As Sunni Islam has survived, possibly even thrived, without a

>>2000554
without holy see? i think some of the practises might lose some legitimacy (though they wouldnt necessarily stop completely, but i think change). i think it would break into smaller groups probably as well.

>>2000554
We would not survive.

In the past few hundred years, Lutherans have split into over 40000 different protestant denominations. This split was allowed to happen because there was no one to stop it. No one to arbitrate disagreements in scripture or tradition.

Aside from stopping fragmentation, the pope also acts as a living voice for the Church. This voice allows us to interpret new information correctly, and reconcile that with our faith.

>>2000704

>correctly

hmmmmmm. no.

i dont think theres necessarily much wrong with breaking into smaller groups but if they are really small sometimes you get some nasty hierarchies with otherly charismatic and weird pastors whatever which can't get put in line.

>>2000704
Well Orthodox Christianity is mostly keeping it together, while they have their disagreements, they are mostly not of theological, but of political nature. Same with the Anglican Church, who in the beginning were just Catholics without the Pope.

>>2000727
but orthodox churches have hierarchy, so do anglican dont they?

>>2000727
True enough I suppose. The Anglicans still resemble the church fairly well.

The orthodox are bros in my opinion, and I hope that we come to some consensus on primacy someday.

I didn't really consider these churches, most likely because they are so similar to Holy Mother Church. Thanks for bringing that up.

I was more concerned with Episcopalian churches and the heresy that they bring to the table.

>>2000765
Orthodox Patriarchs are all equal to one another, with the Patriarch of Istanbul being first among equals but still being equal and not able to impose anything to any of the others.

And the head of the Anglican church is the Queen, who has just as much power to meddle in its affairs as she does in the UK's. She just stands there and looks pretty.

>>2000765
They do have hierarchy, but they don't have a single head and it's mostly honouring the traditions. Patriarch of Constantinople is the first among equals, nothing more. Moscow or Georgian Patriarchies can do whatever the fuck they want and nobody will be able to stop them. For example, due to Ukraine happenings they have a schism between those who still answer to the Moscow Patriarch and those who "nationalised" the church, but it's purely a political dispute.

>>2000724
There is something inherently wrong with division. Christ created one Church, not many different "churches." He gave authority to St. Peter, and some people don't like that, so they pick and choose what teachings they will follow.

There is nothing wrong with debate and disagreement, but schism is never an answer.

>>2000778
>>2000777

see, i was thinking what if the whole hierarchy disappeared.

>>2000554

does any of you watch the show pic related. i really liked it. considering watching again.

>>2000784

think of how jesus reacted to the pharisees, do you honestly think jesus would be hundred percent be proud of the church as its become? the infallible pope elected by men. the kind of strict rules and ungodly procedures jesus broke down.

>>2000832

nah, jesus just hated those pompous kikes

>>2000832
Jesus broke nothing down. He came to fulfill a covenant and to build his Church in earth.

The Catholic Church is what Christ created, and yes he would be proud of it. Maybe not proud of most Catholics, but surely he would be of his Church.

The Papacy itself was established by Christ, and he would have no issues with it today. He might take issue with some members of the hierarchy, but never the hierarchy itself.

>>2000811
I'm up to episode 8. Pretty good really. I don't like the whole "spiritual struggle" but it's pretty good. Half the time I think Pope Pius the 13th is the best pope ever, the other half of the time I think he's the Anti-Christ. Really good show.

>>2000554
ONLY THE CHURCH POSSESSES THE CHARISMA OF TRUTH

EVERYTHING ELSE IS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

>>2000865

are you kidding? the catholic church is hypocritical in many of its rules and hierarchical structure. Christ didn't specify this to be the structure of his church. Christ criticises the pharisees for things that the catholic church is guilty of today.

>never the hierarchy itself.

surely its the nature of christ to love his members more than the hierarchy itself.

from reading about that line about peter, it seems relatively vague as well.

File: image.jpg (141KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x667px

>>2000554
>As Sunni Islam has survived, possibly even thrived, without a Caliph, an office that had been a feature of the religion pretty much since its founding

Only idiots think the Caliph is important to Islam at all. The Shiek al Islam was the equvielent to the Pope in islam. The Caliph was a temporal ruler, he had no spiritual power.

The papacy was created by Christ himself.

>>2000941
Top Kek

I bet Christ would love papal infallibility ex cathedra, wouldn't he?

>>2000963
Christ gave infallibility. Matthew 16:18 to 16:19

>>2000912
Show me this hypocrisy.

Also, the Church is greater than the sum of its parts. Greater than the hierarchy you seem to hate. It is the mystical body of Christ. Members of the body may fall and be lost, but the collective body is eternal and infallible.

>>2000727

Anglicanism is dying even with the support of the State

>>2000981
that's a transdenominational falling away from secularisation and hyperliberalism of mainlines

>>2000981
however it's going pretty well in africa

>>2000996
Even as someone who was raised Anglican, (Episcopalian technically, but we're just the American branch), I've been considering leaving the church for just those reasons.

>>2001004
where are you going to go?

>>2001028
Probably to the Orthodox church, but I've heard that they aren't too welcoming to those who aren't greek or russian, though that could be false.

>>2000971

erm where exactly does it say infallibility. I think its quite ambiguous. Christians use scripture which is at best ambiguous to justify overly strict doctrine.

>>2001041
isn't catholic easier?

>>2001041
i think american missions are easier to convert to and more welcoming of outsiders, if available

>>2000963
The pope is the Vicar of Christ.

>>2001041
Convert to Roman Catholicism, brother.

>>2001059
Christ literally said to St. Peter that he would honor what ever doctrine the Church leaders decided upon. He gave Spiritual and Temporal authority to St. Peter, who in turn passed it down to the successive Church leaders.

This authority was discussed by early Church Theologians, and was named "Papal Infallibility."

>>2001041
Come home to Holy Mother Church, brother.

>>2001143

verse? line?

>>2001061
>>2001122
>>2001149
Maybe, but I need to wait until one or both of my grandparents die, they both have bad history with the Catholic Church, and me converting would probably damage our relationship severely.

>>2001066
but american missions are proddy garbage.

>>2001162
I know the feeling. My family is all protestant, and my conversion was a shocker to them.

My grandmother thinks we hate jesus and worship Mary lol. It was an interesting conversation. Most of the family are ok with it now, after discussing it with them and clearing up misinformation.

I wish you the best, bud.

>>2001152
Mathew 16:19.

If you want to argue the meaning of that verse, then we're talking exigesis at that point, and Greek isn't my specialty. I'm sorry if that's not good enough, but that verse is the justification for Papal authority and has been considered such for a long time.

Now I would love to learn about this catholic hypocrisy I keep hearing about.

>>2001829
Thanks anon, I think if I explain my decision to them, they'll be understanding.

Catholicism is founded on scripture and tradition.

Scripture is considered by the church to be a product of Catholic tradition.

Catholic tradition supersedes scripture.

Catholic tradition essentially means that the true church of the apostles is preserved solely through the handed-down customs and teachings of churches in communion with the Roman Bishop, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Catholicism cannot exist without the Pope, because Catholicism is whatever the hell the Pope wants/needs it to be.

>>2001878
No problem man. Just remember, it's your life and your spiritual experience. I understand not wanting to upset family, and I don't know your situation, but it's your life in the end.

Sometimes it's tough being your own person, but know that what ever happens with it, God is going to be there.

>>2000554
A Caliph is not the same as the Pope. The Pope acts as an intermediary, a Caliph only upholds what precedent Muhammad had set. A more apt comparison would be between with the Shi'ite's conception of an Imam who does act as an intermediary between Muslims and God. And those Imams can only come from the family of Ali.

>>2002149
The scriptures would morning exist without tradition. Scripture is a product of tradition.

Ultimately I think making scripture available to non priests was a huge mistake. The Catechism is sufficient.

The pope is the high court, bishops are judges.

>>2001839

not really any point, anything i say you're going to back up with a quote that im going to question and nothings going to go anywhere.

i just disagree with the structure, the hierarchy and the obligations in the church and i dont think they are justified biblically. but you do. i think its okay to worship in anyway you want meaningfully, but i dont think the catholic church is the greatest and fullest church and its norms are not necessities as it says.

>>2000999
All denominations are doing pretty well in Africa.

But the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are doing pretty well in Europe when they have the support of the State, only Protestantism manage to fail(in Europe) despite being supported by the State.

>>2002831

tradition is flawed and corruptible; just look at catholic history. People should be in charge of their own spirituality or where can there be real faith.

>>2000554
It lost is last widely supported Caliphate in 1924. There was not a real challenge of their authority among Sunni's till 1744. For the first 120 of that it was not a effective challenge outside its home area. After the fall of the last Caliphate the Saudi Wahhabist have filled much of the void.

Local traditions were still a thing but the growth of the power of the Saudi Wahhabist did not have a challenge to their authority till the late 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

There is not a good name for their challenger, but jihadist will do. I do not think they have done a good job holding to its traditions in the short amount of time it has not had a Caliph.

>>2000554
Religion is identity, nothing else. Sunni Islam thrives because the Sunni world has gone to shit due to foreign activity and this either completely wipes out traditional identities or strengthens them. With or without pope, if Western Europe manages to keep on track without any sort of major meltdown of our way of life, Catholicism is gone within a hundred years anyway.

>>2000865
>The Catholic Church is what Christ created
The most original Church is Oriental Orthodoxy.
t. Polish raised in Catholicism, who don't mind East Orthodoxy either, but despise Heretical Proddies.

>>2002777
Well, it can't be denied that He will be there with those numbers.

>>2000554
No. The Catholic Church could not survive without a Pope (see: elected absolute monarch). The College of Cardinals (electors) can't come to an agreement over who the Pope should be unless forced to under threat of starvation. This shows the difference between the many Cardinals and what/who they believe would be best for the future of the Catholic Church (if what is best for the church even affected their voting). Take away the threat of leaving the world like Bobby Sands did you'll find out just how long the Catholic Church lasts without a Pope.

>>2005555

chekd

>Religion is identity, nothing else.

Substantiate. Statement seems false on face, cause strong universal qualifier "nothing else".

Religion may be identified, but it cannot be said for all things that it may not be any of them.

>>2005854
so what would happen if isis just bombed vatican wiped it off the face of the earth, what would happen. Everyone in it, including papa. dead.

>>2005977
Assuming that all of the Cardinals died on the attack, the bishops would convene and decide on new Cardinals, who in turn would select a new pope.

After that, i would hope the Church would re-organize a Papal Army and wipe ISIS from the face of the Earth.

>>2006056
what if it was the us that did it after a trade disagreement then vatican secratary of state insulted trump so he decided to bomb out vatican?

>>2005977
The Church still has the Synod of Bishops to fall back on (the current ecclesiastical law on which isn't set but it would happen in the case of such an event). The Synod of Bishops is of course considering that ALL the Cardinals were killed in such an attack (they wouldn't because not all Cardinals can vote because they are too old to travel). The remaining Cardinals and Bishops would recuperate and re-establish the Church.

>>2006056
I would be the first to join such an army

>>2006168
In such an event, Trump would kill citizens of numerous sovereign nations. Trump would lead America into war with the rest of the world in such an event.

If he only killed the Cardinals and not innocent civilians then see >>2006177

>>2006168
I'm sure the international community would do more damage than an army could ever do.

Not sure though. Interesting idea. I would say that there might be a declared war between Vatican City and the USA, but with VC flattened, I don't know how that would work. With no state, the church's Just War Theory goes out the window.

Interesting hypothetical question though.

>>2006183
but would the vatican declare war on the us?

>>2006177
isnt it unchristian to go into a war like that? what is the theology of war.

>>2006187
what is just war theory, and is it the intentional creation of loopholes?

>>2000778
How on earth is that a "purely political" dispute? What if the nationalized Church wants to consecrate its own bishops, Moscow disapproves, and the national Ukrainian Church does so anyway?

>>2006233
So, Just War Theory was created by St. Thomas Aquinas, and addresses the required criterion for fighting in a war. The first of these conditions is that the war must be fought by two legitimate bodies, e.g. states, empires, ect.

As VC would be rubble, assuming Trump nuked it or something, it would cease to be a state, thus not fulfilling the first requirement.

Now, the Church has its own list, which builds upon St. Thomas, as well as Augustin, which is in the current Chatechism.

These are dense topics to be sure, but the short answer is that a Catholic can fight in a war if that war seeks to do the following:

1. Defend the life and liberty of your people against the Tyranny of another nation, as a last resort.
2. Prevent the tyranny of another nation upon another, as a last resort.
3. Seeks to right a wrong that cannot be solved diplomatically.
4. And most importantly, ensures that the war you fight must not be frivolous, and that you fighting the war brings about better conditions for the world, as opposed to not fighting the war.

>>2006233
And as far as intentionally creating loopholes, I don't think so.

I'm sure many leaders skew and pervert the intended use of it to justify their wars to the people. The standard "Gott mit Uns" if you will.

The harsh reality is that wars are quite common, and they seem to be a part of our fallen condition. A war must be fought only when absolutely necessary, and the Church's teaching on war exists to help discern when it is necessary to fight.

>>2006274
but what would jesus do?

>>2006308

what about revolution? christians aren't supposed to disobey the states laws

>>2000554
Catholicism ought to have fucking Rome.

This keeps the Catholic clergy almost always a neutral party in many things as they have a support group. In my country Catholics almost always take a third stance on things unlike protestant cultists who latch on to a politician and shill the cunt in elections. Violating the whole state/church separation.

>>2006314
Luke 22:36 shows that Christ realized that we live in a world that is not perfect.

As a rule, mercy and love must be first in line when approaching a conflict. But, at the same time, when it is impossible to secure the lives and freedom of yourself or another, it would be immoral to stand aside and take no action.

A great example would be the Rwandan Genocide. It was wrong for nations to stand by while an entire people were systematically slaughtered. I believe Christ would want us to save those people any way we could.

>>2006324
Christians are allowed to disobey the state when the state violates Christ's teachings. That's, at least, what I've come to understand. That's the ultimate meaning of the "render unto Caesar" line. Everybody forgets that, according to Jesus' worldview, everything belongs to God, including what nominally belongs to Caesar.

>>2006329
careful, swearing is a sin.

>>2006336
Yes and no, from what I understand from Cannon Law.

Just because a law goes against Christ's teachings, we can't overthrow a government. Case in point would be abortion. We have a duty to protest and attempt to change that law, but violence outright isn't an answer.

If a government, like Kim Jong Uns for instance, is illegitimate and tyrannical, yes we have a duty to help depose him. But a revolution must depose an illegitimate government, and institute a legitimate one that corrects wrongs of the previous regime.

>>2006349
But isn't it a sort of list of offenses that can grow or shrink?

Let's say the US were to legalize abortion and gay marriage and euthanasia and infanticide, and let's say they also started to tax religious institutions. Would that tip the balance for the US government into illegitimacy?

>>2006349
>>2006336
>>2006335

i feel the bible doesnt even cover or cant cover many of these issues.

i dont think the bible deals with illegitimate governments and i suspect if it did, the answer it would give might be surprising, given a conversation i had with my friend similar to this ages ago.

>>2006232
>isnt it unchristian to go into a war like that?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -Matthew 10:34

also >>2006274

>>2006458

see why do people take random quotes out of context in the bible. how does this justify war. its jesus sayign it about himself and i imagine its a more nuanced metaphor. hes not prescribing it to people. Why do christians think they can just do this.

>>2004719
It's literally the only church given authority by Christ.

>>2006470
where does it say that? other churches claim apostolic succession too.

>>2006470
is apostolic succession even in the bible?

>>2006465
Tell that to a Catholic whose Pope you just killed. The Catholics I know would go to war if the Pope said so (most of them are Mexicans)

>>2006512
its just abit silly desu.

>>2000554
>As Sunni Islam has survived, possibly even thrived, without a Caliph,
Retarded wahabbism is not thriving, no stability, no order, no progress, no firm definitions nor true statements, islam is a mess for any anti-islamic people to lead.

>>2006366
You are correct, the bible does not.
This is why a living voice of authority is needed, like the Pope. Our catholic traditions evolved from experiences that the Church leaders learned from.

Jesus didn't tell us how to run a government or how best to run a science lab. These things are outside the scope of what Jesus came to teach.

We take what we do know he taught, from scripture, and apply that to certain situations outside of the scope of Scripture, like war for instance. We know that Christ told his apostles to get weapons. Not many, but enough to defend themselves with. It's pretty clear Christ is preparing them for life after his Crucifixion, and telling them that self defense is permissible. We can apply this to a national level by looking at passages like this one and using them as guidelines on how to create national policy in accordance with our Catholic beliefs.

>>2006535
see all the fractures and destruction of the islamic order, all these retarded shit that in recent history comes from islam comes from shit created to destablize the middle east to make it ripe for intervention and conquest.

>>2006543
i dont think that voice needs to be called infallible though.

>>2006548
Islam with an established capital, caliph, order, authority, laws and state was a dominant world power that was progressing, once it lost its caliphate there was nothing that could be done as the individual provinces and regions were extremely weak.

>>2006556
Infallible, the Pope is the word of God.

>>2006559

who said so? and no he did not say so.

>>2006528
no doubt. just another reason why you need a rallying voice (the Pope) for them to gather behind and tell them what to do.

>>2006556
But it does, given that it logically follows from what I discussed above.

As you put, we aren't going to get anywhere with the doctrine of papal infallibility. Whatever evidence I present, you won't accept.

But, you do see the need for a voice though, correct? And this is problem with Protestantism. The Church requires a voice to lead it into the future. We cant simply "take the bible literally" and we can't act like we still live in the Roman Empire. The world changes everyday, and our Church leaders must interpret these new changes and guide us to be the best christians that we can be.

>>2006559
Just to be clear, Papal Infallibility as an official doctrine is pretty new. All we did is give it a dogmatic title, and specify how it can be used.

For instance, if the Pope is an Ohio State fan, and he says that Michigan is the worst team in college football, that doesn't make it a universally true statement.

In the past, people might have taken it as such. Thus the church leaders described what Infallibility is. The authority of St. Peter was always present, via Christ, its just that the authority has to be used in a certain context. If anything, dogmatically describing Papal Infallibility limited the authority in a way.

I guess we should have defined the term before we began discussing it. Check this out. It may help a little.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

>>2006660
Oh shit.
>>2006660 was meant for >>2006591

>>2000932
>Shiek al Islam

*sheikh al-islam


basically any piece of turd who convinced the ruler of any petty state that he knew the k*ran the best

not the pope, but a culprit amongst those who fucked islam

>>2006641
i disagree. you cannot give humans infallibility. its wrong and theres no real justification for it in the church or bible. And most people don't take the bible literally. No one has a monopoly on biblical interpretation even if they are more educated.

and no, infallibility does not logically follow and you haven't presented any evidence.


>>2006660
i do know what the popes infallibility means and i still disagree.

>>2005555
>Catholicism is gone within a hundred years anyway


LMAO

Your whole race is declining while Catholicism is ceaselessly growing, the only thing which will begone in a hundred years is the white race, and i'm pretty happy that you, filthy apostates, are going to be exterminated from the face of the earth.

>>2006714
what colour are you?

>>2006702

See these posts. I gave you evidence, but you stated you didn't care, and that no matter what it was going to go no where.
>>2001839
>>2004719

If you're not the same person, I apologize. I assumed that you we're based upon the way you type.

At any rate, I showed you the argumentation and reasoning behind our Church teaching. I showed you that we can and do claim authority, and you reject it for some reason. Show me where we are wrong. At what point does it break down?

You agree there needs to be a voice that addresses things outside of the bible. You would also agree that Christ built the Church upon St. Peter. You would also agree that Christ gave St. Peter authority to keep and maintain the Church.
The book of Acts clearly shows the 12 recruiting new apostles to spread the gospel of Christ, and that these Apostles have the same abilities that the original 12 do after Pentecost (e.g. the ability to cast out demons, the ability to forgive sins in the name of God, ect.)
So tell me what you disagree with. I'd like to help clear up any misunderstandings.

>>2006714
There is only one race, and that is the race of Martyrs.

What you may be describing are Ethnic groups.

>>2006718
I'm a part of the mediterranean race.

Your degenerate race who spit on God and its ancestors must disapear, anyway, since you betrayed God and the Church, you're of no use.

>>2004719
This is the sort of stuff that drives me batty when discussing religion IRL.

>Explain Catholic doctrine to someone in a neutral context (IE, explaining what the thought is and why, not really debating it.).
>Someone asks me to point in the bible where it says that.
>Point to a verse as proof.
>They say they have a different interpretation and that the Catholic one is incorrect.
>Ask them about how they justify so many protestants having different interpretations.
>They say that the bible allows for many interpretations...
>But the Catholic one is invalid and has less weight.

Debating theology is just a giant brick wall. I'd rather some autistic men in robes do it than open up the discussion for common folk, at least then they can attempt to reach a common reasoning behind it all.

>>2006732
for me, the difference between the events being described in the new testament and the church now are very big. im not sure apostolic succession is substantiated and i dont think humans can have the authority the church claims. the things the church has done in the past i think are enough to question its legitimacy.

i dont necessarily think that there NEEDS to be a voice or an authority, i just think the bible isnt comprehensive enough on some issues.
im really not sure on interpretations; they are all very ambiguous and dependent on contexts i cannot go into but they give different interpretations to different people, but the bible doesnt necessarily specify all of the practises or obligations of the current church. It doesn't specify it enough so much that i personally think its uncertain what it would mean to build a church on peter or how this extends to now. like i said before, i still dont think apostolic succession is necessarily substantiated and like i said with the sword quote from matthew i think, i have a problem when people interpret descriptions as prescriptions in the bible.

i also think that the abilities of the new apostles isnt relevant to anything and if it was, then i think it would go more against you.

i dont think faith can be substantiated in either scipture or tradition.

>>2006777

im not a protestant. its true, scripture doesnt seem to have objectivity. im against humans taking spiritual authority on earth and i think thats logical.

>>2006828
So if you aren't protestant, what are you?

>>2006809
The abilities of the new apostles prove apostolic succession, so its not a problem for us.

This is a big hangup for sure if you deny that the apostles can pass on their gifts.

If faith cant be sustained by scripture or tradition, what can it be sustained by?

Do you even believe in God? Have you just been taking the piss out of us? Sorry to ask blatantly like that, but you never know on /his/

>>2000554
there are several schools of thought in Sunni Islam, albeit with minor differing viewpoints.

>>2006558
à la Great Schism, but with ethnic fragmentation

>>2006840

"catholic"!

i dont know, i guess faith is sustained by faith. you need faith to have faith. i dont see any other reason, any other way.The doubt is real.

Do people usually have faith just on evidence? i dont know. i wonder how other people think. or does it just resonate in their souls? sometimes i think no one is justified in any thought. and more and more i suspect that is true.

>>2006880
Well man, its easy to be a nihilist about everything. I was raised protestant and lost faith in literally everything about 2 semesters into my Phil degree.

Questions are good, but you need to ask yourself if the questions themselves are even valid.

My senior year, I took a Medieval Phil class, and St. Thomas Aquinas really spoke to me. I saw the beauty of it, and saw that the relativist stuff I found in Protestantism was wrong. I saw that there are answers to any question.

This was further compounded by my Physics double major, which showed me the elegance of a universe.

Is any of that evidence? No, not at all. A first year phil student should be equipped to shred it all, but that still wouldn't sway me. I had my entire world shit on, and I had to crawl out of it.

You're right to an extent that you need some faith to get more faith. I fully feel you there. But I truly believe that we all have a small divine spark in us that calls us to be one with the divine. You may in your mind feel that everything I've said to you is horseshit, but you keep coming back becasue you want to believe.

If I lived next to you, I'd ask you to come to mass with me sometime. Experience it and feel it. Truly meditate on your questions. Think about them all the time.

Pray to Christ and the Saints for guidance. Ask them to show you the way.

It can't hurt right?

That's just my two cents, bud. I've been there before, or at least it sounds like I've been, and I can only offer my anecdotes. Hope I've helped, God bless.

>>2006898
thats the thing, im not a nihilist! i just dont believe anything is inherent, and so i believe yes, the doubt is real as it is in any fallible line of thought. i will never believe theres any real reason to believe in god, and chances are, god doesn't exist but i pray, i got to mass, i go to church alot. what is faith if not that.

im never going to be inline with rome though.

>>2006919
Well man, the only advice I can offer is to ponder the legitimacy of Romes authority based upon the predication of Gods existence, and that is son is Jesus Christ.

Think of it as a though experiment, if you will. Truly play out all of the implications regarding dogma, contingent upon Gods existence.

>>2005555
great quads