Does the Catholic church still commission new, opulent things,

File: stringio.png (687KB, 528x704px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 528x704px

they have tried brutalism and other isms as well

File: 23895792375.jpg (217KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1024x768px

>>2356327
It does I guess, it's just that

1. the Catholic Church no longer has the money or influence that it used to
2. Catholic aesthetics generally went to shit in the 60s and 70s and even today it can have a problem with ugly-ass kitschy modern art

Pic related is a postmodern cathedral that was completed in 2004, so don't get me wrong the Catholic Church still produces a lot of beauty, but you probably aren't going to see Michelangelo-level stuff any time soon.

>>2356341
>1. the Catholic Church no longer has the money or influence that it used to

Ending the sale of indulgences was a mistake. There's no good theological argument against it, and Luther is a fucker who was wrong.

>>2356327
Catholics aren't Christian

>>2356354
There's no good theological argument against selling spiritual salvation for money? You sure about that?

>>2356354
A refreshing take on the subject desu

>>2356354
>There's no good theological argument against it
I know this is b8, but
What about the fact it's simony?

File: fazzini.jpg (989KB, 4096x2263px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 4096x2263px

>>2356341
>Catholic aesthetics generally went to shit in the 60s and 70s

shit you say

>>2356359
The Catholic church derives it's authority directly from St. Peter via apostolic succession. It is the most Christian denomination in existence, you slimy little heretic.

>>2356354
>Money should get you into heaven

Okay edgelord. Maybe you should just try being a good person sometime?

>>2356341
How the hell is this 'postmodern?' Are you high?

File: 1481859531037.png (174KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 499x499px

>>2356354
u mad boi?
Salvation through faith alone.

>>2356370
Don't reply to him, it's just bait that derails threads.

>>2356366
That sculpture looks evil as fuck

>>2356370
Peter had nothing to do with the medieval heresy of Romanism

>>2356387
It's meant to represent humanity under the threat of a nuclear war, with Jesus rising above them all.

>>2356362
>The practice is named after Simon Magus who is described in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24 as having offered two disciples of Jesus, Peter and John, payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands.
You mean the based gnostic magician and mystic?

>>2356364
I don't think you know what simony means

>>2356376
It's not bait, it's just a humble correction
Christians are Christians
Catholics are Catholics
Catholics aren't Christian

File: image.jpg (25KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 443x332px

>>2356327

>>2356387
It's by anti-pope Francis. What did you expect?

>>2356395
It means sale either of grace or of ecclesiastical position

>>2356403
Sedememer detected

>>2356397
They acknowledge Jesus Christ as God. There aren't any other requirements to be considered Christian, sorry bud.

>>2356403
It's from the 1970s

>>2356416
"By" as in "in proximity to"

File: lichen.jpg (750KB, 2626x2100px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 2626x2100px

Poland built their largest basilica just over a decade ago.

>>2356415
They don't believe justification is by faith alone, and they don't believe the bible
Not Christian

>>2356423
Very beautiful!

>>2356428
>They don't believe justification is by faith alone, and they don't believe the bible
Neither is required to be considered Christian. Sorry bud.

>>2356423
Based polan

>>2356428

Christianity predates the Bible

>>2356428
>They don't believe justification is by faith alone, and they don't believe the bible
Correction: they don't believe the different books of the Bible are all of the same genre, and they believe that faith can be strengthened through work.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 470x313px

Oy vey gotta catch up with the times goys! You don't wanna return to the dark ages do you?

>>2356435
Wrong
>>2356437
So?
>>2356438
Everyone believes that
My point stands

>>2356423
>John Paul II
Thinly-veiled nationalism.

>>2356443

So "not believing the bible" (a bogus charge to begin with) is irrelevant as the bible was compiled by men.

>>2356443
>Everyone believes that
>My point stands
So the fact that the Cathechism extrapolates the natural conclusion from these axioms makes them not Christian, whereas Christians simply believe these axioms and don't try to draw any knowledge from it besides what's prima facie?

File: image.jpg (80KB, 562x262px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 562x262px

>>2356440
I love this one because it looks like a lovecraftian monster in mine craft form.

File: 1485355784944.jpg (100KB, 756x772px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 756x772px

>>2356443
>No-one before the Biblical canon was created were Christian
You're a special kind of retarded. American Protestants are the detritus of Christendom.

>>2356423
>>2356434
too eclectic IMO, but at least they're trying

>>2356449
The bible is compiled by nothing but itself, it is self-confirming
EHYEH-ASHER-EHYEH
>>2356454
Huh?
Catholics don't believe in salvation by grace and they do believe in obeying an Argentine communist as though he's God on earth

>>2356457
The biblical canon was created when the bible was written

>>2356472
Which was about 50 years after the first Christians existed. Or I guess by your definition the people in Peters church weren't Christian, dumbass

Anyone who believes in both sola scriptura and salvation by faith alone is flat out retarded.

>What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

>>2356479
Actually it was 1500 years earlier

>>2356485
Start the passage where it actually begins, in verse 14. It's obviously teaching sola fide

>>2356497
>Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Oh shit, let me quote that last part.

>You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God there it is in black and white buddy. Faith means absolutely nothing without the works to back them up. Don't even try to play semantic games to interpret it differently. Here it is again:

>You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The Word of God himself. Don't fuck around going "Uhhhh well what God REALLY meant was Luther was right". No, fuck off. God says "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Better start apologizing you Protestant worm

>>2356497
I don't see how "treat everyone the same" is sola fide.

>>2356509
James' focus is not on relationship with God but on recognition of this relationship in other believers (see vrs. 18). James point is that true faith brings forth good works and thus a faith which does not bear such works is a false faith. It is nothing more than evidence of a preexisting justification attained through faith at which point the new creation is imputed a righteousness from outside of them resulting in right-standing with God. I would also point out that James is not Paul, so it is erroneous to force James to use Paul's definition of the word justified. Paul uses the word justified to indicate the means of right-standing with God as proven by Romans 5:1; "Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

>>2356354
t. Scientologist

>>2356548
I see sophistry, not exegesis

>>2356538
>James point is that true faith brings forth good works and thus a faith which does not bear such works is a false faith
Sounds exactly like American Protestantism. All talk, no walk. The laziest most spiritually dead form your Christianity you can practice. It's not surprising so many of them don't do the right thing when you need to tie yourself up in semantic knots to 'correctly' interpret a line as simple as "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." it means the exact opposite so why not reinterpret any other verse to match your own little version you've invented

>>2356362
As long as the money is put into the furthering of the Christian mission, no.

"Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven."

Or however the verse goes. It gives the Church pretty wide latitude to decide how sin will be remitted and how punishment will be alleviated. And it has that latitude from God Himself.

Now, obviously the sale of indulgences shouldn't be for personal gain, but there is, again, no good theological argument for banning the practice totally.

>>2356565
I'm still just seeing sophistry. I await counter-exegesis

>>2356569
Got any exegesis or just sophistry?

>>2356573
Exegesis is pointless without the Holy Spirit to guide you. You can argue all day long about how your interpretation of scripture is correct but in the end all you're doing is interpreting it as words in a book and missing the spiritual meaning

>>2356577
I'll take that as a concession

>>2356570
The money went into building a lavish palace for the pope

>>2356354
>Ending the sale of indulgences was a mistake.

Indulgences were never sold, and they're still around today.

>>2356366
Generally yes

>>2356374
t. doesn't know what postmodernism is

>>2356601
>Indulgences were never sold
Right, they were granted in exchange for donating to the church
Completely different

>>2356366
Thats pretty badass.

>>2356601
>t. doesn't know what postmodernism is

>not him but i really don't know
>look it up
>a reaction against the austerity and uniformity of modern architecture
Huh.

File: Catholicism is a religion of peace.jpg (330KB, 967x977px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 967x977px

Friendly reminder that the Papacy is the Whore of Revelation.

>>2357269
i thought that protestants burned people as witches

>>2357288
Look up the auto-da-fe.

>>2356423
Disgusting.

>>2356354
Secularism was a mistake.

If you religion is true, then it SHOULD be the state's religion. Allowing it to be put on equal footing to others is soft apostasy.

>>2357288

Catholics did too. And in far greater numbers. They even had the malleus maleficarum to help identify and punish witches.

>>2357514
lol

>>2357288
Protestants burned actually witches thus protecting the innocent*

>>2357288

They did, far more so.

>>2357537

Exact opposite, actually. Protestants were far worse about murdering people and the Church did not approve of the malleus maleficarum.

>>2357537
Protestants burnt more witches.

In Catholicism, witchiness is just plain old paganism by shrill women who needs to be beaten by husbands or yelled at by a MISSIONARY. You know what gets you burned? Heresy.

>>2358259
>You know what gets you burned? Heresy.

Presumably it does not hurt as much to be burned as a heretic.

>>2358284
Burns your soul though. Hurts desu.

Catholics burned more witches.

>>2357288
>>2357537
>>2358246
>>2358259
>Particularly in 16th and 17th centuries an intense discourse on the nature of witches preoccupied demonologists across Europe and they published many printed sermons, books and tracts. Catholic Church played an important role in shaping of debate on demonology, but the discourse wasn't much affected by Reformation. About the reality and evil of witches was also convinced Martin Luther who facilitated development of Protestant demonology.[41] Catholic and Protestant demonologies were similar in their basic beliefs about witches [42] and most writers agreed on the severity of the crime of witchcraft.[43][d] It was accepted by both Catholic and Protestant legislature[44] and witch-hunting was undeniably sponsored by both Protestant and Catholic governments.[45][e][f] Witches became heretics to Christianity and witchcraft became the greatest of crimes and sins.[48] Within continental and Roman Law witchcraft was crimen exceptum a crime so foul that all normal legal procedures were superseded.[49]

>>2356327
While they are as corrupt as ever, they no longer build cathedrals if that is what you are asking.
At least not in Europe, where the number of Catholics decreases with time.

However they keep spending big. Like for instance, wasting millions of euros of public money in a TV channel that promotes conservative values instead of using them to preserve the religious and historical heritage.

>>2358375

The Church did not sanction any of it and taught that witchcraft was nonsense.

>>2358403

That depends on the pope and the time period.

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

>>2358423

>the Malleus Malificarum received an official condemnation by the Church three years later, and Kramer's claims of approval are seen by modern scholars as misleading.

Not seeing the support here.

>>2358436

Then I suggest you read the whole article, which is about a specific papal bull, the Summis desiderantes affectibus, and cites the wording of the bull itself, rather than cherry picking one sentence about the Malleus Malificarum.

>>2358470

The Anon above specifically cited it as evidence

>>2358479

I'm not sure which post you are referring to. I replied to a claim that the church taught witchcraft was nonsense, which is simply not uniformly true, it depends upon the pope and the time period.

>>2358495

This one >>2358246

>>2358507

>>2357537

>>2358507

That's from a poster defending the Catholic Church who says it did not approve of the malleus maleficarum

>>2358513

see >>2358510

>>2358510

Okay.

So?

What relevance does something someone else wrote five hours ago have to me?

They were real witches at Salem

File: aeria2.jpg (305KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1500x1500px

no one has mentioned the gaudi masterpiece ?
who cares about the brut shit

>>2358615
>gaudi
I think you mean "gaudy."

>>2358615
This cathedral looks so scary
There's something terribly wrong with it
I wouldn't know how to put it though

File: 1446785534699.png (410KB, 869x500px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 869x500px

>>2357514
This is true.

>>2361373

Inside its anything but. He uses light so perfectly with the window sizes and placement. Recommend visiting listening to everything on the tour

>>2356423
good lads

>>2358615
Doesn't this have Darth Vader and a whole bunch of other pop culture dudes as gargoyles?

>>2356423
pure kitsch

>>2356341
Bretty gud, but the gilding kills it...