>still not Catholic
Why aren't you Catholic yet, /int/ ?
Why would you not follow the man who Jesus declared would be the rock of his church?
Well, cannibalizing my God and Lord is not necessarily a mark of culture and civilization as I know it. Even if He asked us for this Himself, then barbaric customs of barbaric people should be abandoned as man grows up. Doesn't God know that?
Also confession doesn't work for me. I will carry my shame and my mistakes down to my grave and no Christian practices can change this.
Because I'm Coptic, m8
>inb4 flag triggers YESmeme
I'm like 4th gen immigrant, and I fucking hate the mudshits.
Not really, I understand it about as well as most people understand Latin without really delving into it. The liturgy is all explained in Sunday school so you don't really need to know it well to follow along (which is why I bring up Latin, I have some Catholic friends and they understand Latin about as well as I understand Coptic)
Shut the fuck up.
You don't even practise christianity in uk,you are born and not even baptised.
We worship saints that have also served god,jesus is just one of them.
Our culture has mixed with catholicism,nowadays you can't even distinguish a traditional fair/party with a religious one.
It's part of every portuguese,Portugal was born in the shadow of the Catholic Church and religion, from the beginning it was the formative element of the soul of the nation and the dominant trait of character of the Portuguese people.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Luke 22:19-20 KJV
I think He did it, because heathens living then and there were expecting something like this from a God. I mean, the ceremonial consumption of sacrificial animals was quite popular among those folks. The only novum was that there was no replacement for God making sacrifice of Himself, to end all sacrifices. My question is, do we really need to do this after two thousands years? For me this is just pure reconstruction of a ritual, but without any idea what did the passage you cited meant for the Apostles and people whom they preached.
How come you American Catholics are so based ?
you cannot be both
I'm a Christian just not the Catholic variety. I go to mass and take the Eucharist on occasion, too, because I enjoy it. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to "convert" (not the correct word but people use it all the time) to RC. It's not that I have anything against RC theology per se, any more than I have problems with my own denomination's theology. I focus on the similarities in our traditions rather than the differences and consider all Christians my brothers and sisters. I realize that many won't consider me that way and I'm OK with that.
Weren't you the guy looking for Catholic QTs yesterday?
Kek, I tried to get rid of my spiritual life and after few years I gave up seeing no results. Now I think an average human being is simply made for believing in some kind of gods, or spirits, or ancestors, or witches, or whatnot.
No, not by God. By evolution.
We are "mystical beings" even if all this mysticism thing is bullshit. We're born to belief, not to know.
This makes going against the grain and looking for truth even more precious.
catholics believe jesus is white, when he is not
catholics pray to statues when g-d actually hates that
>catholics believe jesus is white, when he is not
Did you ever consider that Christians just believe Jesus is "God" and thus ethnicity doesn't fucking care?
Also, stop that "g-d" bullshit. We're writing in Latin alphabet, put the damn vowels, the word is not a taboo. It's not even a name, it's a TITLE.
Catholics uses statues to focus their attention and mind on a person they beg for intercession.
It's plain stupid to bring up this old political quarrel on whose culture is higher, Jewish (Egyptian?) or Babylonian. I mean, c'mon, it's 2016.
This. To talk about Christ's physical characteristics is to misunderstand the nature of the Trinity.
Americans by and large don't really understand anything about Christianity though
>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.
How can Protestants even compete?
"Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit."
If it is finished then why would you need to continue to receive his sacrifice. He never said, "It is finished, [every Sunday]".
Someone might even say that the Eucharist is a scam to lure you to Church and place your salvation in the hands of the priest, not God the Father.
>see there's a greek orthodox cathedral
>show up the day they are ordaining a deacon
>that night dream of the place
The insanely talented choir got me too. Impressive.
No shit. Muslims and Protestants were very close to each other.
Of course Protestants like Islam are innovations by delusional men.
Muhammad is a pedophile who is also violent. Protestantism...well, it's own people had done the job of debunking themselves by being non biased when it comes to the history of the Early Church and Christianity's origins.
Because christians are forbidden in Valhalla.
Presumably because it's not shitty, even though meme lore of certain people says otherwise.
You are talking more shit than normal retards. great job, you british nutjob.
Coincidence, here's more,
DYK that the Gnostics who oppose the Early Christians don't see any significance in the Eucharist. Do you know who don't as well?
These Gnostics also believed in Predestination and...Protestants do!
Except when this is historically true!
Historian Diarmaid MacCulloch notes this in "A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years."
And also see >>53529772
Now where are your academic sources showing my post to be bullshit?
I am, but I work in a WASP office and don't give a fuck about religion so in the past few years I've been to church 5 times
4/5 have been protestant churches for weddings
1 was episcopalian
2 were presbyterian
and 1 was Lutheran
Thank god I live in the north and don't have to put up with the sing-songyism of baptists or the shitty soft rock of evangelicals
I'm a Southern Baptist and I agree that many Protestants are heretical especially episcopalians
A new mosque up daily in France and a church torn down weekly, you're being destroyed because you abandoned The Lord
I also think Baptists are heretics and all I need is a Protestant to prove my point,
Also before you try abusing what Lane had written earlier, here's what he has to say about the Sola Scripturists,
>The essence of the coincidence view is the as sumption not just that Scripture and tradition have the same content but also that this cont ent is found in the teach ing of the church. The error in attributing the coinci dence view to the Reformers li es in the neglect of their ecclesiology. 58 They did allow for an interpretative tradition not adding to Scripture but did not see either this tradition or ecclesiastical teaching as infallib le. It was possible to appeal to Scripture alike from (interpretative) tradit ion and ecclesiastical teaching. There are two important differences between this view and th e classical coincidence view of Irenaeus and Tertullian. These patristic writer s were concerned to show the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching while the Reformers sought to do the opposite. Furthermore they accepted the inherited faith because it was apostolic tradition whereas the Reformers accepted the (traditional) creeds only because they believed them to be scriptural. 59 This is a significant difference. While the Reformers did not desp ise tradition they only accepted it if it was scriptural, Scripture remain ing the final arbiter. Unlike the coincidence view the sola scriptura did not involve the unqualified acceptance of any tradition or of the teaching of any church and Scripture remained, formally as well as materially, the ultimate criterion and norms. 6
How do you know Scripture is Divinely Inspired?
inb4 Protshit circular reasoning
I don't, but like them - for their approach to Bible, for their medieval scholarship, for the Inquisition and last but not least, for their savoir vivre.
Well, according to your defence Heaven is even more hot than Hell. Also, according to your defence sky is solid and covered with water.
I'm not a catholic because when we are confident that nothing is real, we really don't see why we'd bother proving it. The wise man is one who consents to everything, because he doesn't identify himself with anything. An opportunist without desire. But we needed God because the enterprise of existing would be totally impracticable if we ceased to make important what is not.
Lol @ Brit calling any religion cucks.
>be king of England
>realize wife is infertile
>get buttmad because church doesn't allow divorce
>create new religion and force entire country to follow it
>it's a carbon copy of catholicism with one difference
>"kings can divorce"
>get married and divorced 6 times because he was horny and each time he ended up hating his wife and cut her head off
Your entire country's religion is based on you people being cucks and bowing down to a king's carnal desires.
>tfw catholic american
>tfw nobody here knows anything about religion
>tfw even the "religious" girls are sloots
>tfw no qt pious gf
>Who /traditionalcatholic/ here?
... I think so? Not sure, there's not much catholicism to choose from here (though I think Opus Dei has a small presence as well).
The teachings at my parish seems to be in line with the catechism though, so I guess it's pretty traditional. I'm a convert though, so might be harder for me to spot such things.
because ingrained Christian values are allowing us to be trampled on tbqh
I don't think it's that
It's the philosophy of a man called Peter Singer that is destroying Europe
The funny thing was that before this whole migrant mess, everyone was proudly saying how Europe is atheist, Europe was never really Christian, good that the church is dead now etc but now that the migrants arrive those same SJWs are crying "b-but muh Christian nations! What would le Jesus do"
It's wrong to proclaim yourself the son of God, or preach damnation against all who don't take heed of your master's teaching. It's wrong to forgive others for sins they committed against a third party. It's wrong to hunt and murder "heretics", claiming it was in defense of the flock, since the mere existence of unorthodox opinions threatens to lead them astray from the perfect union in Christ. It's wrong to fabricate stories about your master's birth and lineage to legitimize his claim as messiah, just as it is wrong to lie about miraculous events. It's wrong to preach that merely contemplating a sin is as bad as committing the sin itself. It's wrong to backpedal from centuries of teaching hell as eternal punishment, to a modern update where it's merely disunion with the all loving God. It's wrong to invent fantastical realms like limbo and purgatory, which aren't in the bible. It's wrong to cover-up child rape, then whine about how the media's being unfairly harsh with you. It's wrong to say that merely accepting Jesus into one's heart, makes one saved.
It's wrong for a pseudo-intellectual bishop to start a video blog, lying about church teaching and history. Which is why you should stop watching so much Robert Barron.
If the reasons why such acts are immoral isn't self-evident, no amount of Thomist games or Chesterton catchphrases is going to help you. Thankfully for you, your post was only a dodge.
There's plenty of internet crusading you can do on /his/, go there.
in this place? no, god has abandoned me
So why are you guys Catholic or religious for that matter? For me religion is something that was created as a means to control people so that they wouldn't just act like savages and do whatever they felt like. People feared that what they did here would carry on with them for all eternity. I also see religion as a means for explain things that science could not explain due to the limited knowledge and technology at the time. Since we can explain most things or at least have theories as to why things occurs and since for the most part we live in a global society where we know what is wrong and right I don't see a need for religion.
Because I don't believe claims until they are demonstrable at an academic standard for evidence and backed by mountains of peer review.