were the protestants hacks, /lit/? >inb4 muh paradife loft

muh paradise lost

>>9148713
muh Faust

>>9148713
Popey and Ecumenical Patriarchey are best buds and soon the Church will be reunited. When they are it'll truly be game over for protestants.

I'm a Catholic yet I know there are lots of great Anglican, Lutheran and other dissident writers. OP is a faggot.

File: obama.jpg (487KB, 2500x1735px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 2500x1735px

>>9148754
>Catholic calls anyone a faggot

>>9148754
Also, if there is one tradition that is seriously weak, it would be the Eastern Orthodoxy. Can you name any other writer than Dostoevsky who is so explicitly Christian from Russia? Most classic Russian literature is more "secular" or "liberal" in thought. Take Tolstoy: he was more of a dissident than any orthodox... Orthodox.

>>9148758
OK, you got me, I don't go to church on Sundays or any other day of the week for that matter. I also don't give a damn for this social worker pope. I'm just a general sort of Christian at this point.

>>9148745
stop raping children first xD

>>9148713
Faggoty thread for plebs who don't read.

File: 7.jpg (118KB, 912x1000px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 912x1000px

Protestant literature

>>9148713
>that Luther title
>not Paradife Loft
Lutherans disavow that work and Luther's late-life anti-Semitic tendencies

Well, Catholics have Shakespeare.

> implying Hamlet isn't a Catholic play
> implying Hamlet doesn't hesitate for reasons pertaining to Catholic theology
> implying Shakespeare didn't want his son, Hamnet, to be a good Catholic

>>9148808
This is the only Shakespeare conspiracy theory that actually makes sense

>>9148813

>implying the Hamnet theory doesn't make sense

>>9148813
Not sure if trolling but I can't reread Hamlet and not see an explicitly Catholic play.

Rene Girard red-pilled me on Shakespeare. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is an Christian play.

>>9148780
>I don't go to church on Sundays or any other day of the week for that matter.

You're not a Christian, then.

>>9148713
>tfw your a virgin who belives in Puseyism

my life is a meme

>>9148813
Are you saying that James Joyce acknolwedge Shakespeare's Catholicism in Ulysses and later in Finnegans Wake? Because he did.

>>9148713
why doesn't paradise lost count again

File: laughinggirls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>9148808
>>9148813


>he didn't use an algebraic proof
>legitimate shakespearean theory

File: 1486662028839.jpg (213KB, 897x673px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 897x673px

Protestants cling to their early literature because its all they have. Their beliefs have no real foundation in history or tradition so its inevitable that over time they will devolve, and that's what we're seeing. There is no good contemporary protestant literature. It's all televangelist feel good crap.

>>9148835
Hmm, remind me where in Ulysses Joyce acknowledges it? I know it has to be in "Scylla & Charybdis," I guess, but I only ever recall one of the old farts in the library mentioning his Catholicism in passing.

File: shakespeare.jpg (140KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 490x333px

Renounce violence, Hamnet.

>>9148837
I suppose you could make the argument that it's an explicitly Arian play, and thus heretical. Milton himself also became more overtly heretical later in life.

>>9148856
Burgess realized it as well. Pynchon also.

File: 1487832795001.png (148KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 300x300px

>>9148758
here's your reply

>>9148858
>Milton himself also became more overtly heretical later in life.

Wow, a Protestant lapsing into heresy and eventually into outright atheism?

>>9148837
It does. Protestantism is where we're at. It's implicit (when not explicit) in absolutely every thread on this and other boards. It's a status of affairs everyone protests-- even Protestants.

>>9148875

>Protestant lapsing into heresy

no, it's called <spoiler>calvinism </spoiler>

>>9148855
What's the point of this sort of argument? Even if we concede that the historical or traditional foundation is necessarily closer to the truth, Catholicism is spawned from TRANSLATED texts and further down the line from a deviation of Judaism.

>>9148828
>Implying sitting around in a 21st century "service" is in the Bible.

>>9148935
The only argument that Catholicism can make is one of supposed institutional continuity. This argument fails, but it is the only one they can really attempt. Scripture, doctrine, etc. are all secondary because Catholicism is ultimately just a claim of institutional authority.

>>9148855
Catholicism is the original globalism. Protestants may be prone to schisms but at least this encourages independent thought and leads to regional variety. Catholic cathedrals look out of place in America.

>>9149028
>Protestants may be prone to schisms

The "vicar of Christ" let the Great Schism and the Reformation happen. The idea Catholicism is not subject to massive schism is ridiculous.

File: 1487732848115.jpg (33KB, 433x485px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 433x485px

>Go to American church
>They collect money twice
>Machines to donate money with your credit card dispersed around the building
>Three massive tvs over the stage
>literalist interpretation of the Bible
>Audience claps after each contemporary Christian rock song (there are no traditional hymns)

>>9148713
>>inb4 muh paradife loft
You can't do inb4 without a good reason for it, dumbass.

Also, why do people respond to obvious troll threads?

Also, as people said, muh Faust. In a similar vein, muh Recognitiions.

saged

>>9148935
The argument is that Christ himself founded the Catholic Church. It's not just the "original" Church, its origins are divine, something Protestant Churches can't claim.

>>9149081
The argument is that Christ founded a specific institution with a monarchic episcopal office that is passed down historically and has certain jurisdictional and dogmatic authority. This is of course not demonstrable. And if you are looking at continuity from the apostolic age, Eastern Orthodoxy has equal or greater antiquity than the bishopric of Rome.

>>9149120
Christ founds the Church on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew.

>>9149128
Are you unaware of the various interpretations in the early Church of what the "rock" is? The view that it is Peter is a minority position. This was used as evidence by participants in Vatican I against the proposed infallibility dogma. The keys (binding and loosing) are given to all of the Apostles two chapters later.

>Mt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Note the "ye." That is a plural pronoun.

Even if I conceded your point that in some sense the Church is founded upon Peter, it does not demonstrate Catholic papal dogma regarding his successors, authority, etc.

>>9149146
>Even if I conceded your point that in some sense the Church is founded upon Peter, it does not demonstrate Catholic papal dogma regarding his successors, authority, etc.

I don't see why not.

There's also the fact that even in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was considered first among equals. It's also the last of the five sees left.

>>9149152
>I don't see why not.

Simple. It's founded on Peter. Prove Peter gets a successor with the same prerogatives as Peter (which are not detailed in the text).

>There's also the fact that even in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was considered first among equals.

"First among equals" is not the current doctrine of "first without equals."

>It's also the last of the five sees left.

The others all still exist. Here's one:

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

>>9148855
>It's all televangelist feel good crap.

This is almost entirely an American phenomenon.

>>9149069
I don't know if you're joking or not but I grew up going to a church that was exactly like this. The environment is probably one of the reasons why I became a fedora tipper during my teenage years.

>>9149069
>>9149200
Megachurches are terrible.

>>9148713
The protestants were self-published

Evangelicalism was a mistake
>tfw mainline Protestantism didn't adopt Barthian theology and instead spiraled into an increasingly feeble theological liberalism

>>9149252
The only part of Protestantism that has held together theologically is non-mainline Reformed.

>>9149267
Oh, and non-mainline Lutheranism, I suppose. To a lesser extent, though.

>>9149184
>>9149184
>Simple. It's founded on Peter. Prove Peter gets a successor with the same prerogatives as Peter (which are not detailed in the text).

What about when Christ demands that Peter strengthen the other Apostles in the aftermath of the Crucifixion? That seems to suggests a special power that lies with him.

>>9149267
>>9149291
Are you talking about Confessionalism? I don't know... it's better than Evangelicalism, certainly, but I find it still quite stultifying.

And besides, the mainline still has a lot of vestigial institutional power. Any sea change would have to come from inside and take control of those institutions.

>>9148754
>>9148780
Why do people like this exist?

>>9149297
Come on. You need to demonstrate something like what Pastor Aeternus teaches.

>That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
>And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
>Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
>So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

>>9148713
But Paradise Lost is literally all you need, and the rest of Milton's work just makes it stronger. Luther a shit btw.

>>9149310
Because they have working synapses and some level of intellectual honesty.

>>9149303
>Are you talking about Confessionalism? I don't know... it's better than Evangelicalism, certainly, but I find it still quite stultifying.

Yes. I can understand perceiving it that way, but behaving in this manner has kept their theology free from the negative developments of liberalism. Reformed today believe substantially the same things as they did 500 years ago. The main change has been in the understanding of the church's relationship with the state.

>And besides, the mainline still has a lot of vestigial institutional power. Any sea change would have to come from inside and take control of those institutions.

I don't really expect much change. The mainline churches will just continue to decline until they reach irrelevance. It will take a while but the demographic trajectory is clear.

>>9149338
>I don't really expect much change. The mainline churches will just continue to decline until they reach irrelevance. It will take a while but the demographic trajectory is clear.
Oh, I don't expect it to change either. It would take a revolution or a miracle. But mainline Protestantism is the central pillar of American Christianity, even now, and its end will be bad news for any religion in this country.

>>9149338
>500 years ago

I mean 450. 500 is a bit early.

>>9148798
wtf I hate Lutherans now

>>9149346
Yeah, ideally it would be better to regain control of the mainly denominations. One of the negative effects of separating from them was no longer having a conservative voice present. That voice wasn't accomplishing much, though.

>>9149398
My fantasy is a Barthian, neo-orthodox renaissance in the mainline, if not growing back theor numbers, at least pivoting the church away from mainstream liberalism and stealing some of the thunder from Evangelicals and Catholics. But who could make that happen? Not the current generation of divinity students, certainly

>>9148780

>I also don't give a damn for this social worker pope

So you admit to being an atheist?

>>9149403
The closest thing you'll find to that is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I think.

>>9148855
I actually disagree with this. There's still a fairly solid reformed tradition carried on that isn't totally devoted to madness, minus the occasional theonomist and radical young earther

>>9149451
I'm afraid that I find Evangelicalism as whole to be theologically repugnant.

Friendly reminder that anything below Catholicism is pleb-tier.

Find ONE religion that is as patrician as Catholicism.

>>9149470
Don't take the name too seriously. It's a 1981 break-off from the PC(USA) due to liberalism. They are fairly moderate.

>>9149310
>calvinists
>aka christianity ez mode

>>9149120
>The argument is that Christ founded a specific institution with a monarchic episcopal office that is passed down historically and has certain jurisdictional and dogmatic authority. This is of course not demonstrable.


What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/3

>>9151302

Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

2/3

>>9151308

Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

3/3

Divine Comedy > Paradise Loft > Brothers Karamazov

Karamazov is a good read but come on, Dostoyevsky wrote 1000 page rants. His work was not of the literary refinement or spiritual order of greats like Dante or Milton.

>>9149146
>Note the "ye." That is a plural pronoun.

What does the original language say?

>>9151330
The Vulgate is the most accurate translation, as surely as the Pope is without sin :^)

>>9151338

The only people that claim the pope is without sin are protestants. The pope would be the first one to tell you that he's a sinner.

>>9151318
>His work was not of the literary refinement or spiritual order of greats like Dante or Milton.

Except Milton is shit and Paradise Lost is crypto-Mayan paganism.

>>9148808
The Tempest, too, you could say. The conclusion strikes me as definitely Christian, and more Catholic than Protestant

>>9151356
Sorry, I didn't mean to say "without sin". I should have said "with such a nature as to make it impossible for him to commit acts against God or speak anything that is untrue".
double :^)

>>9151363

Sin is defined as being an act against God and who says the pope can't say anything untrue? The pope can claim that 2+2=5 all day long and nothing will happen.

>>9148795
I was disappointed to find this book on my mother's bookshelf.

>>9148780
You're a literal meme.

>>9148882
This is a Marxist/Catholic board

>>9148828

Nice bait. Church makes you stray further from God if anything

>>9151517
I'll humor your bait. Tell me how surrounding yourself with a body of like-minded believers as Paul admonishes us to do in the Scriptures causes you to stray from God.

File: 1486586929660.png (42KB, 240x232px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 240x232px

>>9151533

>as Paul admonishes us to do in the Scriptures

I admonish you to neck yourself.

>>9148780
>muh cultural catholicism!
>muh you can't lose an argument when you don't believe in any part of the ideology you're arguing on behalf of!

>>9148713
This is such a biased comparison it can't even be called a comparison.

>>9151357
>Paradise Lost is crypto-Mayan paganism
you have my attention mate, care to explain?

>implying the mayans weren't right about everything anyway

File: Pope_Francis_in_March_2013.jpg (127KB, 996x996px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 996x996px

>someone calls himself Catholic
>doesn't regularly take the Eucharist
>probably doesn't even believe in the Real Presence

>Jesus in Bible: give away all your belongings, be poor or thou shall not enter heaven
>go to Rome last summer
>enter the St. Peters Basilica
>marble and gold everywhere, probably cost millions and millions
>top kek
Catholicism is so easy to refute. Just read the Sermon on the Mount and it basically contradicts the entire history of Catholicism.

>>9151302
>>9151308
>>9151312

I really wish protestants would respond to this and provide a rational reason for not ceding to papal authority.

>>9148858
>Protestant being heretical
Heresy is a Catholic concept, ass.

>>9152051
Protestantism itself is heretical, it's just that the last couple of popes have been too nice to point it out.

>>9152042
Jesus said 'You are the rock upon which I built my church'. He did not say: 'You are the rock upon which I built my institute that for the next 2000 years is going to wage wars, violently persecute people who disagree and built massive decadent churches with money stolen from peasant under the pretense of saving their souls'. You know, I believe that most popes did not truly believe in God. They were power hungry mostly.

>>9152068
How do you reconcile these claims with the fact that Jesus said 'Do not judge' 'Turn to the splinter in your own eye instead of the beam in others etc.' You Christians, either protestant or catholic are so far from this Christ figure. How do you delude yourselves?

>>9152074
Jesus also tells us "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light." We are, as Christians, compelled to seek and promote the truth. And the truth is that Protestants get several very important things wrong, from the structure of their Churches to their treatment of the Eucharist. We're called not to judge, but we can't simply excuse falsehood. That's a false kindness and a false mercy.

>>9152069

Well what did Jesus actually mean?

>>9152101
I don't see how a search for truth legitimizes trash talking and not loving your fellow human beings. Love is the most important concept in Christianity, if you do not love your neighbour then you are not a Christian.

>>9152113
I have no idea, but it sure as hell did not mean to invent an institute as horrible and violent as the Catholic church.

>>9152124

Why not? It's not like God is a stranger to making covenants with nasty sinners. Read the Old Testament, the Jews suck.

File: satanic_milton.jpg (8KB, 236x393px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x393px

>>9152004
The poem is not good in spite of but especially because of its moral confusions, which ought to be clear in your mind when you are feeling its power. I think it horrible and wonderful; I regard it as like Aztec or Benin sculpture, or to come nearer home the novels of Kafka, and am rather suspicious of any critic who claims not to feel anything so obvious.

>>9152204
I thought Milton did a good job of rationalizing Satan and Adam. There's no moral confusions; one can still see why Satan is evil, Milton simply adds tragedy to the affair for great success. His verse is seamless and quite beautiful as well. When Dante blended Hellenic Pagan personifications of divine beings/locales no one batted an eye. Maybe that's because Catholicism is a rehash of Hellenic paganism anyway so it was to be expected.

>>9152230
tl;dr People who like Milton don't like Christianity

>>9152237
t. butthurt papist

>>9148713
reminder that martin was right all along

File: 1387392588253.png (2MB, 1000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x3000px

>>9152242
He was.
So was aquinas, tacitus, and kikero before him

>>9152036
you're retarded
>inb4 not an argument.
it's not my job to educate tards and it probably can't be done.

File: pilgrims progress.jpg (27KB, 260x339px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 260x339px

>>9148713

and people say protestant don't have good literature.

>crypto-Mayan pagan

Just kill yourself.

>>9152237
Milton's Christianity is literally the only viable form of Christianity.

>>9153874
what a comfy jaunt

>>9153874
its not good

All secular literature produced in the West since the reformation is Protestant literature, since Protestants run interference between godless people and the bloodthirsty vatican totalitarians who would put them to the sword if they refuse to convert.

File: come on now.jpg (8KB, 236x213px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x213px

>>9155294
>calls one of the greatest literary works of the 17th century not good

>>9156283
Milton was far better than bunyan

Also piers plowman and cantebury both > pilgrim progress if you want to wacky peasant adventures

>>9156311
Piers Ploughman is just one long trip

>>9156283
Will Milton was a protestant therefore protestants do have great works of literature

>>9148763
Ivan Ilyan