What, according to the Catholic Church, is the 'point' of Catholicism?
I.e., what is the end goal of practicing it?
It is just a tradition carried out for it's own sake (i.e. worshipping God because thats what we should do), or is there a more specific goal in mind, in the style of St. John of the Cross?
How is this actually defined in the Catechism?
If you ask a Christian, they say that they worship God because God is deserving of worship, being perfect and our creator. Salvation is just a nice bonus, where you get to continue living with God.
If you ask a non Christian, they will tell you that the primary reason for worship is salvation.
And how is Salvation defined, specifically?
That's how you define grace?
How is that attained, in the Orthodoc tradition?
That's not a definition, that's the method through which Grace is 'multiplied unto you'
I'm asking what is actually IS. A definition of it, not a description of how it's obtained.
Yeah it's something I've always wanted to read through in detail for some of the theological elements.
I feel words such as 'grace', 'salvation', 'justification' are thrown about a lot in Christian discourse without much clear understanding of what exactly is being referred to, or WHY (in the sense of what the tradition actually aims towards).
No, you told me what Salvation is, read that post again.
I don't hold to a particular definition, though the Catholic definition of Grace that I posted previously seems reasonable.
Cause the other religious anons seem to be obtuse. It is stated in the NT as complete union with God, which, as God is perfect happiness and perfection in every way, is pretty bitchin.
Ultimately eternal life. Beyond that, acceptance of the Holy Spirit brings about the virtuous life and its values which more than anything is joy (spiritual fulfillment).
To add from this, many people are speaking about Grace. Here is the basic understanding:
Grace is a catch-all term for help given by God for the sake of sanctity and ultimately salvation. It can be understood in two ways, which are labeled Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace:
>Sanctifying Grace is a habitual gift that stays with the soul to make them more aligned with the will of God. It is a lasting disposition endowed onto a person by God.
>Actual Grace is a punctual gift (one time) that is meant to motivate or push one towards the will of God. I've always like the playful understanding of it as "a supernatural kick in the pants".
No, not at all. You have a confused notion of Catholicism towards homosexuality.
The pope just wrote a book about the church detailing its opposition to homosexuality. I took the pope as the head figure of his religion, am I wrong to do so?? I also might be wrong about the book, I just saw it on the news.
I can't be bothered to track down such specific quotes in the NT. If you want to understand these things, I actually suggest reading the Bible, for I am almost certain you have not to be asking about basic definition.
I tracked down this for you for a rough estimate of Heaven, http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/passage/?q=revelation+22:3-7
The understanding of the word "homosexual". The meaning of homosexuality as an orientation is a modern understanding (the sheer concept of homosexual/hetereosexual attraction is in fact a modern one) while Homosexuality previously simply meant Homosexual sex. This is what is considered sinful in Catholic thought, not the orientation nor the people who have it. The logic is based on the same thing as their judgement on contraception.
If you're curious about the last two popes and their "welcoming" demeanor towards homosexuals it is purely because the western protestants (and to a degree stupid Catholics) think the proper Christian position deals with homosexuality as an orientation and it leads to rejecting people outright for simply the way they're born. It's horrendous and the current and last pope, I know for sure, recognized that and so wished to drive a wedge between it so people grasp teaching properly.
But of course thanks to the whole "free love" movement in the 60s, the idea of complete sexual freedom makes the actual judgement of homosexuality still not good enough. That is its own argument, though. I'm just trying to tell you what the Catholic position is.
>it's not hate, you just can't satisfy your sexual needs EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE and your urges are disgusting and wrong
Wowl thank you Pope senpai, I feel so loved and accepted! I'll go release sperm in my sleep now, aince masturbation leads to Satan and I can't do it.
That a tripfag? No, sorry.
Ah, I had wondered if Grace and Sanctifying Grace were two different concepts- both are mentioned in the Catechism excerpt, but it's not entirely clear whether they're distinct from one another.
>No, not at all. You have a confused notion of Catholicism towards homosexuality
Finally someone who gets this.
>I can't be bothered to track down such specific quotes in the NT.
Just wondered where you got that from, that's all.
Heaven is a VERY interdasting topic in Catholicism. The common understanding of it as a temporally located place isn't as it's presented in doctrine, as far as I'm aware. It's a state of existence, not a place.
My understanding of the Catholic position towards homosexuality was that:
>All love is sacred to God, therefore the love between two people of the same sex is equally sacred
>Homosexual acts are sinful for the same reason something like anal sex between a straight couple would be - sex is a sacred act used for procreation, anal/oral is not.
>Marriage is defined as between men and women.
To a degree that is true but we need to understand there is different understandings of "Gay Pride", similar to how there is different understandings of "Girl Power". One is the preferencing of the elements that make up the identity over others and the other is just a support for being as they are.
We do indeed have sexual purposes in our organs to obey those purposes it would make sense to follow through with the rest surrounding it, hence why heterosexual sex is preferenced and why masturbation and homosexual sex is denied. However, much of Christian doctrine deals with treating a man as a rational animal and not a beast, slave to their own sensations. The church upholds value in sex and because it is valuable, promotes chastity as chastity recognizes the value of it and does not give such a thing away worthlessly. If one is, indeed, non-compliant to the call to marriage (through whatever means, such as the priests who marry to the church and stay chaste to show their dedication to it, or in the case of homosexuals) it would follow that it be best that they are non-compliant to all parts of it.
Now, on the topic of "needs", I will say that the challenge is indeed hard and cannot be denied but the ideal to align yourself with is still to follow things through according to nature's purposes (even if you deny such things, Christianity does assert that things have purpose in meaning in nature). The scholars of Christendom would support by supposed necessity sexual businesses (brothels) as those who simply cannot be controls are best to have an outlet, even if the overall businesses are to be unwanted ideally and looked down upon. It wasn't until modernity that a very prudent and exacting decision was made on the matter of sexuality and so I would say that Catholics (at least theologians) get your worry of sexual needs. You just need to grasp the rest of the picture.
While I agree in principle with the Church's stance of declaring sex a sacred act that should be controlled rather than spoiled through animal instincts, the effect in practice has been to somewhat repress the sexual instinct, rather than sanctifying it. I wonder if the church has missed an opportunity in having done so.
Sexual mysteries have been a part of religion for centuries- practiced even in Christianity by the early Gnostics, in the Renaissance by the Rosicrucians (it is thought), and in the 19th Century by people like Ida Craddock.
It has been known to produce exalted states in which one may commune effectively with the divine. It's rather a shame that the Church has completely blocked out this aspect of mysticism, there's so much potential to make something great there.
You're about 95% there.
>sex is a sacred act used for procreation
Sex has two ends: Procreation and uniting both involved in it. That is very generalizing though. However if it broken down the basic biology the release of sperm is meant for fertilization of the ovum. If the ovum fails to do its job that of course has nothing to do with the woman involved and says nothing of the act of sex itself. This is why infertility is not an obstruction towards having sex but impotence is.
>between men and women
"Between a man and a woman".
>While I agree in principle with the Church's stance of declaring sex a sacred act that should be controlled rather than spoiled through animal instincts, the effect in practice has been to somewhat repress the sexual instinct, rather than sanctifying it. I wonder if the church has missed an opportunity in having done so.
That, I would say, deals more with society today and the church trying to act in it than the church's teachings. I get into this in the latter end of the post >>543751
Take, for instance, the openness and jovial nature of discussion of sexual organs that you see in medieval art compared to the more reserved Victorian era or how marriage and family-building are now seen as things to do later in life than before. Dealing with these social elements alongside Christian teaching can lead to mistaken abuse of it such as your repression of it.
However, at the same time we cannot support sexual instinct if it's understood as lust. Lust is one of the Cardinal Sins as you'd know. People oft confuse supporting sexuality with supporting lust, which has led to a lessening of human dignity and people being used as objects (to borrow the Feminist wording) and people enjoyed not for their nature but their aesthetic. We simply cannot support that.
Aaaannndd you lost me. I know very little of that with the Gnostics.
was also for >>543781
>It has been known to produce exalted states in which one may commune effectively with the divine.
Sounds like comparing sensual bliss with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Could be retarded.
Man, I've got all sorts of cool pictures. I'll try to post them when I respond to the discussion in this thread.
I know Gnostic stuff is largely /x/ material but I'm only responding to a comment about something involving Gnostics in a discussion of Catholicism.
Calm your pantaloons, Serf.
The Roman Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon.
It's basically the Pharisees of Christendom.
Just as the Pharisees killed Jesus, so has the Catholic church killed millions of Christians.
It's Mystery Babylon/Antichrist church.
Satan couldn't destroy Christianity so he infiltrated and corrupted it from within, starting with Constantine.
It's also a coincidence that none of your doctrines matches that of Early Christianity. Here, you can't even cite proper scholarly sources to prove your point where as I in contrast just did and from a Protestant one as well
This is false. The Early Christians believes in free will. reformation ideas exclude this like the Gnostics
Also, as ANS Lane pointed out, there's no sola Scriptura in Early Christianity
>Christianism born without liturgy
So no Christianity before the Second Great Awakening.
(These are non-catholic ethiopians that evolved in semi-isolation since the beginning).
The fuck are you talking about? The large majority of Protestant denominations believe in free will (Arminian).
Not everyone is a Calvinist.
Sola Scripture predates Christianity even, it goes back to the Hebrews and ancient Israelites.
Jesus Himself pointed to scripture for absolute guidance, and warned us of vain traditions and repetitions.
False. Calvinists are a majority in Protestantism. The original Reformers also don't believe in free will at all to begin with. Going even further to take the concept of Sola Fide and believe in free will is ridiculous when it explicitly decrees that the "faith" itself is given by God. This gets more retarded with the idea of OSAS and the affirmation of free will.
Only one sect of the Jews during the time of Jesus subscribed to sola scriptura. That sect was criticized by Jesus himself. In fact, the very truth that the NT itself wasn't even there from the beginning means that the NT exists as oral tradition and that oral tradition became the context to read the written version. Since for centuries there wasn't even a closed canon to begin with, sola Scriptura which presupposes a clear cut and dry canon from the start is ridiculous. No serious scholar would agree that the early Christians were sola Scripturists
>Sola Scripture predates Christianity even, it goes back to the Hebrews and ancient Israelites.
>Jesus Himself pointed to scripture for absolute guidance, and warned us of vain traditions and repetitions.
The modern Biblical canon wasn't developed until Athanasius wrote a letter, and then it got ratified in the Council of Carthage.
And it wasn't Jesus that said that(Jesus quoted deuterocanonical books: http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html), it was Paul. And he said it was really good book for determining theological truths, not the sole authority ever.
Btw, i'm not a Catholic.
Even the Evangelical DH Williams have to admit that the Church Fathers weren't Sola Scripturists. McGrath in his book about introducing Christian theology notes how Tradition is the way to intepret Scripture according to the Church Fathers, using Tertullian as an example
>m-muh church fathers!
Every single time.
You Catholics don't understand that Christian history goes back way before the "church fathers".
Paul said that the churches were going into apostasy DURING HIS LIFETIME. They were abandoning his teachings and the 'mystery' was lost until the Reformation brought these concepts back.
Wycliffe and Hus were martyrs who died for telling the truth.
Papacy is pure evil, they burned Christians at the stake for simply reading the Bible.
You know why Rome didn't want the Bible to be in the vernacular? Because people would easily identify the Roman Catholic church as being the Beast/Dragon in Revelation.
After the Renaissance and the printing press was invented, the stage was set for the Reformation.
The Papacy kept the people in the dark for well over 1000 years, and anyone who wasn't in line was called a "heretic" and tortured by the inquisition.
Tell me, what's exactly Christian about torturing and burning people?
What's Christian about bowing to a Mary statue (idolatry)?
What's Christian about celebrating pagan holidays (Saturnalia, Easter, etc)?
Jesus said that our kingdom is not of this world. Our home is eternal and everlasting, not this fallen and sinful place. Yet here we have this carnal and secular super-structure called the Roman Catholic church meddling in politics and giving out orders to kings and princes.
Popes are antichrists, they fit all the descriptions.
Apostolic succession is unscriptural.
"P-peter founded our church!"
They literally pulled that our of their asses. There is no historical evidence for any of that, nor any assertions that Peter actually went to Rome.
Catholics base their entire belief system on ONE verse about Peter and the rock, which is taken out of context and misunderstood.
Hus isn't even Protestant in his overall theology to begin with. Only his later more radical followers followed Protcuck ideals to begin with. If any, all you had shown here is that Jesus is a fucking liar since the Church he founded got destroyed despite his affirmation that not even death will prevail over it. Oops, guess you worship a liar. We also know that Paul's overall theology and mind isn't that of the Reformers and it was Protestants who put forth this idea to begin with! We call this the 'new' perspective on Paul which effectively destroys Protestantism
And yet, Clement of Rome in the 1st century refers to it!
And finally, Catholics completely ignore Paul's journeys in Acts.
Protestants follow the teachings of Paul in the early stages of Christianity.
Catholicism was invented by Constantine/Augustine years later.
In order to make Christianity seem more appealing to the pagan masses, they mixed it with pagan traditions and Greek philosophy.
Vóila: Roman Catholicism is born.
Catholicism is basically a dumbed-down, distorted and corrupted counterfeit version of Christianity for the masses.
True Christians have been persecuted and hunted down by both Catholics and Muslims.
"The blood of the saints" refers to the millions of burned/tortured Christians by the Papacy.
It didn't got destroyed you retard.
Jesus didn't found a physical construct.
Church = Body of Christ, all believers.
Christianity is something spiritual, we are pilgrims in enemy territory (Satan's world).
Catholics have a very warped and wrong view of what churches are supposed to do.
Paul set up local churches ruled by local elders, not one monolithic church ruled by 1 tyrannical pope that persecutes all others.
Death will not prevail over it as in we will not go to hell. Nothing can take away our salvation in Christ.
Catholics have a very carnal perspective, you're much like the hypocritical Pharisees.
The first major conflict in the history of Christendom(besides the one about mosaic law in the New Testament) was a conflict over Holy Traditions(Easter Controversy).
And the first major book rebuking heresy, against the gnostics, while using lots of theology and Bible quotes can be summarized as:
"Your theology is false, since you have no apostolic succession, and i can't find your retarded teachings in any of the ancient sees and their writings"
He's an anglican. Anglicans are still sorta k.
>You Catholics don't understand that Christian history goes back way before the "church fathers".
How back? We have disciples of the apostoles themselves and guys that lived in the first century telling us how things were and it bears massive resemblance to what the non-protestant Churches look like.
>Paul said that the churches were going into apostasy DURING HIS LIFETIME. They were abandoning his teachings and the 'mystery' was lost until the Reformation brought these concepts back.
He said parts of it, not everyone from England to Greece to Africa and India.
>Wycliffe and Hus were martyrs who died for telling the truth
Huss actually wanted to abolish some practices and make the Western Church look more like the Byz Church, which still looked nothing like protestantism.
>After the Renaissance and the printing press was invented, the stage was set for the Reformation.
Good job, you just needed massive technological advance to apply your version of first century Christendom, one and a half millenia later.
I posted a link that contains tons of sources and citations.
Watch: "A Tale of Two Churches".
It is the most indepth documentary on Church history. It starts from the apostolic era covering all of Christianity until the 19th century.
It covers how Catholicism was formed, the true identity of it (Babylon) and exposes it.
It covers the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuits, etc.
The Jerusalem church had a single leader who is James. Paul himself is the leader over the elders. All of these differing churches saw themselves as ONE. This is why the Council of Jerusalem happened since it was a dispute that the whole church had to deal with. In fact, if your bullshit is true, the council is redundant since it isn't one monolithic church. Who cares! Furthermore, we see how you have to redefine what a church is which is a fucking gathering of believers. This means there must be continuity from the beginning but according to you, they all got destroyed given what we know from scholarly research. There is no proto-Protestant sect that even exist to begin with. If they did, we would have documentation about them from writers. But guess what, we don't, meaning that they don't exist!
>Jesus didn't found a physical construct.
>Church = Body of Christ, all believers.
Can you tell me how i'm supposed to rebuke false teachers, as the Good Book says, in front of a non-physical body of believers?
Besides, the whole invisible church thing is a cop-out by protestants when they realised they were splitting every week.
Calvin and Luther believed in a real, physical Church, whom they identified with theirs.
>Paul set up local churches ruled by local elders, not one monolithic church ruled by 1 tyrannical pope that persecutes all others.
We also have that(see pic).
I'm an eastern orthodox. And i go to a liturgy by all of these guys and be familiar with it.
Care to show where do you fit it?
That is not a scholarly source or a proper documentary. It's shitty apologetics!
>The Papacy kept the people in the dark for well over 1000 years, and anyone who wasn't in line was called a "heretic" and tortured by the inquisition.
>Tell me, what's exactly Christian about torturing and burning people?
Btw, you are sorta right, buuut, if the evuul catholics were supressing everyone, why didn't you do like the Byzantine monophysites and flee to Egypt or some other place on the fringes of Christendom.
You have no historical records anywhere!
How did it happen that mandeeans of all people, and other heretics survived, forgotten in the Middle East and other places, and you didn't?
>King James Bible vs. Catholic perversions
>Exposing the Catholic Church
>The Roman Catholic and Islamic connection
>Islam's connection to Rome
>The Apostate Whore of Babylon
>Counterfeit Christianity: Exposing the Satanic System
It's common knowledge that Catholicism is the continuation of pagan Mystery Babylon.
Does that mean Catholics are not saved? That depends entirely on the individual. I'm pretty sure there are tons of Catholics who love the Lord with all their heart, but it's not the traditions or rituals that saved them, it's the blood of Jesus Christ alone that saves you.
I find it ironic you're talking about copping out.
It is the Catholics that "spiritualized" Israel and believed that Christians were the new Israel and that the Jews have nothing going for them now.
>bible says not to call any man 'father'
>catholics call priests 'father'
>bible says priests can marry
>catholics believe priests can't marry
>bible says salvation is through Jesus alone
>catholics believe in works, rituals, repetitions, Mary, Peter, Pope, basically anyone but God
>bible says Mary had children with Joseph
>catholics believe she remained a virgin forever
>bible says everyone is a sinner
>catholics believe Mary and the pope are sinless
You can't make this shit up.
this isn't even about Catholicism vs you.
This is about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East, High-Church Anglicanism, a ton of theologians and historical records vs your interpretation of the Bible.
Don't know about you, but i believe the former have more historical weight.
Except of course by following your line of thought, biologists who refer to the male parent as father or anyone who calls their male parent, father is going to hell for it. Protestantism 101
>what sinners say is more important than what God says
And you're also forgetting the climate of the time.
People were acclimatizing to this 'new religion' and scholars/philosophers often compromised scripture with pagan traditions/culture just to make Christianity more accessable.
Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that Constantine's conversion was purely for political reasons?
Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that Papal Rome was more interested in politics & power rather than Christ's teachings?
Wasn't it Augustine who popularized the idea of "symbolizing" the Bible?
Basically, everything becomes allegorical.
By that logic, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to mean. This lead the way to all sorts of heresies.
Take the Bible literally unless stated otherwise (like Christ's parables). Scripture interprets itself.
You don't need man judging God's work.
God knows what He is doing.
Constantine's conversion is debatable which means your point here is trash. Also, we know that even the NT authors used some Greek philosophical concepts as well such as the Logos and for Paul, citations from Pagan authors and some similarities with Stoicism. If any your crap here is just mere conspiracy theory not grounded in history. To beat the facts, the liars craft lies, just like you
>i-it's just tinfoil!
And this is when I win the debate.
Everytime you argue with a Catholic and they start losing, they resort to pulling out the "tinfoil" meme in a sad attempt at mockery.
Except of course unlike you I had posted references to actual scholars. You only have crackpot apologetics and no actual scholar to refer to. And the best part, none of them are even Catholic. Face it dumbo, you lose
>People were acclimatizing to this 'new religion' and scholars/philosophers often compromised scripture with pagan traditions/culture just to make Christianity more accessable.
And how did that affect people outside the Roman Empire?
How come the Church of the East and the Oriental Churches look nothing like your version of Christianity?
How come the christians of India, founded by the Apostle Thomas, which survived alone, on the other side of the planet, were affected by some weak emperor from Greece?
>Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that Constantine's conversion was purely for political reasons?
Another moron that blames Constantine for ruining his idealised version of the Christianity.
Constantine was a theological dim-wit that didn't really understand what was going on at the council.
If he were to have had any influence on the council, the Imperial Church would have been Arian.
>Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that Papal Rome was more interested in politics & power rather than Christ's teachings?
This isn't about Rome! This is about history!
No you retard, in the sense that Adam forfeited the rule over to Lucifer.
Our enemy is principalities and higher powers, call them demons/aliens/entities.
The Fall introduced death, sin and evil into the world. It's well established that occult societies have existed throughout history that worshipped Satan and have exercised control over the world in his name. "Illuminati" and "Freemasons" are the modern organizations of this.
Looks like you need to read some of Bill Cooper's work.
Russian and Greek orthodoxy is closer to the truth than Roman Catholicism.
Secondly, your councils don't mean shit.
Catholics praise councils like they mean something when infact they don't.
Once you 'systematize' Christianity, you lose sight of the truth.
Yes, it can.
A better question for dismantling it would be:
"Can Scripture Alone prove what is Scripture?"
>Russian and Greek orthodoxy is closer to the truth than Roman Catholicism.
And they still look nothing like protestantism.
Man, admit it, quit LARPing Christianity and follow a real Church.
>Satan controls the secular/heathen world
>all sorts of false religions, cults, ideologies and philosophies
>Catholics pretend they are immune to Satan's deception and manipulation
Yeah, because the current Pope is definately not a Marxist Jesuit..
Because the mainstream media does not portray Catholicism in a good light..
Because the Vatican is not known to be littered with pagan and satanic symbolism everywhere..
Heck, the previous pope literally looked like Darth Sidious. That's pretty much the face of evil.
god with a lower-case 'g' you retard. The pagan civilizations identified fallen angels as 'gods' because they didn't know any better.
Not the omnipotent and omniscient creator God, Jehovah, Adonai.
Catholics are retarded, they don't even know their own Bible.
yeah I'm really going to follow the state religion of the guys who killed Jesus and accept their authority on Jesus more so than actual native regional churches
>Bible says Satan controls this world since the fall
>Catholics claim otherwise
Yep, this is how retarded Catholics are.
They hate the Bible.
They hate God.
But they looooove the fish-hat wearing Pope!
It would be something like Yahweh.
Yehovah is a medieval catholic invention of placing the tiberian vowels for Adonai over YHWH.
As a said, i'm not catholic.
If you were to follow an orthodox church, an oriental church, or church of the east, that's perfectly ok by me.
But atleast they would have valid things.
>Roman Empire persecutes Christians
Thrown to the lions, crucified, hunted down, used as scapegoats, etc. It doesn't work, the faith continues to spread.
>Roman Empire converts to Christianity
>twists and mixes the faith with paganism
>creates a counterfeit version of Christianity
Satan has now effectively destroyed, or atleast distorted the image of Christianity.
>Papal Rome continues to persecute real Christians
I don't like how theologians have taken simple basic words such as "grace" and "faith" and written entire thesis on it. If I give you a piece of bread when you're hungry then I'm being gracious. God gives us eternity in Heaven because of his grace. It's that simple.
Thank God for the Reformation.
Tyndale, as he was burning in the stake, shouted "God open the eyes of the king of England!".
Some years later, the King James Bible was made.
Now that's what I call a prayer answered.
Satan's answer to the Reformation was the "age of enlightenment" and rise of atheism.
The devil dropped theology altogether and started making people believe God doesn't exist, and angels/demons don't exist.
Catholics do not understand their enemy. They do not understand how the spiritual war is being fought. They completely miss the point of what it means to be a Christian.
There were all sorts of heresies in the early history of Christianity.
It was a soup of heresies. Infant baptism and Mary worship were also heresies but it become the "majority" and "official" practices.
Catholics originally meant good, by protecting the truth from heresies, but instead they actually became apostates themselves by abandoning Pauline truths.
In the middle ages, the Catholic church was spiritually dead. There was no life in it. It was all works and self-righteousness.
>Infant baptism and Mary worship were also heresies but it become the "majority" and "official" practices.
Do you understand the reason for those?
>In the middle ages, the Catholic church was spiritually dead. There was no life in it. It was all works and self-righteousness.
But pelagianism has always been considered heresy by the RCC.
>Do you understand the reason for those
Paganism disguised in Christian clothing.
The ancient fertility goddess, Semiramis/Isis became known as "Mary" and worshipped the same way as the "Queen of Heaven".
The Bible mentions the whore of Babylon as being called queen of heaven.
It's blasphemy. It downplays Jesus Christ and God. It makes an ordinary (although blessed) sinful woman into a goddess.
It's crypto-paganism, and Catholics refuse to acknowledge that.
>The ancient fertility goddess, Semiramis/Isis became known as "Mary" and worshipped the same way as the "Queen of Heaven".
False. That is Circumcellionism, condemned as heresy.
>It's blasphemy. It downplays Jesus Christ and God.
On the contrary. It affirms Christ's divinity and the unbreakable bond between His Divine and Human natures(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus).
Though implications of some other catholic marian theologies are heresy.
Look at the world today, faggot.
Catholics believe in evolution.
Catholics believe in aliens.
Catholics get good treatment from the media.
Pope says being gay is OK
Pope says you don't need to believe in God to go to heaven
Catholics are very carnal and secular. The Papacy is really pushing this ecumenical "coexist" bullshit. A cucked and dead church.
Now which Christians get mocked and ridiculed by the world? Which Christians get ignored or scoffed at?
The Bible-believing, Born-Again Fundamentalist Christians who believe in 6000 years and literal creation.
Do you know why the world hates them? Because they don't compromise. They hold fast to the Word of God and don't care about what sinful man has to say.
I tell you, the Vatican and its ET saviour is going to play a big role in the upcoming deception and Great Tribulation.
Your retarded Satan theory kills the idea that the reformation is "real" Christianity.
The reformation splintered Christianity into hundreds of sects and caused Christians to kill Christians over religious wars. You don't think that's a greater strike against Christianity?
Paul set up many local churches throughout Asia minor. His God-ordained journey shows that there are supposed to be many local churches, not one giant church.
Churches are supposed to be organic and flexible, it's a local thing that has nothing to do with the state.
I suggest you look up congregationalism.
Pretty much all Christians agree on the fundamental truths (Christ's deity, the crucifixion and resurrection, etc). That's what makes them Christians.
Where denominations differ are mostly minor things. The reason for so many is because God is so amazing and beyond our understanding that there are many ways of interpretation.
When you have sinful/fallen man trying to understand the glory of God and how He works, you end up with alot of theories (hence all the denominations).
Catholics caused most religious wars.
When atheists think of
>Burning at stakes
They refer to the Catholic Church.
The Protestants went around doing missionary work during the era of colonialism. They brought a revival in the 16th century.
King James Bible was a huge platform for English literature.
Catholics brought their religion to South-America and look at those shitholes today.
Protestants brought their religion and it became the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world. You could say that the USA was blessed by God because it knew the truth. The founding fathers essentially built the country on Biblical principles.
So, in that case, do you consider apostolic canon 34 a viable model of church governance?
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
Which along with the Black Legend, was anti-catholic protestant propaganda that backfired on you during the Enlightenment and is now applied to all christians by fedoras.
Great job. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of your smear campaign.
>Burning at stakes
Which went into hyperdrive during the Reformation, and had a bit more protestants doing it than catholics.
>The founding fathers essentially built the country on Biblical principles.
Like genociding the natives and slavery. Very Old Testament of you guys.
I have God to thank for scripture.
I have my dear Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to thank for my salvation. No intermediaries, Christ is the bridge that connects us with God.
Enjoy jumping through hoops and obstacles in order to reach God.
Your works are like filthy rags to Him.
When will you realize that NOTHING you do will get it right?
Jesus Christ paid the price. He did all the work.
Salvation is a gift. You either accept it or not.
Stop relying on yourself and start believing in Christ.
agnostic here. just wanna stop by and mention this:
when i see protestants i see christians who really love god/jesus and live a spiritual life
when i see catholics i see role-players, it all seems fake and pretentious
Hey I'm not a christian, could someone explain to me why in these discussions I always see protestants bitching about going back to the truths of St. Paul? I mean how is he different from any other early saint, when he wasn't even an apostle nor ever met Jesus in person? Why do protestants think that he has more authority than the other church fathers?
Wikipedia is quite reliable and most certainly, true about this dipshit.
>Hate the Bible
>Yet more faithful to it than Protestants
Big deal, we had fucking heresies around from the start. Protestantism is just one in a list of many that tries to destroy the true Church.
Protestantism is much worse if this is to be true. Even if it isn't...it still is.
Thank God for modern scholarship showing how unbiblical and heretical Protestantism is!
And so is the same for Protestantism.
Protestants are worse and are the scapegoat for Atheists attacking Christianity. A bunch of pedophile priests can be explained away by their free act of will to disobey their commitments. The retardation of Protestantism such as Sola Scriptura, Creationism, Presuppositionalism...etc, cannot.
More bullshit from the Protcuck. Here, Henry Chadwick a proper scholar shows how hierarchy works in Early Christianity >>545927
This debunks this retarded claim.
Also, did Christ die for all or for a mere elect? Is Baptism really for the remission of sins? Is Infant Baptism allowed? Is Religious artwork and imagery allowed? Is music allowed? Is the Earth old or magically new despite what science have to say?...etc
Get a load of your bull
Protestants also deliberately mistranslate Scripture in Sri Lanka, make a mockery of the Church Fathers, persecute members of other religions as seen in South Korea, practically created anti science, theological solipsism, exploit the gullible, burned many at stake, killed Native American Indians...etc
Even Catholics believe that Paul would have more authority than the Church Fathers given his position as an Apostle and being the author of Scripture and the one who handed down doctrines to the Early Church.
Also, when Protestants say "truth of St Paul", they are just referring to their own subjective interpretation of his writings which opposes what modern scholarship have to say on the issue,
>given his position as an Apostle
So, I looked it up. Didn't he basically make himself an apostle? Wasn't Luke a disciple of Paul himself without connections with the actual apostles or Jesus himself? How do protestants even accept Luke and Paul at all if they want sola scriptura?
For one, we know he did have a say in the Council of Jerusalem and his interactions with the other Apostles indicate that they recognized him. Of course that said, he is not one of the original twelve though he did have an encounter with Christ which resulted in his conversion.
>Wasn't Luke a disciple of Paul himself without connections with the actual apostles or Jesus himself?
>How do protestants even accept Luke and Paul at all if they want sola scriptura?
This is also another reason why Sola Scriptura is just inadequate. After all, authorship of Luke's Gospel is one that is said by church tradition and not Scripture itself.
>he did have an encounter with Christ which resulted in his conversion
The one he had on the road, while alone, to which no one can testify? In which Jesus appeared as a lightning and a disembodied voice? I wonder if Paul already shilled his apostleship before the council of Jerusalem. I can't imagine the real apostles accepting him if he presented himself in such a grand way without any real proof. Unless other apostles left something written about Paul being an apostle too?
>Inconsistencies in the biblical text had to be explained away; errors,redundancies,absurdities, or anything shocking, indecent or unworthy of divine inspiration had to be removed. Every verse was regarded as potentially independent of the others and capable of interpretation without any reference to its context. It was necessary largely to ignore the historical background. Rules were made whereby the natural, historical sense of any text could be evaded, and sometimes a quite unnatural, symbolic sense could be read in. A cautious, Torah-directed form of allegory was born. Several examples of it can be found in the New Testament.1-Cambridge History of the Bible Vol 1, pg 412.
Footnote 1: Gal. 4: 21-31; 1 Cor. 9: 9, 10
Protcucks who hate allegory BTFO
The real Apostles were there in the council of Jerusalem. The issue there had to do with whether or not Gentile Christians need to observe the Torah. Paul represented the Gentile side and said that it isn't needed. The council accepted this and also allowed Jewish Christians to continue observing the Torah if they want, as long as they don't push it down the throats of others. If I'm not wrong in this council, the Apostles recognized him as the Apostle to the Gentiles.
But all mentions I can find on Paul being an apostle come from the Acts (written by his butt buddy Luke after the council) and his own letters. I mean, I don't honestly know where to look for this shit beyond google, but to me Paul seems fishy as all fucks.
Well you are right about this. But to my knowledge, the Cambridge History of Christianity do take the council as historical. However to be fair here, there are also scholars who dispute the historicity of the council so it seems to be one of those disputed things with regards to Biblical scholarship.
>I mean, I don't honestly know where to look for this shit beyond google
Bookos is a good source to get ebooks so you would be bound to find some works that deal with this.
>but to me Paul seems fishy as all fucks.
One thing perhaps is how he had portrayed himself in an embarrassing light that could at least demonstrate his honesty regarding this.
>bible says not to call any man 'father'
>catholics call priests 'father'
We call God the Father like this due to His parallels with a human father. If there was no parallel, then calling God a "father" would be pretty pointless, right. Then why does Bible say not to call any man father? Context senpai.
>bible says priests can marry
>catholics believe priests can't marry
It's a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it could technically change in the future (probably it will not though, just imagine the Vatican II-tier butthurt and all the schismatic sects appearing)
>bible says salvation is through Jesus alone
>catholics believe in works, rituals, repetitions, Mary, Peter, Pope, basically anyone but God
No, that's what protties think we believe.
>bible says Mary had children with Joseph
>catholics believe she remained a virgin forever
And we call other people our brothers. Besides, Bible doesn't necessarily say that they were biological children, may well have been cousins (If I remember correctly, calling your cousins "brothers" was normal in Christ's culture)
>bible says everyone is a sinner
>catholics believe Mary
Hyperbole. Non-autists often use hyperboles.
>and the pope are sinless
>After all, in their exegesis the early Church theologians neither received the Bible as a 'Bible without notes' nor interpreted it in a vacuum. They received along with the Bible a tradition of interpreting it for a worshipping community and they proceeded to interpret it for a worshipping community. The study of the Bible as a scientific discipline to be carried on for its own sake was very far from their thought, and at all times has been, one suspects, a mere will-o'-the-wisp. This does not mean that the Fathers sacrificed everything for the sake of the edification of the faithful or for the consistent articulation of a doctrinal system. They sacrificed too much for these ends, but they were not unconscious of limits and controls on this process imposed by the Bible itself. Their purpose in exegesis was nevertheless purely practical, and we do not understand their exegesis until we understand this. They began the story of the Church's relations with the Bible, in which the Bible and the life of the Church were to interact for all the centuries to come, each correcting, deepening, fertilising the other. They inaugurated the Church's dance with the Bible, fancifully perhaps, but not irresponsibly, perhaps erratically, but at least gaily.-Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, pg 453.
I'm so sorry Protestants but there's no Sola Scriptura in Early Christianity from the beginning.
When I was younger i asked myself that question. My grandmother had told me that Satan was sitting in Gods thrown. to see his creation left and left satan on his thrown. An imperfect god. When he came back he said to satan, can i please have my chair back and satan said no. This goes back to trouble within catholicism and orthodox. Their lines of succession are very peculiar. And how racism hasnt let the italians choose non italian pontiffs. The coming messiah wont be italian nor agentine. But basically catholicism was built in rome to serve as a spiritual center except they became a political hell. They focus on foundry of jerusalem and the celestial choir that sings Him praises. By practicing it you believe in the resurrection of the dead and the new day. Their goal is infrastructure and education. God said here will be 7 churches, each one will lack something the other has.
I don't understand sola scriptura. How do you even decide what is scripture without tradition to decide it? It's not like the gospels start with an index of all books, the canon was decided (and written too for the most part) well after Jesus died. It's not like god sent down the four gospels, the acts and shit written in stone like Moses' tables.
>My grandmother had told me that Satan was sitting in Gods thrown. to see his creation left and left satan on his thrown. An imperfect god. When he came back he said to satan, can i please have my chair back and satan said no.
Isn't it like blasphemy to imply that god need to leave his throne to do anything? Or to imply that he couldn't take it back from the devil? You're basically saying that he's not omnipotent.
>And how racism hasnt let the italians choose non italian pontiffs.
There have been plenty of non italian popes tho.
The catholic church knows that they are wrong and are worshipping satan. This is why rome has had many troubles in the west. Because of their predilections for italians. They used to say the catholic is the most educated man in the world. Except for the Romans. Thats because theyd change the story up in Rome to benefit the Italics. Thats why they celebrated columbus day.
Do this. Get the rate of italian popes vs non italian. And do the same for the historical population of thecatholic world. Those numbers show more than enough racism. The spanish believed that the italians were pieces of shit that worshipped money. So they named their coins di nero in a humorsome way, to cope with taxing... They were paying rome, and the nero pope. So the italians called the spanish jews.
Protestcucks presuppose that the Scriptures are as clear as day but only can be read through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit within the reader to interpret Scripture.
The problem of course is,
a)The doctrine presupposes a clear and cut close canon to begin with. Christianity only had an open and fluid canon. The Gospel of John for example is actually held with skepticism by some early on as well.
b)Leads to Theological solipsism. Protcucks claim that only believers who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit can grasp the true meaning of Scripture. What happens when all sides claim that their interpretation is true yet end up with contradictory and opposing views of what Scripture is saying? You don't know, especially when Scripture Alone is the highest authority one can consult and no other. Thus, we are left in a vacuum as to what the Bible is really trying to say.
c)It doesn't match up with what the First Christians believe or the history of the Bible itself. Scholarship on this shown time and time again that Tradition and Scripture are so intertwined that they are basically coincident. Eventhough the NT was written from Oral Tradition, the Oral Tradition is the context and lens to interpret that which is written. There's even the concept of the Regula Fidei where the teachings of the Church on what Scripture say is used as a guide to interpretation. Church Fathers also urge their flock to go to the Church for Scriptures, not to read it subjectively alone. McGowan also notes in Ancient Christian Worship how Biblical reading early on and in Judaism is a communal thing.
d)It forces one to adopt circular reasoning. This is blatantly obvious by the fact that Scripture Alone is the highest authority. What happens when one is dealing with a matter of faith such as the Existence of God or the Divine Inspiration of the Bible or How many books the Bible must have? You can't look at history or reason and instead end up with circular reasoning.
*Obviously* there were more italian popes. The church is and has always been based in Rome after all. People who lived nearby had much more chances to be noticed for their work and promoted to higher levels than people on the fringes of christendom. And politics mattered too, it was certainly among the main factors in choosing popes. Race however wasn't. In no small part because top fucking kek at the idea of pre-nationalism italians having any kind of national unity whatsoever.
And the spaniards were called jews because they had a far higher percentage of converted jews (and muslims) among them than any other nation in Europe.
Some even accuse a roman envoy of giving insight to the queen about the spanish armada. So most spanish people and spanish speaking boycott catholicism and syncretize it, with local paganism and folklore.
>So they named their coins di nero
The orthodox church separated not only because of a small dogmatic issue which is not a problem. But legend has it that there was a huge issue in constantinople. Some tragedy. And the romans didnt give any care about it. But when disaster struck rome everyone had to help.
So did Catholics ever come out and admit they worship the Old Ones?
I believe in the church. It is a wounded church because of the politics of men. Theres been some pretty bad popes and francis is a good pope.
As for catholics repeating. I heard of mk ultra experiments done on catholics by protestants which basically tortures them by repeating and repeating...basically the ingenuity is that americans wanted to pride themselves over catholics. Since the pilgrims were very early protestants who had lived in the continent prior to their plymouth...
>When there are countries
dude italy wasn't even a country for the majority of church history. Hell there wasn't even an italian identity for the majority of church history. Italians didn't even have a common language before the 20th century. A florentine pope was bad news for pisans. A venetian pope was bad news for genovese.
Practically everyone knows the Church had been dealing with shiteloads of crap since its inception.
The argument here is that Protestantism or anyone who subscribe to its doctrines are to be considered part of this Church that has struggled for centuries and certainly, still is. This is done by attacking one of its fundamental doctrine, Sola Scriptura using not apologetical material but scholarly sources. And certainly the Cambridge History of the Bible is not shy to make this clear with the copypasta in that prior post.
Its a universal thing. And something we can comprehend. But lets use this as an example. the scottish rite of freemasonry. The einstein convention is rumored to be progenitor of it. But what did the southern people put as its foremost leader, albert pike, a confederate soldier and kkk member.