Truth.

He fed his people in the desert with His Manna, so they may Live. God gave this people a Passover meal do that they would live free of slavery. The high Priest would preside over the Bread of Presence in t he Temlle Bethlehem ... Means House of Bread... Through his Son, he would eat with us sinners. Jesus told the world - HE was the Bread of Life, from Heaven From the Last Supper, God would Feed us His Body, this New Covenant promise. Christ spent his first Resurrected hours on Easter Day in Emmaus revealing himself over Blessed Bread.

Which again, was never in order to obtain spiritual life within. Never, despite what the Catholic mind reads into Scripture, having "eaten the fruit of lies." (Hosea 10:13)

Your refutations are all in your head. You treat scripture like your own Rubiks cube, manipulating verse after verse to give you your pre-determjned outcome-

Rather than your fallacious recourse, in contrast to sound substantiation, it is you who is manifestly guilty of reading into Scripture that which you can only wish and imagine is therein.

And not that you again have consumed much of my day. No more. May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)