/christian/ - christian

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology


New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


ONION IS BACK, PLEASE TRY IT AND REPORT ANY FURTHER ISSUES!

John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Pope.jpg
[Hide] (170.7KB, 2448x3264)
Due to several threads being dragged wildly off-topic by some anons' inability to hold themselves back whenever someone says the Pope is the antichrist or that Martin Luther destroyed Christianity, this thread will serve as a pseudo-containment thread for dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. Rules still apply in here, keep the thread on topic, do not make one-liner insults or ad hominems, keep it civil and respectful. Posts that try to start fights between Churches and drag the OP off-topic in other threads will be deleted, no matter how many there are.
Replies: >>20997
1664502936714.jpg
[Hide] (184.5KB, 1280x720)
It annoys me to see when Christians fight over each other like calling any Catholic pedophile or Protestant fag lover.
That makes us hypocrites.
Replies: >>18594 >>19863
>>18592
protties should calm down, catholic have faith in same god, doesnt that mean they're saved? they may be mistaken on works or ask for saints intercession in vain or kneel to eucharist thinking it is gods presence therewithin but they never intend to commit idolatry except for the simple minded.
Replies: >>18599 >>18613
>>18594
I don't think so. 
Anglicans follow a religion of man because King Henry wanted to divorce his wives in defiance of the LORD's teaching that divorce is wicked. 
Lutherans follow a religion of man because Martin Luther didn't like the Church's requirement for the Apostlolate to have a vow of celibacy. 
"Catholics"? There are about 5 different religions there. 
The Novus Ordo wanted to appeal to more customers, and replaced the mass with a popular protestant supper service, placing man before God. 
The FSSP wanted to keep the keys of the Church and yet appeal to those who think that all there is to it is the "Latin Mass". There are a couple of Latin Masses, the Tridentine Mass and the Dominican Mass, but the 1964 mass by the Freemason Bugnini is not one of them. Those who say such a mass undergo the curse of Pope Leo XIII. 
The SSPX also likes church property, so they say that an anathema may or may not be Pope. No way can an anathema, cursed by God and Church, be the vicar of Christ. They only say this because Lefebre stumbled for church door keys.
The SSPV say the 1958 Bugnini mass  and Sanbornist keep the right mass and follow church teaching to treat the Novus Ordo, FSSP, SSPX as anathemas. Still, they're heretics that follow the false Gospel of Aquinas and are into Mary worship. I don't mind heretics so much, you can still get the sacraments from a heretic; the problem is they won't give the true faithful the sacraments because of their heretical belief in the Gospel of Aquinas, who changed the Law of Moses into every sin and temptation being a mortal sin. Keeps people in the confession line and making church offerings, I guess
>>18599
We're all brothers in Christ, Anon. You think they're wrong, they think you're wrong, and in reality we're all grasping for truth in our own flawed human way. Have some humility.
Replies: >>18648
>>18599

Off-topic, but could you briefly elaborate further on the "Gospel of Aquinas?"  I am unfamiliar with this concept.
Replies: >>18648
>>18594
>catholic have faith in same god, doesnt that mean they're saved?
No, see >>18255
>ask for saints intercession in vain or kneel to eucharist thinking it is gods presence therewithin but they never intend to commit idolatry
It doesn't matter what lie they tell themselves, their intention is very much so to worship objects and dead men and that is an abomination which God hates.
Luther.jpg
[Hide] (199.5KB, 1024x768)
>>18599
>Lutherans follow a religion of man because Martin Luther didn't like the Church's requirement for the Apostlolate to have a vow of celibacy. 
Papist lies, what a surprise. If that was intolerable within the church why do you permit the Eastern Catholics to have married priests? The only thing Romanism believes in is slavery under the Bishop of Rome, something commanded in none of scripture, and it was that Luther pointed that the Pope has no special power but is a mere man whose word should be heeded only as much as it reflects what God has given to us in the Bible that you vainly excommunicated him. Yet he was protected by the God-fearing German princes, who came to the truth spoken in scripture and spurned the errors of the Roman church as the Moravians did a century earlier, and Protestant Europe was blessed of God for its obedience.
Replies: >>18634 >>18648
>>18628
>Protestant Europe was blessed of God for its obedience.
By engaging in decades long wars? LOL
>Yet he was protected by the God-fearing German princes
They were merely using religion as a way of attaining power and taking away the power of Rome leaves a huge power vacuum. Purely political just like all your posts.
Replies: >>18645 >>18646
>>18634
>By engaging in decades long wars?
God gave the world to the Protestants while the papist nations dwindled into poverty and obscurity
Replies: >>18648
>>18634
>taking away the power of Rome leaves a huge power vacuum
Cope. Even at the height of the Great Church Rome was but one of five patriarchates of the Pentarchy. That the Bishop of Rome was highly respected was out of the perennial orthodoxy of its office holders, and not due to some innate superiority. The Christian world did not wait for decrees from Rome to operate, and neither should it. The dogma of papal infallibility is the culmination of 1000 years of conceit from the Vatican when autocephaly was and is the ancient and orthodox mode of church governance.
>>18609
I think it's important to not mistake some mortal for the Lord Jesus Christ. Every word of the Lord in the Bible is important, nothing was idle banter or useless words. 
The LORD Says he gives the Keys to heaven to Simon and renames him Peter, so be it! The Lord has spoken. 
The LORD gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins on Earth, then that is needed. It means we cannot forgive our own sins. 
The LORD says feed his sheep, give to the poor, and love our neighbors, then we should do so. None of this "Faith alone (Luther said I don't need to be nice to people like the LORD said)
LORD says don't divorce, then don't divorce. Simple as that. 
>>18610
What I mean by the Gospel of Aquinas is the Summa Theologica, a huge work done by Thomas Aquinas. I noticed that many Catholic catechisms conflicted; These conflicts were caused because one came from the Bible and the other came from the Summa.  Things that were not a sin under the Law of Moses was a mortal sin according to Aquinas. 
The loving God, who gave us rules to live a better and happier life and rules to prevent us from hurting others were perverted by Aquinas into twisted devilish "everything is a moral sin, including your very thoughts! The God of Moses is a loving God, as affirmed by the LORD Jesus Christ. The god of Aquinas is some lawful evil god that sends all to hell unless they get the sacrament of penance every day. 
It got so bad that one priest's homily said if you help your fellow man and are doing it because you love people rather than out of fear of God that you've gained nothing. 
In a very real way, Aquinas created a new and false gospel. His logic is poor and his premises are only those that a human might assume. 
Too many priests believe this false gospel. But Catholic faith is from the Bible and the infallible pronouncements of the True Popes. NOT Aquinas and not Marion apparitions, 
>>18628
The Bible says we have a leader of the Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18). Luther rejected the Words of God.  
The Lord Says we are to be kind to the poor. The words of God were rejected by Luther, who claimed he didn't need to do good works, but just have faith. But if you have faith Jesus is LORD then why do you not do as he asks?! 
The Bible says Christ established a Church lead by Simon Peter. The Church by divine guidance gave us the Bible in two forms: the Latin and the Greek. Luther throws out the religion of the Church established by the LORD and says all he needs is the Bible. 
'I don't want to pick a fight, but if you reject the Word of the Lord, you reject the Lord.' 
>>18645
>God gave the world to the Protestants while the papist nations dwindled into poverty and obscurity
Did not Satan try and temp Christ with wealth in Power? 
The LORD said the meek shall inherit the earth and that the rich man would find difficulty in getting into heaven. The Lord did not say that the Kingdom of heaven only goes to the rich and the  (in)famous.
>>18648 
>The Bible says Christ established a Church lead by Simon Peter. The Church by divine guidance gave us the Bible in two forms: the Latin and the Greek. Luther throws out the religion of the Church established by the LORD and says all he needs is the Bible. 
You rob Paul to pay Peter. Luther merely preached the Gospel as proclaimed by Paul who spread it across the whole world. And no one in the New Testament wrote in Latin.
pope-gaudy.jpg
[Hide] (134.4KB, 1000x563)
>>18648
>The LORD said the meek shall inherit the earth and that the rich man would find difficulty in getting into heaven. The Lord did not say that the Kingdom of heaven only goes to the rich and the  (in)famous.
And who is the richest man but the Pontiff of Rome? Who proclaims his manmade traditions in halls embossed in gold, gold robbed of innocents across the world?
Replies: >>18704
>>18648
Why do you keep typing Lord in all caps? If you want to use the divine name then do so
>The LORD Says he gives the Keys to heaven to Simon and renames him Peter
Actually He gave the keys to all of the apostles
>The LORD gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins on Earth, then that is needed. It means we cannot forgive our own sins. 
We never could forgive our own sins, nor can any man, the forgiveness is not theirs to give because they are not the one whom we have sinned against. The apostles (more properly the Church) were given the power to forgive sins inasmuch as they declare the forgiveness of sins. In the same way, they were given the power to retain sins. Does the Romish priest have the right to refuse to forgive the sins of the one who confesses to him? He surely does not, but to the one who does not repent of his sin, the Church retains it to him.
>The LORD says feed his sheep, give to the poor, and love our neighbors, then we should do so. None of this "Faith alone (Luther said I don't need to be nice to people like the LORD said)
Do you claim to have given enough to the poor or loved your neighbor enough? I sure don't, if I am to be judged on the basis of my own righteousness I can already smell the fires of hell. The only way I can stand before a holy God is by the mediation of another who suffered for my sins in my stead. 
>LORD says don't divorce, then don't divorce. Simple as that. 
But when He said that, He added an exception, "except it be for sexual immorality", which was also added by the law of Moses as the only permissible ground of divorce.
>The loving God, who gave us rules to live a better and happier life and rules to prevent us from hurting others
>evil god that sends all to hell
Who will define the love of God? Will sinful man do it, or He Himself? An unjust weakling God that allows sinners to get away with their evil without consequence might be very appealing to those same evil sinners, but it isn't the God of the bible. Your God seems to be very wrapped up in man and pleasing him, but the God of the bible is concerned chiefly with His own glory and has little concern for evil men to whom He shows incredible grace and mercy just to allow them to exist in this world rather than to fall out of the womb straight into the pit of hell as they deserve, so great is their sin against Him. Do you expect to enter His presence and not have to answer for what you have done to His creation? The purpose of the law was never so that man could reach his fulfillment through it, it was always precisely the opposite, its purpose was to be a failure so that sinners could see their need for Christ who fulfilled it perfectly. Romans 7:7-11 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! Rather, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, worked out in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the Law sin is dead. Now I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; and this commandment, which was to lead to life, was found to lead to death for me. For sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."
>But Catholic faith is from the Bible and the infallible pronouncements of the True Popes
It is amazing that anyone would put the word of God and the word of men on equal ground, let alone men as manifestly wicked and heretical as the bishops of Rome. Now Rome was once a true church of a true church, having been established by Peter and Paul who invested considerable effort into establishing its orthodoxy due to its central position in the empire, benefiting many churches alongside it through it. This archetypal quality preserved for centuries, which is why Irenaeus was still able to use it long after as the archetypal example of a Christian church in Against Heresies. Paul had prophesied the man of sin would sit in the temple of God (which is the Church) and declare himself to be God, exalting himself above all things which are called god. The pope's incomparable presumption in matters of religion are well known, how he essentially exalts himself as the font of religion above every object of worship, it makes no difference to him whether the god in question is Vishnu or Yahweh, he will suffer no competition. Likewise he has declared himself to be God by claiming for himself titles proper to the whole Godhead; he calls himself Holy Father (a title proper to God the Father), he calls himself Head of the Church (a title proper to God the Son) and he calls himself Vicar of Christ (a title proper to God the Holy Spirit). 
>The Bible says we have a leader of the Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18)
According to Matthew 16 this leader is named Jesus Christ. After questioning Peter who men said He was, the Lord then asked him "but who do ye say that I am?" and Peter answered "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" and Jesus blessed him, saying "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". The Lord was not rewarding him when He followed by saying "and I tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church", as if though the declaration had no relation to the previous words, but was continuing the same thought. Now I can't deny that "petra" and "Petros" in this verse are one and the same, but while the papists conceive that petra is a reference to Petros in reality Petros is a reference to petra; that is, Peter (who was already called so before this moment) is only given such an esteemed title in reference to this moment where he is the rock, and every time he was called Cephas it was a reference to this moment. Peter is the rock not in his singular person but as the man who confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and it is upon this rock that the Lord has built His Church. It is as if the Lord said "I tell you that you are a rock, having been so blessed to have me revealed to him by my Father in heaven and to have rightly confessed me to be who I am, and upon this rock which you now are I will build my Church".
>The Church by divine guidance gave us the Bible in two forms: the Latin and the Greek
The Church gave us no bible, the bible was given to us by God. It is His words and not the word of any church. He did not give it to us in Latin, but in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 
>Luther throws out the religion of the Church established by the LORD and says all he needs is the Bible. 
When we say "the bible alone" we do not mean to exclude everything else in Christian life, we do not abandon the Church, we mean only that the bible is the only God-breathed word, the bible alone is infallible, and the bible alone is the font of religion. The word of God is the only foundation of our faith, but the Church is a grand cathedral built atop it.
>Did not Satan try and temp Christ with wealth in Power? 
Did the Lord Jesus not rebuke him because it was His already? When He rose from the dead did He not say "All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth, therefore go and make disciples of all nations"?
Replies: >>18774
>>18663
The Pope isn't individually wealthy, and is (relatively, as all things) meek in his consumption.
Replies: >>18723
Reformation.png
[Hide] (219.8KB, 1600x1184)
>>18714
Were these guys commies?
>>18717
>trying to demolish the rest of the church
Rome isn't part of the Church, she is apostate. God commanded "Come out of her my people" and I assure you they repeated that command
>the Catholic church failing to resolve the issues that caused them to break away
Those issues (which continue to this day) consist of damnable heresy and profane idolatry
>>18704
The Pope is an office and an apostate one
>>18720
Read 1 John
>>18727
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that which you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. These things I have written to you about those who are trying to deceive you.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
>>18667
>Why do you keep typing Lord in all caps? If you want to use the divine name then do so
>The LORD Says he gives the Keys to heaven to Simon and renames him Peter
Actually He gave the keys to all of the apostles

No, the LORD gave the keys only to Saint Peter.

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not [g]prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth [h]will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ is speaking to Simon and renamed him Peter, NOT to the other apostles who didn't know who he was because the Almighty had not revealed the divinity of Christ to them.

Only Saint Peter was given the keys to heaven, through Peter God would tell us what is and is not a sin. 

It hurts me to hear protestants twist the plain meaning of the LORD. I don't even want to get into it. Insults and semantic arguments, claims that the LORD was babbling about rocks, I've  heard them all and it's just painful. 

If you're problem is that I capitalize LORD to distinguish from a "Lord" of the house of commons, you argument is weak.
Replies: >>18777 >>18781
>>18774
You're literally a popeless papist lmao
Replies: >>18779
Today there is no Pope. The seat of Saint Peter has been vacant at least since 1958, and it had to be corrupted before that for Vatican II to be passed. 

Catholics have been lead astray and deceived by wicked Freemasons and their false "Marian apparitions" that has lead to the blasphemy of Mary worship and rejection of the sacraments of the church. "Pope" Pius XII, who surrounded himself with Freemasons like "Cardinal" Bugnini, elevated Mary the Mother of Christ to a divine being, claiming she had never sinned and even was free of original sin without the sacrament of Baptism. 

This divinity of Mary the Mother of Christ was necessary to get people to be deceived by Freemason "Marian Apparitions". Imagine believing that a magic brown scrap of cloth - a talisman, is a free ticket straight to heaven. That's heresy. The Catholic belief is in the forgiveness of sins through confession, repentance not magic talismans!
>>18777
The LORD promised the Church will prevail until the end times. 

Well....
Replies: >>18780
>>18779
what if, Rome isn't the true church and this just a sign of nothing
Replies: >>18961
>>18774
>through Peter God would tell us what is and is not a sin
God alone has the authority to define sin and He did so in His law. The pope of Rome has absolutely no authority to add to His law.
>It hurts me to hear protestants twist the plain meaning of the LORD
And it hurts me to know papists do not read the bible, they only believe the lies they've been told. It is obvious you have never actually read Matthew since you have not read just 2 chapters later when the promise given in 16 is fulfilled and the Lord gives the keys to all of the apostles together "Truly I say to you (plural), whatever you (plural) bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you (plural) loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
>Insults and semantic arguments, claims that the LORD was babbling about rocks, I've  heard them all and it's just painful. 
The idea that the plain meaning of Matthew 16 has something to do with the management structure of a medieval corporation based in central Italy is incredible, and would have been quite a shock to the early Church, almost as incredible as making the claim while refusing even to pretend to defend it. This is not what a "plain meaning" is my friend, this is called a tradition of men, which one is utterly consumed in so that they take it for granted and reading the text of scripture so presume it they insert it wholesale into a text which knows nothing of it. You see the papacy here only because that is your tradition, but nobody without already being familiar with it has ever derived the papacy from this text, because it is not there.
Replies: >>18963
Stop acting like threads aren't always derailed by some catholic kvetching like a jew about protestants. Every single time, something that has nothing to do with denominations at all, something that Christians don't even disagree about, some catholic will show up to kvetch about prots.
Replies: >>18957
>>18956
It's the same thing on 4chan too, especially the Bible threads on /lit/ when those were still allowed.
>>18780
Today Rome isn't the True Church. I agree.
>>18781
Bible says that God the Son will send the God the Holy Ghost to guide all the Apostles, but we will here the facts on faith and morals that we will hear the keys to heaven only from Saint Peter. 
OR do you deny the divinity of Christ in Matthew 16:18 and worship Martin Luther?!

God made Simon Pope (called Father because God works through him and we recognize that) and renamed him Peter, then gave ONLY Peter, no other apostle, the keys to heaven. God did not give the keys to heaven to Luther or Henry the adulter and head chopper. 
You might argue that the papacy ended with Peter, but God the Holy Ghost says NO!. How do you know this? Because Peter named his successor and in  matter of faith and morals this comes from the Holy Ghost. 

If you are against the Pope, you reject Christ and you reject his church. 

Now, why then to I say that there hasn't been a true Pope at least since 1958 and Pope Pius XII is suspect? 

Because many Popes, including the council of Trent, say every Pope after Pius XII is an anathema, cursed by God and shunned by the faithful. 

Why is Pope Pius XII suspect? Because he changed the mass which was forbidden under curse by Pope Leo XII, because he gave the fund for Charity to the Rothschild, because he didn't excommunicate Freemaons like Bugnini and allowed him to change the mass. 

It's not that you don't read the Bible, you just ignore the parts that you don't like. You even ridicule the Word of God in your post! You disagree with Jesus and his plain words, and put in your own!
This kind of thing is why Christ came, to remove the Talmud and the religions of man (like Lutheranism and Anglicanism) and restore the Talmud and the Law of Moses.
Replies: >>19020
Stop acting like threads aren't always derailed by some protestant kvetching like a jew about catholics. Every single time, something that has nothing to do with denominations at all, something that Christians don't even disagree about, some protestant will show up to kvetch about catholics.
Replies: >>19019
Catholics and Protestants will never get along. We belong in different countries, seperated from each other. That is the natural order. Catholics get out of Protestant counties
>UK
>USA
>Germany
>Scandinavia
>Netherlands
all protestant countries, built on the blood of protestant soldiers. Catholic immigrants go back home to your hot sweaty mediterranean climate, next to the arabs.
Replies: >>19862
>>19010
There are lots of pagan and godless trolls here. I wouldn't lay it all on the Protestants to try and start division.
>>18963
There is absolutely no such thing as the papacy in scripture as has been demonstrated to you before. The office was established by the dragon, not the Lord. The pope is referenced by the bible several times under the titles of man of sin, son of perdition, beast, and Antichrist.
>>19020
Jesus Christ built His church on Simon Peter, making him the "rock" upon which he built his church on. 
Then he gave ONLY Saint Peter the keys to heaven and promised that this church, with Peter as the head Bishop. will prevail until the end of time. Thus, Peter named a successor and successors were named. The office of the Pope (aka Father of the Church through which God the Father revealed that Jesus was his only  Son) was established By the Lord. 

See Matthew 16, which all protestants and orthodox deny, thus making them (at best) Heretics.
>>19020
Also, see John 21:15-17

''15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.''

The sheep of Jesus Christ is his Church. Only Saint Peter was given the charge to feed the sheep of Jesus, again making Saint Peter the head of the Church of Jesus Christ.
>>19020
Papists are completely brainwashed, most of them are way too far gone to be saved. All they care about is their godchurch and their godtradition and their godpope. They don't even know their own church doctrine most of the time either. They're fucking retards.
Replies: >>19808
>>19806
False witness is kinda bad, bro. One of the mortal sins. One of the mortal sins that the Jews used to murder Christ. 

Pretty sure that even a "fucking retard'', as you call the Sheep of Christ, have the best shot of heaven. 
Those of us who are blessed with some intelligence are to lead the sheep to the right church. Christ said we must come to him as Children, so the people you hate so much, and show this wicked disdain, are the people Christ came for. Their sins are often made in ignorance because there is no "Church Teaching" (the clergy) as far as I can find. 

Things so wrong, even the ones who do this must know it's false
I quote scripture, and what do I get back?
The son of God was joking. 
The Son of God was babbling about rocks. 
The Son of God was talking to all the Apostles, when it's clear he was speaking both in Matt 16 and John 21 just to Peter. 

Christ did not die on the cross to give us a free pass on sin 
And why have they been telling me these outrageous thing? These bald faced lies about scripture? Because the Protestants believe in "Sin Boldly" - that they can sin and need no sacrament of penance to gain forgiveness. The Lord gave the Apostles the duty of hearing confessions and holding the sin or not. The Protestants throw out the word of the Lord there too, and believe they can do anything they want like my Pentecostal friend who visited Mexican prostitutes and was having sex with a 13 year old girl. 

Christ Crucified on the Cross with the Two Thieves show you must repent
Luther was wrong. Only the repentant sinner on the cross was saved. The other thief wasn't. Christ was right there crucified with them. This showed that Luther lied for love of sin; both were thieves but only the Repentant one was Judged by the Lord worthy of heaven. 

Look for the Church that Christ Established.
'Rule out the Protestant and Orthodox who reject the LORD'
I did it backwards. Rather than looking  for the religion that suits my beliefs, I went looking for how can I tell which one of the over 3500 christian beliefs was the religion Christ gave us. 
Whatever that Church was, it had to be consistent with John 21 and Matt 16. So, the Protestants and Orthodox was left out.

The Religion of Christ and the Western Church
So, the Church is one of the 5 catholic religions. All are deep into Mary worship, which is blasphemy. the protestants are right about that. It isn't taught in Catechism, but you get bombarded with it at Mass. 
Church teaching is that you can recieve the sacraments even from a heretic, tho. 

'Novus Ordo - the New Order'
The Church teaching of the earlier Popes is that the Novus Ordo are to be shunned for changing the mass.  Do I believe them? If the older popes are false, then the church after that is false as well. So, yes, the Novus ordo isn't the Church. 

The Novus Ordo dragged the FSSP down with them by making them renounce the Council of Trent and also become an Anthama. They believe in the false Popes. 

'SSPX: needs nice Churches'
The SSPX doesn't know if the Novus Ordo is an anathema or not. What seems to matter with the Novus Ordo, the FSSP and the SSPX is who has the deed on the Church property. 

The Church property is just a building. But the people who goes to these two churches (FSSP and SSPX) need a nice church because That's what the people who go to these churches want to see. 

'The SSPV'
SSPV at least has the deeds to their own Church; small and falling apart that they are, and know that the Bergoglio and every "Pope" since Pius XII is a false pope.  
They do, however, say a changed mass. The Tridentine mass was changed at the Bidding of the Synagogue of Satan, to hide all sign of the Jews crimes for false witness against Christ before Pilate. 

'The Sanbornist'
I don't know what else to call this group; they say the unchanged Tridentine Mass. They have their own churches, or make use of someone's garage. This is promising, as a valid Mass said in a Barn or crypt is better than a false mass said in Saint Peter's Cathedral. (I can't believe Bergoglio brought is pagan idols before the Alter of God where the body of Saint Peter lies

The Sanbornist  are, however, Deep into Mary worship and the false Gospel of Aquinas that makes everything a sin. Christ and the Popes made it clear; sins are an injury to God or Man. "Forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us". 

I can tolerate the Mary worship, it's  heresy and again a priest can be a heretic and the sacraments are still valid. It's the part where they won't give the sacraments because of the false Gospel of Aquinas, who made even THINKING about sin, which we know to be temptation, is a Mortal sin. (yes, the SSPV and the SSPX does this too)
Well, if they won't feed the Sheep of Christ because of their false Gospel and deny the sheep the body and blood of Christ, then they're not doing the work of Jesus Christ. 

So, even if you accepted the Words of the Lord which you don't because of your love of Sin, there is no Church teaching to show you the way to heaven
Replies: >>19834
>>19808
>mortal sins
only 10 words into this long old post and you've already started spewing unbiblical unchristian bullshit

ALL SINS ARE MORTAL
the wages of ALL SINS are death
that is the whole point of the Adam and Eve story
the idea that some sins aren't "mortal" is total bullshit
Replies: >>19842
a man who did nothing wrong his whole entire life, apart from one lie to someone at some time, is just as doomed to die, as a man who is a serial killer and rapist and blasphemer.

We all fall short of the glory of God (since Adam and Eve) and we all deserve to go to hell (the second death). But Jesus Christ died on the cross even though He never ever sinned and therefore could not possibly die. The reason He died on the cross is because He took on our sins in that moment. But then He overcame death on our behalf. He paid the price for our sins and gave to us freedom and life everlasting if we believe in Him.

"mortal" sins as opposed to non-mortal sins is a total fabrication invented by later priests as a way to corrupt the minds of their congregations. And its worked with you, your mind is corrupt. You cannot accept that Jesus wasn't being literal with Peter creating a monarchist priesthood. The Church was collegiate and Peter was a first among equals. Like a Prime Minister is equal to the cabinet but the first. The Pope is like a President and unbiblical. Read the book of Acts for fucks sake.
Replies: >>19842
>>19834
Mortal sins are the sins in the Law of Moses, given to us by God Almighty, are punished by death. Ergo, "mortal".
Murder, adultery, sodomy etc were all punishable by death. 
Venial sins were the sins that made you unclean and your penance was good for God's forgiveness. 
It's right out of the Bible. The only difference is that Christ is our judge. 
>>19835
Yes, yes. No debate there. 
But Mortal sins require confession. Just attending mass is sufficient for the forgiveness of mortal sins, as at every mass (of the Tridentine Rite, at least) the Priest gives God's blessing to forgive venial sins. 

We believe Christ in Matt 16 and John 21, thus Peter was the first Pope, successors are from God saying the Church will last to the end of time, and God gave Peter the keys to heaven; That is God is our judge and God gives the teachings on faith and morals to his vicar on earth. 

The vicar says there are mortal and venial sins as in the Law of Moses. Anyone who denies this denies the Bible and denies the Lord. end of story. Bible says so, I believe it, you can hate me all you want and I expect that because the Lord said you would hate me for saying so.
>>19012
All of Christianity today is unlike the Christianity of our forefathers.
>>18592
OP is a muslim
Replies: >>19881
>>19863
this, it clear to all intelligent posters that OP is indeed a muslimtroll.
Replies: >>19887
>>19881
Op made one post. You accuse him of being a pagan. 
You have no proof he's a pagan. He doesn't say to cut off our heads, like the wicked Koran says to do, instead he makes a reference to love our neighbors, our fellow sinners. 

Recant before God of false witness.
Untitled.png
[Hide] (978.6KB, 600x800)
How exactly does one verse (that doesn't say anything about popes, papism, coinstantine, rome, catholicism, the vatican, a hierarchical organization which bows to its worldly leader they call "father" and kisses his hand in worship, etc.) justify all of the Roman Catholic man-made traditions and rituals and idols and false gospel and sins and abominations and violations of God's laws and commandments, exactly?

>but muh gates of hell wouldn't prevail
And they haven't, your cult is not of God and its endless abominations proves this. Even when your roman cult persecuted and tortured and murdered the saints in fulfillment of prophecy (some of whom were killed simply for owning a bible), there was still a remnant which remained. Protestantism was an improvement, but it wasn't enough, it wasn't a full return to God and Christianity as practiced by the apostles and early Christians (despite all the catholic cult lies on that, you can hear the same sort of nonsense from JWs, neither of which are based in truth). Modern fallen apostate Protestantism (e.g. smooth-preaching mega churches, 501c3 image of the beast, etc) further fulfills prophecy and points to the Catholic Cult's own fulfillment of prophecy as the whore of babylon, the mother of harlots, which is proven in countless bible studies again and again and again. 

The bible plainly states Christians worship God in spirit and in truth, not in a catholic cathedral full of hypocrisy and abominations like sun worship and idol worship and vain repetitions and mary worship and lies and all of it. There's just so much sin in that cult, it's endless. There are even still catholics who will defend indulgences and they actually think a cash-4-heaven scam is anything Christ would've done. Why are catholics so brainwashed? Trying to get through to these people is worse than talking to atheists. 

And all they ever do is cite that same single verse and ignore the entire rest of the scriptures and all of the violations of God's laws and commandments and all of Christ's teachings if it doesn't align with their cult doctrine (as if the average catholic even knows what their own cult really teaches, what their leaders have said, and what their currently active doctrine is). That verse doesn't even contain what they constantly claim it does, they literally do not have eyes to see it would seem. The blind leading the blind.
14Remind the believers of these things, charging them before Goda to avoid quarreling over words, which succeeds only in leading the listeners to ruin.

15Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

16But avoid irreverent, empty chatter, which will only lead to more ungodliness, 17and the talk of such men will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have deviated from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already occurred, and they undermine the faith of some.

19Nevertheless, God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,”b and, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord must turn away from iniquity.”

20A large house contains not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay. Some indeed are for honorable use, but others are for common use. 21So if anyone cleanses himself of what is unfit,c he will be a vessel for honor: sanctified, useful to the Master, and prepared for every good work.

22Flee from youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, together with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling. 24And a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, and forbearing. 25He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. 26Then they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will.

There are going to be people in the church who worship the devil (in all denominations, not just catholic).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD1pFtEEs9A
>>20036
First you accept red letter scripture as Gospel or not. 
If you don't, fine, You reject Jesus Christ. 
If you do, then we can move on. 
Christ established a head of his church in Matthew 16 and John 21. God re-names Simon as Peter, says Peter is the rock (play on words as Peter means rock) upon which he will build his church, thus naming him and only him as the head of the Church. Not the other apostles, he's talking to Simon Peter. 

God also gives peter the keys to heaven. No, the keys don't mean that Peter is our judge. Christ is our judge. The paraclete that Jesus sends (the Holy Ghost) will work through Peter. 

Last in this chapter, we find that the Lord declares that the Church will last until the end of time. So, it didn't fall apart with Peter's death. 

By tradition, the head of the Church created by Christ is called the Pope. Get over it, that's the name. The same why the Church of Christ is called "Catholic". Just a name. Means "Father" 

God then comes back after the crucifixion in John 21 and tells ONLY PETER to feed his sheep, three times! Not the other apostles. 

Now if you believe Jesus Christ is God, and you believe his words, then you believe God made Peter the head of his church. You also believe that because God promised us his church would last until the end of time that God meant for there to be a head of the Church. 

Yes, the Vatican has been infiltrated by Freemasons (anti-God protestants) and corrupted to wickedness. The faithful were warned NOT to follow them at the Council of Trent. Pope Leo XII told us that those who change ONE WORD of the mass is cursed. "Pope" Pius XII is a questionable Pope because he did many things against the faith, like advancing Mary worship which is blasphemy. He also allowed Bugnini to change the mass, even though "Cardinal" Bugnini was a known Freemason and wasn't even a real Catholic, much less a bishop. 

It's like Protestants get into the Church, corrupt it, and then denounce it because they wickedness they're doing with their puppets. It is the end times, I'm sure of it. And those who ridicule the word's of Christ with their devilish deceptions would do well to repent of this sin and recant. 

Pearls cast. Now we see if they're picked up by men or swine.
Replies: >>20042
>>20040
Matthew 5:17 is in "red letters".
Replies: >>20111
>>20036
>Why are catholics so brainwashed? 
Man, you hit all of the bologna charges the ignorant accuse Catholics of. 

Have you considered, perhaps, you're the brainwashed one?
Oh of course not. You're you and couldn't possibly misunderstand or be deceived by anything.
Replies: >>20057
>>20052
>the crusades and inquisitions never happened
Replies: >>20062
>>20057
OP literally said nothing about either of those.
Replies: >>20100 >>20103
>>20062
Yeah but the catholic church has a history of attacking people including Christians or making Christianity look bad more than other denominations..
>>20062
>>20036
>Even when your roman cult persecuted and tortured and murdered the saints in fulfillment of prophecy (some of whom were killed simply for owning a bible)
>>20042
Catholics don't read the bible
Replies: >>20115 >>20167
>>20111
Of course they do, they're just tricked by their church into doing what it says not to do.
>>20036
Man, it must suck to follow a religion that only defines itself in opposition to Catholicism. It's like you've never had a genuine spiritual experience and never will.  
Sad.
Replies: >>20130
>>20123
They are like the Demon legion; they strike like a viper, but there are thousands of heads. Strike one down and they simply will shrug it off "not my religion". 
The Religion of Christ is found only in the Bible and the teachings of the head of the Church, the Church Father known as "Pope"
This teaching is infallible, guided by the Holy Ghost. This teaching is indefectable: God doesn't get it wrong, doesn't need to fix his word or change his mind. 
Our job is to save as many deceived souls as we can. Many have demons in them, and by bringing up the word of God, they will be uncomfortable and angry. They were lured away from the true faith by the promise of some sin like adultery or usury or love of hate. Some believe that they can sin freely, even boldly, as they are saved just by saying "Jesus Jesus!" as if Christ didn't already tell them that is NOT going to work.
How many times does God have to say it before you do the will of the Lord? 
How many times must Christ be crucified to bring you His word for you to give up your own will and submit to God's will.
God's will be done!
Replies: >>20160
>>20147
>How many times must Christ be crucified 
Once, because we don't celebrate your pagan masses.
Replies: >>20167
>>20160
The Holy Mass is about the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us on the cross. We were told to do this in remembrance of Him. 
Demons search the entirely of the world, working with Jews, to find heretical text that serves their sins, and then deny the scripture declared infallible, cannon and inspired by God in the early Church. 
IF the Church fell in the 4th century then there was no Church for Luther or Henry to "reform" over a thousand years later, and the promise of Christ that his church will prevail against the gates of hell was not a kept promise. 
The Christian Bible IS what the early Christian Church gave us over a seventeen centuries ago. 

>>20111
>Catholics don't read the bible
Every Catholic reads the Bible, and has a Bible in their home. I have three; the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, and the Knox. I suspect the Knox as it was translated after the fall of the Church 
WE know you lied about Catholics not reading the Bible. You know we know but it's not us you're trying to deceive, it's the person intrigued by Christ that is seeking the truth.
Replies: >>20171
>>20167
>The Holy Mass is about the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us on the cross. We were told to do this in remembrance of Him.
We were not told to sacrifice him again and again every Sunday according to some pagan philosophy by which Christians are held to partake in cannibalism.
Replies: >>20173
>>20171
>We were not told to sacrifice him again and again every Sunday according to some pagan philosophy by which Christians are held to partake in cannibalism.
Good thing that's not what Catholics do either then, eh?
Replies: >>20176
>>20173
If you reject the body and blood of Christ, you will not find heaven

John 6:55-59
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 


1 Corinthians 11:24-30
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Big difference is that the faithful read the bible and look for the true religion. Going from the search for God, you can't miss Matt 16 and John 23 as clues for what the Church is. 
The fallen look for or invent a religion that suits themselves. Want to divorce? Invent the Church of England (and loot churches, rape nuns and murder priests). 
There are now 3500 different protestant religions. Want to be a sodomite? There's a religion for that! Want money? Got a religion for that too! Everything that the devil has promised in his Temptation of Christ in the desert there is a protestant religion for saying it's okay. This is the many headed beast spoken of in the Bible. You debunk one of them, 10 more heads sprout. 
And yes, there are at least 5 false "Catholic" religions. Corrupted by love of money, trashing the vow of poverty, and Freemason deception. Keys to the church building door was more important than the keys to heaven for 3 of those false churches. 
But the faith is still there in the Bible of Saint Jerome in the 4th century and the teachings of the Popes. "The Pope" is just the name of the office of the leader of the Church established by Jesus Christ, it means "Father".

Matt 16, John 23
>>20242
I don't agree with Catholics either but that is not a Christian answer to them.
Replies: >>20311 >>20316
>>20036
Well, about that image.... given that the Body of Christ, the Holy Eucharist is at the center, they clearly mean the radiance that is Christ and not sun worship. 
Why even bother with such lame falsehoods? Since it brings upon your soul the sin of false witness. 
Not that I support these false priests; they're all doing a changed mass that is forbidden by the Council of Trent and Pope Leo XII
>>20245
Most of the people here are Jews and Sodomites but I repeat myself. Some get pretty disgusting, they're clearly not Christians.
>>20245
Every single catholic is a liar and they lie about literally everything.
Replies: >>20422
>>20242
Shut the fuck up nigger, Protestants get the rope.
Replies: >>20421
>>20404
Council of Trent says we are to live apart from the heretics, Jews and pagans. 
It also says 'YOU'RE FORBIDDEN TO HARM THEM'. Because the Bible says that some with find error in their beliefs and come to Christ, and each soul is precious to the Lord.
Replies: >>20423
Not_even_bait.jpg
[Hide] (26.5KB, 625x626)
>>20242
>>20316
heretics_btfo.jpg
[Hide] (88.4KB, 765x442)
>>20421
Council of Trent was convened by cucks Hitler the Nazi Party and Mussolini showed what how based and redpilled Catholics should behave
The only good non-Catholics are dead ones bring the Inquisition back
DEUS VULT

Anyone who disagrees with this post is a soyboy heresy enabler.

PS TILLY DID NOTHING WRONG we should kill all Prots and let God sort them out
Replies: >>20424
lurk_moar.mp4
[Hide] (926.6KB, 468x352, 00:22)
>>20423
95_theses.jpeg
[Hide] (98.7KB, 1024x682)
505 years ago today, the Babylonian captivity of the Church ended
Replies: >>21016
hussite_wars.jpg
[Hide] (120.2KB, 1080x574)
jan huss has entered the chat
Who will be the next true Martin Luther for our  own times, or are the Two Prophets in Revelations the last ones to come?
>>20771
We only gain salvation through the Jews and you're spouting this hateful nonsense. https://christoa.com/2020/07/06/salvation-through-the-jews/
Replies: >>20785 >>20806
>>20771
>Jews hate the Catholic church
So i guess that makes working with satanic secret societies like the Jesuits something good then.
Replies: >>20806
>>20771
>>20783 (me)
To build on this, some Jews in the Old Testament even rejected God and He still stood by them, because He loves them and it was through them that He carried out His mission in Christ. To hate them like this today is not only disgusting but antithetical to our mission as Christians of spreading the faith and salvation. Make no mistake, even an unconverted Jew can still reach Heaven. There is a difference between knowing and understanding, and still ultimately rejecting, Christ and growing up in a different faith. Jesus condemned the former (a conscious act against God), not the latter (what the Church calls "invincible ignorance"). God is merciful, and judgement is up to Him alone. To call them satanic is disgusting and insulting to both Jews and God. Jesus said it was the Jewish God that was the One True God, and only through them can we know Him. And to think this has changed due to them not seeing the Messiah, through no fault of their own, is ridiculous.
>Jews especially hate the Catholic Church and love deception and division.
Meds. Now. Do not let your preconceived political biases cloud your faith. God is merciful and we should always err on the side of mercy, not hate. Your politics are incompatible with the Faith.
>>20784
The biggest satanic society are the freemasons, who are protestants. 
>>20783
Taking the word of God out of context for wicked purposes? The Lord clearly called them the Synagogue of Satan. 
God can rise sons of Abraham from rocks, if He wants.
Replies: >>20809 >>20815
>>20806
>>20807
>God is merciful and we should always err on the side of mercy, not hate.
Stop playing at mortal judgement. :)
Exposing_the_Satanic_Illuminati_Freemasons_-_New_world_order_Church_.webm
[Hide] (14MB, 854x480, 12:10)
>>20806
>The biggest satanic society are the freemasons, who are protestants. 
It's not that Freemasons are protestants, it's that Freemasons have infiltrated the Christian denominations.
Replies: >>20821
>>20815
Being a Freemason means ex-communication from the Catholic Church.  It is a moral sin. Those who don't repent and confess it means damnation. 
What Protestant religions excommunicated  freemasons?
Replies: >>20822
>>20821
>>20821
>Being a Freemason means ex-communication from the Catholic Church
But there have been reports of Freemasons in important Catholic Church services. Even if you rule out the Freemasons for Catholics they still have other secret societies like the Jesuits and the Knights of Malta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTBZoltWsk
Replies: >>20824
>>20822
Cardinal Bugnini was a known Freemason and Pope Pius XII not only did not excommunicat him, but allowed him to change the mass. Changing the mass was forbidden at the Council of Trent.  Either Bugnini faked the pope's deathbed signature or pius XII was a suspect Pope
Replies: >>20841
>>20824
All popes are suspect
Replies: >>20844
>>20841
Then you believe Christ lied (Matt 16, Ezekiel, and John 21) and you are not a Christian.
Replies: >>20850 >>20863
John_Paul_II_kissing_Quran.jpg
[Hide] (91.5KB, 1024x680)
Bergoglio_and_Luther.jpg
[Hide] (197.9KB, 1050x750)
communist_crucifix.jpg
[Hide] (89.4KB, 1200x630)
faithful_to_Tradition_true_church.jpg
[Hide] (34.5KB, 479x305)
To expand in the idea that there are suspect Popes... Christ promised that the Church will prevail until the end of time. Clearly as he was talking about the Church founded by Simon Peter, he was talking about the Church Teaching, the clergy. 
There are clear signs that the Gates of Hell have prevailed, all that is left is the Church militant (Souls on earth who keep the faith)
In the end times, we are told to be baptized and keep the faith. 
It looks like the end times.
Replies: >>20854
>>20844
No Popes in those verses
Replies: >>20867
>>20848 
You excommunicated the Alexandrian church of Athanasius in 451 over a miscommunication and then you claim that he's Catholic when its convenient
Replies: >>20864
>>20844
No sir Jesus Christ did not establish a papacy, there was no papacy until the middle ages
Replies: >>20867
>>20854
The particular quote is massively ironic too considering the circumstances involved defying the entire church including the bishop of Rome for the sake of divine truth in scripture
Replies: >>20867
>>20850
Pope means Father, as in the head of the church. You would have us believe that Jesus Christ was just gibbering. That's a wicked perversion of the words of the Lord. 
>>20863
>>20864
The head of the Church was created and named by Christ. If you deny Jesus, you're not even Christian.
Replies: >>20873
Those who deny Christ for the promise of unrepentant sin are not Christian and will not see heaven, by their own choice.
>>20867
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Replies: >>20880
>>20873
Why do you enjoy twisting the words of Christ to poison them against the Church?! Saint Paul explains about Church Fathers in the Bible. Are you saying you're above Saint Paul, the Bible, and the LORD himself?!
Replies: >>20899
This "call no man Father" thing is the poorest excuse for sin ever. 
Christ also says don't divorce, which causes harm to others, but the Protestant religions were founded upon divorce.
Replies: >>20899
>>20880
>>20881
Your church is divorced from Christ
Replies: >>20914
pachamama-coin-2637263950.jpg
[Hide] (181.1KB, 1200x630)
>>20899
And you make things up. 
How can you deny the words of Christ in Matt 16 and John 21, and then say it is the catholics who are "divorced from Christ"?! Goodness, divorce is a PROTESTANT sin, the Church doesn't allow divorce. 

Don't confuse the Catholic Church with that pagan Bergolio. Pagans sacrificed children to that wicked idol of his.
Replies: >>20916
>>20914
Do you think mindlessly repeating "Matt 16 John 21" while irrationally disregarding the refutations of this scripture abuse will fly on judgement day? You will stand trial before the holy God, you are standing on the precipice of eternity, so I demand to know why you do not spend every moment in overwhelming terror of the wrath of God?
Replies: >>20917
>>20916
"irrationally disregarding the refutations of this scripture "

You denied Christ, and pretend to be the Lord our Judge? 

It's very important scripture; to deny it means Christ doesn't know you and you don't know Christ. 

How can you claim to believe in Christ if you simply don't believe him?
Replies: >>20921
>>20917
I asked you a question sir, do you have an answer for it? Why you do not spend every moment in overwhelming terror of the wrath of God?
Replies: >>20924
>>20921
You're question was loaded with your gleeful presumption that I was going to hell for believing the words of Christ in the Bible in two passages that you have a wicked contempt for. 
I accept the judgement of God as perfect. If I am damned to hell, then that is where I belong. If I am accepted into heaven, I shall try to be worthy of that judgement. 
There is no salvation outside the Church. All I can tell you is that the Church of Christ is not among the 3500 protestant religions, or the Orthodox because they reject the word of God and deny the Church of Christ. 
Of the 4 or 5 known Churches left, the Novus Ordo & FSSP is an anathema, the SSPX is also an anathema, the SSPV and Sanbornist are not an anathema but are heretics who believe in the false gospels of Aquinas and in personal revelations. So, even if you accepted the word of Christ, I couldn't tell you where to look for his Church. 
Yes, I worry that I don't see his Church because I am not saved. You're are sure you're saved but outside his church and deny his word and thus His divinity.
Replies: >>20925
>>20924
>You're question was loaded with your gleeful presumption that I was going to hell
No sir I said nothing of the sort, nor do I feel gleeful at the prospect.
>If I am accepted into heaven, I shall try to be worthy of that judgement.
Do you believe you are worthy of that judgement?
Replies: >>20929
>>20925
>>20925
>Do you believe you are worthy of that judgement?
Yes, I know where you're going with that, and it's of the devil. 
Of course no one is worthy of heaven. We are imperfect beings, and heaven is a place of perfection. You're right about that. 
Yet, the Lord Christ gave us a church to teach us, gave us priest who could forgive sins in his name, gave us priests who could remind us of the sacrifice of Christ at the Holy Mass. God gives us what we need. God told us we need to follow at least the last 7 commandments to love our neighbor. Think of it like a dog owner looking for a dog at the kill shelter. He looks for an even tempered dog that would be obedient, listen to him when he says come, and not fight with the other dogs. He's not going to take a dog that will kill the other dogs and think "master will forgive me for this". 
The good shepherd does not allow wolves to be part of the flock. The good dog owner look for a dog that will try and please the owner. 
To please the owner, the owner must train the dog what the owner wants to do. Likewise, God needs to train us in what we are to do; and that is why Christ created a Church on Simon Peter. 
The dog has to listen to the Master. The master says come, the dog drops what he's doing and comes to the master. The dog doesn't know why, but maybe master wanted to keep the dog out of the street because of cars, or saw something dangerous to the dog. That's why you just can't ignore the parts where Christ says or does something and do what you want instead. Telling people that they can sin because God payed the price on the cross is over the devil.
5d16ec91b48478ce08ee577b5098d844e742806487a6be68696ba594fa1d7c6c.jpg
[Hide] (7.3KB, 270x215)
>>20929
and when your priest looks at porn/conducts himself with sexual immorality, and asks for money in order to belong to the church, and offers higher positions in the church on the basis of wealth i.e. Simony, and conducts the church business in line with Jewish central banking families - what did God mean by his One True Holy Catholic Church doing these things? Do you have any analogies which explains this?

Why did the Roman Catholic Church which is the only true church since Jesus gave the literal keys (there were many keys on a keyring because heaven has many gates to enter) to Peter? The Greek and Russian and Coptic and Indian churches that were established at the same time are obviously illegitimate, as are all forms of Baptism and collegiate Presbyterian or Calvinist Churches.

But I am struggling to figure out why the only true catholic church of rome had to take loans from Jewish banking clans in 1834?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_loans_to_the_Holy_See

what did God mean by this?
Replies: >>20937
>>20935
in case it isnt obvious, my post is sarcastic

the roman catholic church is not a legitimate church, it is a satanic inversion of Christianity and full of pagan wickedness, part of the Jewish new world order with the British Royal Family.
Christ gave many keys to his apostle, becuase the keys are the teachings that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God. Thats what Peter said and thats why Peter got the credit. But all of the apostolic Churches, from the church of Saint Thomas in Goa (India) to the Church of Saint Aristobolus in Britain, apart from the roman church are legitimate. It is abhorrent and a denegration of Christianity to call true orthadox Christians heretics while believing in a church that encouraged mary worship, banned bishops from being married to a woman (a ban they overturned later), sold indulgences and posistions in the church to the wealthy, burned poor christians at the stake for translating the latin bible (itself a translation of the holy tongues of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic), and literally whored itself out to babylon in 1834 to the equivalent of 4 billion dollars in todays money

but stupid catholic falsehoods will have you disregard all of the above and continue to follow a church which protects paedophiles and encourages sodomy.
Replies: >>21573
>>20929
Right, and since you are unworthy, why do you not dread that fateful day, knowing you have fallen short and will be burned forever? The only reason I don't fear it is because another, one who was worthy, stood in my place and died for my sins so that I would not.
Romans 4:5-8
>And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
>>20929

You have it completely backwards.  You don't make yourself pleasing to God by your own efforts, God makes you pleasing to Him by regenerating your heart into one that desires sanctification by His life, suffering, death and resurrection.

If you have the mentality of "I'll do my best, and God will take care of the rest," you literally believe the "gospel" of the Mormons:

https://youtu.be/SoRx5eB7h0A
Replies: >>21573
>>20929

I have to speak more on this, because your illustration of salvation as being like a good dog eligible for adoption at a pound, perfectly illustrates how Roman Catholicism perverts, twists and distorts the simple beauty of the Gospel.

The subtext of your analogy is that you must be a "good dog" or else God will not save you from the pound.  That you must become a "good dog" by your own efforts, before God will even consider the possibility of saving you.

This is of the Devil and completely contrary to the Gospel.

The book of the prophet Hosea is an Old Testament book that is a powerful foreshadowing of the Gospel to come in the New Testament.  In it, God commands the prophet, Hosea, to marry a prostitute in order to both rebuke Israel for their spiritual prostitution, and also to be an illustration of God's love and loyalty to Israel in spite of their spiritual whoredom:

"When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:

“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry
And children of harlotry,
For the land has committed great [a]harlotry
By departing from the Lord.”

So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son."
-Hosea 1:2-3

Gomer then ran off and committed adultery some more, and was reduced to slavery.  What did God command Hosea to do?:

"Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans.”

So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver, and one and one-half homers of barley. And I said to her, “You shall stay with me many days; you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man—so, too, will I be toward you.”

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days."
-Hosea 3:1-5

Notice also how Gomer is bought back for 15 shekels of silver.  The normal price for a slave is 30 shekels of silver, and is also the price that Judas paid to betray Jesus.  Think about that:  Gomer is so damaged and used up, that she's literally sold at half price.  She's not only not a "good dog," she's only worth half of a "good dog."  Yet God still loves her and wants to save her.  

The fact is, we are all "bad dogs," none of us are "good dogs" (Romans 3:9-12 and 23.)  All of us deserve to be "put down" at the pound.  As the first half of Romans 6:23 states: "For the wages of sin is death."

But the Good News is the second half of Romans 6:23: "but the 'gift' of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Notice the word 'gift' bolded, along with Romans 11:6:  "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

Gomer was the dog equivalent of an old, worn out, mangy mutt that deserved to be put down.  God did not buy her back because she was "good dog," but bought her out of His mercy and love:

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
-Romans 5:8

Notice also that God, speaking through Hosea, did not make demands on Gomer's behavior, until 'after' He had bought her back:

"So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver, and one and one-half homers of barley. And I said to her, “You shall stay with me many days; you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man—so, too, will I be toward you.”"
Hosea -3:2-3

God does not save us because we are "good dogs," He saves us in spite of the fact that we are "bad dogs," and it is Christ Himself by the power of His regenerating grace that makes us into "good dogs."  We do not become "good dogs" and then we are accepted by Christ; Christ is the one who makes us "good dogs" in spite of the fact that we are "bad dogs.":

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for 'it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.'
-Philippians 2:12-13

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, 'which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.'
-Ephesians 2:8-10

Works are not what save, but are the natural fruit of a regenerated heart that has a true saving faith that is not dead, as outlined in the book of James.

If you want to be able to stand at the Judgement, stop relying on your own worthiness, and truly put your faith in the work of Christ, and allow Jesus to make you truly good.
Replies: >>21574 >>21589
>>20996 (OP) 
Why is he staring at me?
"Protestant friend, let me in, let me in~"
Good idea Janny. So if specific bait threads show up such as (>>20735, and others) show up, then go to the management dropdown for the OP post and choose 'Merge', and supply this thread OP's number (20996 in this case).

This works well for threads, but sadly the S. Lynx has decided to not include the exact same functionality for individual posts.

>t. the Protestant vol here.
Replies: >>21019 >>21021
>>21016
>there is another janny
Didn't even know. Lynx is not the best IB software and I am quickly getting a disdain for it. Doesn't help the server is in Romania either.
Replies: >>21024
>>21016
That isn't a bait thread
Replies: >>21022
>>21021
>low-effort OP
>clearly intended to rile up Catholic insults
As much as I dearly love the great German, White man Martin Luther, tbh I don't think much that OP's efforts. It is a bait thread, and even I could have done a better job at it had I chosen to.
Replies: >>21025
>>21019
>I am quickly getting a disdain for it. Doesn't help the server is in Romania either.
Two things that a) aren't in your control, and b) are the clear choices of our gracious hosts of Anoncafe.

I would suggest forbearance and patience dear brother in Christ. Let's all just 'make the best of a bad job' as Puddleglum was fond of saying, yea? :^)
>>21022
It was intended to celebrate the Reformation, papists getting upset isn't my problem, I did not think about the possibility nor did I care, nor do I care now.
Replies: >>21026 >>21031
>>21025
Then next time put in a little better effort into your thread OP. What would Martin Luther do?
Replies: >>21033
>>21025
>celebrating a divorce
>>21026
>What would Luther do?
Put up a blatant funpost on the local church door and cause an international controversy?
Replies: >>21036
I miss when there was only one pinned post
Replies: >>21036
>>21033
Kek, fair enough Anon. :^)
>[begins typing furiously]*

>>21034
Agreed. This one at least is strictly-temporary simply to get the other vol's attention (and the rest of the community notice that such derailings have a destination ahead).
0132826e61b287444d68f3ccfebb078bef6e67f431d5ef7f57000ed8772340d5.png
[Hide] (47.9KB, 684x940)
I would like to defend having images of God, Angels and the Saints. I know some of you are strongly against it, but I always feel like you are fighting a strawman when you imply people think they are saved by the image. A picture or sculpture can just be a store of information like a text. A crucifix can basically just be a fancy postit-note on the wall saying "Remember God loves you!". It depends on the observer how they treat it. I dont think most Christians with a crucifix on their wall believes the wood and metal it is made of will save them. Unlike the actual icon worshipers in biblical times who put food in front of statues believing it would come alive and eat it while they werent looking. Dont you think there is a distinction there? I think pictures can be just as beautiful and inspiring as text stories about the same. Can't it just be a different way of retelling the same stories as the bible? Many pictures in Catholic churches are exactly pictures of things that happened in the bible. To me, a picture of a specific person without context is just a reminder of their entire life. I do pray towards the crucifix even though I know God is everywhere, I never really thought about it, but I think that is just to make the conscious decision of facing him. I dont imagine he is actually caught inside the crucifix or limited in any way by it.
Replies: >>21054 >>21114
>>21051
But Protestants do use crosses?
catholics went downhill when they started persecuting the knights templar

>In September 2001, a document known as the Chinon Parchment dated 17–20 August 1308 was discovered in the Vatican Secret Archives by Barbara Frale, apparently after having been filed in the wrong place in 1628. 
>It is a record of the trial of the Templars and shows that Clement absolved the Templars of all heresies in 1308 before formally disbanding the order in 1312, as did another Chinon Parchment dated 20 August 1308 addressed to Philip IV of France, also mentioning that all Templars that had confessed to heresy were "restored to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church".

Generally the popes have always had a weakness in that they cowtowed to secular (typically the French and Spanish) authorities. The loan that the Vatican took from the Rothschild bank in 1834 is another major red flag.

I will say though that there were many good popes albiet some very bad popes have marred the institution.

The concept of a papacy has a tenuous biblical basis which is why even the Orthadox christians don't agree with it, let alone the more radical wing of calvinists and baptists. Lutherans are just catholics that protested the church of the time, and Anglicans are catholic in all but name - Henry VIII was the second English king ever to write a book and it was a slamdunk of Martin Luther's theology for which Henry VIII got the title "Defender of the Faith" bestowed upon him shortly before he himself broke with Rome because the secular Spanish-Austrian Emperor who had been attacking Rome in his Italian wars with France wouldn't let the pope agree to a divorce of the English king (who was married to the Spanish-Austrian Emperors aunt).

While the papacy stuck to its mission of helping christendom unite against the muslims, jews and pagans it was a glorious institution and worthy of respect. When they started getting involved in gay power struggles between Paris, Madrid and Vienna they lost the plot and frankly deserved to lose half of Christendom to reformers.
>>21051
Our sinful flesh has a tendency towards idolatry. It's a risk not worth taking. It's why John signs the end of his first epistle with an admonition:
"Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen."

From a practial perspective, you might know the image or crucifix is not actually deity... but would you trample or spit on it? The answer for any Christian I know would be "no, I would not", which raises the question: why not, if it is not God? Because you love and worship the God it represents. You can see the problem now. This response wouldn't be different from pagans and their idols in any meaningful way. And while spitting on your crucifix seems outlandish in this era, it wasn't historically for nations that persecuted Christians. Watch the Scorcese movie "Silence".

Put simply, if I love the true God, I don't want to risk placing any value on a trinket or painting. It's a risk/benefit analysis.
>>21114
>Watch the Scorcese movie "Silence".
I watched that movie and couldn't help but notice that all the problems they encountered wouldn't have been consequential if they were Protestant, and the ending ironically promotes justification by faith despite the author being a Catholic.
Replies: >>21116 >>21119
>>21115
That's what I thought when watching it, too. If the Jesuits never brought any images or crosses there would be no way for the government to test them. However, considering it now, I'm sure the government would've come up with some way. Demanding a denial of Christ would put any Christian in the same ordeal.
>>21115
>>21114
The message in that movie is wrong, cant apostatize because a voice told you to.
My opinion is that you should believe in whatever is the main denomination of your country......
However if you're in the US it gets a little more complicated and ambiguous, sometimes even on state-level, so... become Orthodox, I guess! Alongside with only transacting with Monero and using a Thinkpad with Artix Linux and terminal programs. (Will anyone get this reference?)
>>21114
This is incorrect. Idolaters believe power resides physically and manifestly inside of the idol, not symbolically.
Replies: >>21142 >>21146
>>21141
Isn't a relic an idol then?
Replies: >>21144
>>21142
No, relics have power bestowed by God, they aren’t powerful unto themselves. Also they aren't worshipped.
Replies: >>21145
>>21144
>No, relics have power bestowed by God, they aren’t powerful unto themselves.
So has a relic ever lost power or are you just posing a hypothetical that isn't actually true in practice? If relics can lose power how does one know whether a relic is still effective?

>Also they aren't worshipped
>>21141
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." -Exodus 32:7-8

I didn't want to make a wall of text, but in verses 4 through 6, Aaron fashions the golden calf and declares a feast day unto the LORD and the people celebrate and bring offerings to the calf. The whole thing taken in context likely means that the people believed the golden calf was a representation of the LORD. If they believed the calf was itself a god, and not just a representation of a god, how could they believe it brought them out of Egypt when they had only fashioned it afterwards?
Just remembered this, in further support of
>>21114
"And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. " -2 Kings 18:3-4

The serpent that God told Moses to craft in the wilderness ended up becoming an idol, and it was right in God's eyes that it be destroyed. Humans have a tendency towards idolatry, and whatever small legitimate benefit one may derive from icons - it is not worth the risk. At the very least, consider the souls of future generations: you might properly use a statue as a historical reminder, but a few generations pass by and other people are now worshipping the thing. Someone on these boards posted a video of a statue of Mary accidentally falling off its carrier onto the floor, and Catholic women screaming and wailing like their only child died. No one would be wailing over a history book hitting the ground.
Replies: >>21429
Please excuse me. I couldn't help but notice that your definition of "god" wildly differs from my own. I am also of the belief that the Vatican is corrupt and therefore should not receive our support.
1668541057043513.webm
[Hide] (6MB, 640x360, 01:24)
https://youtu.be/idY-44IZ1SY
Replies: >>21264
>>21251
There are pedophiles everywhere, The difference is that one denomination focuses on the Bible, and the other focuses on the church (which according to Catholics has authority over the bible), the bible and pedophilia is not compatible.

Our two examples is one camp and someone in a position of power in the Vatican using a symbol that is declassified by the FBI.
Replies: >>21308
20200318T1118-1099-CNS-POPE-AUDIENCE-MERCY.jpg
[Hide] (1.6MB, 7972x5315)
I like him.
Replies: >>21311
>>21264
>excuses for pedo protestants while throwing stones at Catholics.
Replies: >>21310
>>21308
You're wrong.
Replies: >>21319
>>21297
Why?
Replies: >>21319 >>21513
>>21310
You implied that Catholics don't focus on the Bible. 
Holy Mass includes reading the two passages of the Bible each Sunday, with a homily about those two passages. So, Catholics do focus on the Bible, and believe all of it and not just the parts they like while rejecting the words of God that they don't approve of. 
Yes, there are pedophiles everywhere, but the wicked would have you believe it is only Catholics. 
Yes, the gossip is that Bergoglio is a pedo. It's hypocrisy to not see the sins in your own church. As a child, I was molested by a protestant. I've known other folks who were molested by protestants. 

>>21311
I don't know him, but I am pretty sure he's not Catholic.
>>21319
>Holy Mass includes reading the two passages of the Bible each Sunday, with a homily about those two passages. So, Catholics do focus on the Bible, and believe all of it and not just the parts they like while rejecting the words of God that they don't approve of. 
I know, grew up catholic, but i'm protestant now.  Catholics clearly put more value on the church than the Bible.  An Catholics are so delicate about talking about denominational differences. But how else will we find out who is right?
>Yes, there are pedophiles everywhere, but the wicked would have you believe it is only Catholics. 
i agree.
>Yes, the gossip is that Bergoglio is a pedo. It's hypocrisy to not see the sins in your own church. As a child, I was molested by a protestant. I've known other folks who were molested by protestants. 
That is why i said there are pedophiles everywhere, this is going to sound like i'm lying just to match your molestation story but i had a long "relationship" with a catholic woman (who was a family member) when i was 10 years old, that is not why i'm against the catholic church. I am against the catholic church because they work with violent secret societies and promote Ecumenism. You can find pedophiles in leftism, rightism, atheism, islam, it's everywhere, i hope that you're bad experience wasn't the main reason why you're against Protestantism, i can see that an experience like that could have led me even further away from Christianity itself.
Replies: >>21345
>>21319
>Holy Mass includes reading the two passages of the Bible each Sunday, with a homily about those two passages.
Every church does this. Functionally you guys do not go to Mass for the sermon but for the Eucharist which is construed as a sacrifice in which you eat and drink of the living flesh and blood of Jesus. The sermon is a secondary factor. If you don't see this as being the case you probably attend a Second Vatican Novus Ordo mass which is effectively a high Protestant liturgy. It was explicitly at Martin Luther's instigation that the Christian world, for better or for worse, turned away from the medieval design of the Eucharist being the primary focus of a church service towards the sermon being of equal if not greater importance. And this was because Luther, aside from his theological views that the Eucharist was not a sacrifice, saw that snippets of scripture being read in church Latin once per week were not understood by and failed to have any effect on the spiritual character of the congregations of his day. Education in religion at the time was so poor that late medieval / early modern peasants who were officially "Christian" didn't even know the Ten Commandments, and consequently moral laxity was everywhere. The Reformation was intended to bring a greater level of spiritual depth to believers and after this end Luther published pamphlets explaining basic Christian doctrines and translated the Bible into the common language, and elevated the status of the sermon in the church service to provide for greater contextual exposition of the word and for the minister to lead the souls of sinners to repentance in hearing it. Was it successful? It was successful enough that Catholicism conceded to adopting it (with the exception of the traditionalists) in principle in a grotesque shotgun marriage after railing against it for the better part of four centuries.
Replies: >>21345
>>21321
You find out who is right by reading the Bible and looking for the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ. Specific qualities are mentioned. If you reject that because of your love of sin... well, nothing I can do about that. 
I'm against all religions that don't have the qualities of the Church described in the Bible by the Lord. 
My protest was against the claim that only pedos are in the Catholic church. No, the wicked are everywhere, and the Bible does not excuse this sin against children as someone said. That is the second protestant that has thrown that out that I've encountered. 

>>21327
I know "Every Church" does that, (even tho every church doesn't, there are 3500 different denominations out there). 
I'm just tired of the "Catholics don't read the bible" Canard. Catholics get an indulgence "under the usual conditions" for reading the Bible. 
There is this protestant fantasy that Catholics don't read the Bible.
>>21114
>>21148
I think your argument about the bull is really good, I will have to think about that one.

I would spit and trample on it if reason told me it was the right thing to do. Which is a very rare situation. The only situation I can think of where that would be the case, is probably if someone was actually treating it as an idol right in front of you. For example if someone says the bible in their hand is literally God, and they really mean the specific book they are holding. Then you should first try to convince them with reason that it is not the case, and if they don't listen to reason, you should destroy it in front of them to prove it.

>  Consider the souls of future generation
Isn't that like saying, "Dont drink wine, because future generation might become drunks"? Just teach your children about idolatry.
>>21319
>You implied that Catholics don't focus on the Bible. 
They focus on two verses and ignore literally everything else.

>Holy Mass includes reading the two passages
lol. Some ritual/tradition where you read a little from the Bible means Catholics are experts on scripture. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
Replies: >>21449 >>21476
And you know what most catholics do after their 30 minute mass ritual which isn't in scripture at all since scripture was just a common gathering/meal where they literally broke bread? The catholics go back to the world, typically watching uppity blacks who hate America get overpaid to play games like football or basketball. So much for their holy day of the sun. 

I really don't get how catholics are so deluded. One single verse from scripture, they'll take it and claim it means specifically their ritual traditions and every nuance of it and anyone who says otherwise is "heckin anathema from christ because they just heckin are okay" because their cult's doctrine is that their cult leader "pope" (father) is the vicar of christ. So sick of these fucking freaks and their nonsense. 

Every single "Christian" board or forum is flooded with God damn catholics who lean on the understanding of their cult leaders because their cult leaders are their gods, rather than leaning on God Almighty. It's the only reason I can imagine someone could be so incapable of understanding the plain and simple truths of scripture.

Even the nature of God, His Wor,d and His Spirit is extremely plain to see, but babylonianists will never see it because they worship Tammuz through Lent and Ishtar who they think is Mary. And all the historic proof I could post relating to Tammuz or Ishtar would just be ignored entirely because all catholics care about is their God damn cult.
>>21444
How long have you been Catholic that you know this to be true? 

You say a mass is 30 minutes. No, it's about 1 hour for Low Mass, and 90 minutes for a High Mass. 

Catholics and Orthodox are the very definition of Christians. Some protestants, like Mormons, aren't Christian at all and their baptisms are not valid as a Christian baptism.
Replies: >>21468 >>21472
>>21449
>Some protestants, like Mormons
Protestants != Mormons, and vice-versa. Know the difference fren.
Replies: >>21477
>>21449
>Some protestants, like Mormons, aren't Christian at all and their baptisms are not valid as a Christian baptism.
What was the purpose and value of this comment other than to incite annoyance and anger?
Replies: >>21478
>>21444
>They focus on two verses and ignore literally everything else.

Nothing is ignored. The teaching of the Bible is covered during mass over a year. One epistle, one gospel passage is recited in Latin, given in the local vernacular during the homily, and explained. 

Since the Church has the Keys of heaven the entire teaching of Christianity is taught in the Holy Mass. 

>Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
I get the hate. Hate of Catholics is the only thing that all protestants share. It is ironic that you claim to be the superior expert on scripture and that all Catholics are ignorant of the world of God, and you not only have hate, you have hate for the Church that was founded by Christ. 
The Lord said we'd be hated.
Replies: >>21485
>>21468
Mormons use the King James Bible, just like other Protestants. 

Joseph Smith and Martin Luther have a lot in common, but while both were mere men, Luther only broke his oaths before God for wanting a nun, while Smith wanted a harem that even included children. 

Sorry, that's the painful truth. Luther told people they could sin because the Lord paid the price. People as disposed to sin and they liked that better than repentance. 
No, the Lord paid the price for those who were faithful to him, those who reject his words are not faithful. If you believe he is God, you follow his church and don't believe he acted in vain when he gave his apostles (priests) the power to forgive sin, define what is held on earth as the keys to heaven, and created a church. Claiming he babbled or was musing about rocks or acting idle is blasphemy.
Replies: >>21485
>>21472
The Lord said that spreading his word would inspire anger in those who would spread it. 
All the Apostles save Saint John were martyred, and that was not for want of those who hated the Christ's teachings from trying. Christ himself said it would bring division from family and friends. 
Protestant Churches (and to be honest, the current "Catholic" Churches)  are more like social and business clubs. People are not willing to let go of this world. They want friends, they want prosperity. They want to be popular and liked, so they won't take up the true faith; they pervert the faith. They don't understand that the rewards from God are not in this life, but the next. 
It was the devil that promised Christ all those things in the desert, and Christ rejected them all. Protestants fell for it. The modern church fell for it too.
Replies: >>21484
>>21478
So there was no other purpose and no value?
Replies: >>21497
wrong.gif
[Hide] (667.2KB, 480x287)
>>21476
>>21477
>>21484
Try to save your soul has value to God.
>>21311
He makes reactionaries mad despite not even being as progressive as his rhetoric. Despite everything he's great at exposing the hateful in the Church.
Replies: >>21526 >>21532
pope_francis_pachamama_inca.jpeg
[Hide] (64.3KB, 517x549)
>>21513
>pagan pope
You can't put an pagan idol that the children have been sacrificed to on the alter of Saint Peter. 
That is blasphemy of the worst sort; the kind where God's wrath fell on the worshipers of the Golden Calf. Hellfire and damnation. 
And he denied the divinity of the Trinity as "just three person" before he was pope in Argentina. The talk he gave was in Spanish. 
A heretic cannot be made Pope. A heretic may be forgiven but no power on earth can make them a pope.
Replies: >>21531
>>21526
meds
Cuckolding_is_seen_as_liberating.jpg
[Hide] (199KB, 931x415)
Social_conservatism_exploitation.png
[Hide] (91.4KB, 1113x824)
>>21513
>reactionaries
Leftist values are incompatible with Christianity, it can kind of work with the right but even less so with the left.
Replies: >>21556 >>22132
>>21532
>traditional family unit is a product of capitalism
How do you suppose these brain dead retards drew that conclusion?
Replies: >>21558
>>21556
are you looking for a serious answer because i could tell you but its pretty retarded.
Replies: >>21565
baptism is a work
>>21558
Please tell me, I'd like to know.
Replies: >>21572
Even pagan American Indians back in the hunter gatherer stone age era had traditional families. 

If a man wanted to marry a woman, he had to move his potential father in law into his wigwam and feed him for a month. If dad thought he ate well enough and was treated well enough, he allowed his daughter to marry him. 
These godless just make things up. Honesty isn't in them.
Replies: >>21571
>>21566 
>These godless just make things up. 
More like, they find the one exception with some forsaken island tribe with absolutely zero achievements in the past six thousand years and then drum up a disproportionate commotion about how it supposedly "proves" our norms are meaningless constructs and that therefore it's okay to do away with them altogether.
>>21565
Ok, there's two primary reasons for this belief but basically it has to do with the social aspects of communism.
Most common arguments used is that traditional families were being used to serve the capitalist system and that because they held strong beliefs of authority, morality, subservience, etc they also promote subservience to the capitalist system. The second (more modern) reason why its hated is because commies believe its oppressive towards women and children.
>>20938
You deny the words of the Lord Christ, who only gave the keys to heaven to Simon Peter.
Christ founded 1 church with 1 leader, not 12 churches and not hundreds or thousands. 
Yes, following the words of Christ is the key to heaven, and the Lord gave us a church to teach us that way; he didn't give us Luther who tells us to sin boldly because Christ paid the price, and he didn't give us King Henry the Head chopper and looter of Churches. 
>>20949
Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The Lord tells us in Matthew 7 that the words "Jesus, Jesus!" are not magic words. Those who believe Jesus is the Lord will hang on his every word, and try and find his church which is a great gift to us. It's sad to see bible verse, the very words of the Lord in Matthew 16 and John 21 thrown out with contempt as insignificant. Christ came to this world to teach us, and not a single word was idle or in vain or a joke to be dismissed. 

And Jesus Christ true God and true man taught us we have to do things. He didn't give the apostles the power to hear confession and forgive sin in vain and with no reason. He didn't give the keys to heaven to Simon Peter as idle babble.
Replies: >>21576
>>20964
>This is of the Devil and completely contrary to the Gospel.
So says the Gospel of Martin Luther. 
Christ says that the branches that don't produce good fruit are cut off and thrown into the fire. 

>Wall of rambling text follows. 


Mind you, most Catholics today believe the Gospel of Aquinas, so it's a very common thing to do, pervert the words of the Lord. 

Luther preached an easy and effortless path. Aquinas made it impossible path that required constant confession, turning even temptation into a mortal sin. 

Both were inspired by money. Yes, the Church has a wicked lust for money. Priest take a vow of poverty but the bishops live pretty high on the hog, saying that they own nothing, the "Church" owns it.
Replies: >>21578 >>21584
200729-armada.jpg
[Hide] (481.9KB, 1408x792)
>>21573
Luther and Henry are right and your indignation will never change this. Protestantism is victorious forever.
Replies: >>21612
>>21574

>Wall of rambling text follows. 

Translation: "I cannot refute any of this, so I am going to ignore it and continue to bleat out the same tired soundbites over and over again, because it is all that I am capable of doing to keep my incoherent worldview from collapsing upon me and bringing about an existential crisis."

Afterall, it's what you do, time and time again, whenever you are rebuked and can't come up with an effective counter.

Yes, your worldview is utterly incoherent.  You play a game of "I have to be part of the One True Church™, but I don't agree with it's various heresies and errors, so I'll just continue to be part of the One True Church™, while shaking my head disapprovingly at all of the heresies and errors going on, and I'll be alright."  

The problem is that the One True Church™ promotes the various heresies and errors that you do not like down to it's very core.  Don't like Mary worship?  It's in the catechism.  Don't like the fact that Roman Catholicism states that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, in direct contradiction to 1 John 2:22-23?  It's in the catechism.  And so on and so forth.  

You can stomp your feet and whine and blather about these heresies and errors and make a big stink about them all you want.  But every time you worship in a Catholic church, every time you take their bread and wine, you are engaging in communion with said church.  And by engaging in communion with said church, you are saying to the world "I endorse and approve of this," or at the very minimum "I tolerate this."

So this is your totally logical and coherent position in a nutshell:  "Sure, I assent to and tolerate the various heresies and errors of the Roman Catholic church by being a member of and attending and participating in and engaging in communion with and promoting and championing said church, but at least I don't like the heresies that I am endorsing and tacitly approving of through my continued membership and participation."

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.  As long as you remain a member of and continue to participate in the Roman Catholic church, your protests against their various apostasies are rendered nothing more than empty and vain ramblings.   

Don't like the heresies?  Leave.  If you choose to stay, at least have the guts to be honest about the fact that said heresies don't bother you as much as you say they do.
Replies: >>21609
pope-leo-xiii-on-aquinas-l.jpg
[Hide] (166.5KB, 1024x768)
slide_36.jpg
[Hide] (123.1KB, 1280x720)
Thomas+Aquinas+On+The+Restoration+Of+Christian+Philosophy+According+To+The+Mind+Of+St.+Thomas+Aquinas,+The+Angelic+Doctor.jpg
[Hide] (105.2KB, 1024x768)
>>21574 
>Mind you, most Catholics today believe the Gospel of Aquinas, so it's a very common thing to do, pervert the words of the Lord. 
>Luther preached an easy and effortless path. Aquinas made it impossible path that required constant confession, turning even temptation into a mortal sin. 

>the Papacy is always right except when it makes decrees that run contrary to my own personal and *errant* reading of Catholic doctrine
The Summa Theologica of Aquinas was literally placed next to the Bible and the pontifical Decretals on the altar at the Council of Trent.
Replies: >>21608
praying is a work
having faith is a work
>>20964
Ezekiel 18:20
The souls that sinners, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Roman's 2:6
(God) will render to every man according to his deeds.

You are responsible for your actions and God requires you to resist sin.
No wall of incoherent text wall needed because I'm not trying to twist the scriptures into meaning something they dont.
Replies: >>21592
>>21589
Ephesians 2:8–10 (NKJV): For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them 

I can play the game of using one verse to state my general position as well.
Replies: >>21601
>>21592
>created in Christ Jesus for good works
>for good works
You're not very good at that game.
Replies: >>21602 >>21603
>>21601

>Works do not save
>We are created for good works
>Said works are prepared for us to do beforehand
>Works are the fruit of salvation, not what causes it

You're not very good at reading comprehension.
>>21601

To put it another way, does the verse say:

a) You will be saved once you do good works.

or

b) You have been saved by God's grace in order to do good works that He has prepared for you to do.
>>21584
Regarding the first graphic by Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII was praising Thomas Aquinas. He didn't hand the Keys of Heaven to him. In particular he was praising his refuting errors and his "opinion". 

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html

Yes, Church doctors are known for teaching the faith. But when a Church doctor contradicts the Bible or a true Pope, the Pope is true and the Doctor is false.  The Summa is not a source of divine revelation, but a work of human reason. So when the Popes teach is what the mortal sins are according to both old and new testaments, Aquinas is not free to invent new mortal sins and even sins that harm no one which he did.

'Creed of the Council of Toledo' 
12. If anyone either believes that any scriptures, except those which the Catholic Church has received, ought to be held in authority or venerates them, let him be an anathema
'end quote'

Since the year 400 & 470 AD, the Catholic faith which is infallible and indefectable, tell us that works like that of the Summa are not to be held in authority. 

Further, from '''Errors of the Jansenists" of Pope Alexander VIII, belief in Saints, even Saint Augustine or Aquinas, is an error. 
"When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established by Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the Pope". 

The sources of Catholic Faith, given to us by divine revelation, are the Bible and the ex cathedra teachings of the Popes on faith and morals. Praise for Aquinas is not a teaching on faith and morals.
 
The second inforgraphic: Pope Saint Pius X "Doctor Angelici"  
This is not an encyclical to the whole Church, and the context is he's telling how the faith shall be taught in Italian Schools. It is interesting to note that Pope Saint Pius X had a catechism published that contradicted Saint Aquinas' idea that there are sins that don't harm anyone. Which is it? Are thoughts a temptation and not a sin per the Pope, or are they mortal sins per Aquinas? 

The Third Infographics: Pope Leo XIII
'This is not an infallible encyclical'
Pope Saint Pius X, in Doctor Angelici was telling the local church to continue basing the curriculum on the Summa. This was NOT an encyclical either, but instructions to the Church on what to teach. 

>The Summa Theologica of Aquinas was literally placed next to the Bible and the pontifical Decretals on the altar at the Council of Trent.
Maybe. Yet, neither the Summa nor Saint Aquinas is mentioned in the Council of Trent. And Pope Leo XIII mentions they used it for counsel, Reasons and answers. They don't treat it as infallible, that would be an error and made them all an anathema.
Replies: >>21611
>>21578
>Ad homs

I don't really care about your hate. I know I'll never get you past that. Protestants hold hate of the Church and all Catholics as their central dogma. It's what protestants do and I can't fix that hate.  It's the on thing that seems to be common to all protestants. Strange, that. You speak of Christian unity and reject the Church and teachings of the Church created by Christ. 

Now you're going to go off and do a wall of text on how the Church was not created by Christ or never existed until Luther. Whatever. 

Mary Worship was a problem in the Church and "Pope" Pius X, a suspect pope because he changed the Tridentine mass and worked with the Rothschilds and kinda bless Mary Worship, which was being used by the Freemasons and communist and ... Rothschilds. 

For example, we know that ALL Marion apparitions are false. Why?
1) Jesus Christ said he'd send the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, not his mother. He didn't include his mother in that. 
2) 1 Cor. 14:34-35 

I remember after Vatican II, how my mother wispered about Fatima. Contrary to what "traditional catholics" believe today, you weren't supposed to believe it. 
It was an obvious diversion from the communist slaughter of Orthodox Christians as punishment for their not submitting to the Vatican. 
I also absolutely reject the idea of Saint Mary holding back the wrath of the Lord. The Mary in the Bible was absolutely servant to the will of God and would never defy it.  The idea of Mary telling her Son the Lord God to not do his will is flatly false. Fatima is the devil's deception. 
There. Said it. It's not part of the Catholic faith, and denies the Bible (Matt 16, 1 Cor). 

Mary worship is a heresy in the Catholic faith. They're allowed to venerate. All things come from God. It is proper to pray to saints to ask them to pray for us, but to ask Mary for Grace and not to pray for God to give us grace? Blasphemy. 
'Promises from the "immaculate heart"?' Blasphemy. Mary can promise you nothing. 
'Promises from the Brown Scapular?' Heresy. Only the sacrament of penance can remove mortal sin. And there are no magic talismans in the Catholic faith. 
'Promises from the "Sacred Heart"?' heresy. Christ never made such promises in the Bible and promised to send the Holy Ghost to the apostles. Jesus Christ has not come back yet and would not be making promises to make your life better. Quite the opposite, he told us not to live in this world but the next. 
None of those are found in the teachings of the Popes. Yes, they praised the Sacred Heart but not the promises. 

There. Now I've upset the Catholics. See? I'm fair to everyone.
Replies: >>21610 >>21614
>>21609
Said "Pope" Pius X
That's an error. Pope Saint Pius X was a true pope and beyond suspecion. 
Should have been:
"Pope" Pius XII
>>21608
>... but instructions to the Church on what to teach. 


should be more specific: Instructions to the Church in Italy on what to teach.
>>21576
>Luther and Henry are right

Luther as a spirital Christian leader?
Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants - martin Luther

    Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel ... For baptism does not make men free in body and property, but in soul; and the gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who, of their own free will, do what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4 [:32–37]. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others—of Pilate and Herod—should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, want to make the goods of other men common, and keep their own for themselves. Fine Christians they are! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.

King Henry VIII as a spirital Christian Leader?
"He also greatly expanded royal power during his reign. He frequently used charges of treason and heresy to quell dissent, and those accused were often executed without a formal trial by means of bills of attainder."
Sort of like Biden, I guess, except he used the axe to chop the head of dissenters off.
Replies: >>21613
>>21612
You know, Luther preaching murder and stabbing and Henry using absolute power and head chopping to quell dissent for his looting the Church and rape and murder of priests and nuns... Terrorism. 

okay. Not quite what the Lord said in the Gospels, and more akin to Islam than Christianity.
Replies: >>21615
>>21609

Wow.  Amazing.  You managed to respond to my post without really responding to it at all in the least.  

Yes, it's very nice that you are firmly against Mary worship in lip service, but the Catholic church's feelings towards this issue are not mutual.  They are more than happy to support and codify it.  

As long as you are a member, supporter, promoter of and in communion with the Roman Catholic church, you communicate your tacit support of Mary worship and other various heresies promoted by Roman Catholicism.  Your long screed against it, being nothing more than empty bloviation of no substance.

If you really are against Mary worship, then take a stand and leave.  If not, then at least admit that Mary worship does not bother you enough to leave the Roman Catholic Church.
Replies: >>21617
>>21613
You know, slandering dead men is something you will have to explain to Jesus.
Replies: >>21617
>>21615
No slander. Luther really supported killing his former followers, once the princes who paid him got mad. 
And Henry really chopped heads off his wives, framed them for capital crimes, and looted, murdered and raped the Church. 
>>21614
Yeah, I know. What part of ad homs was I supposed to respond to? I'm not a very interesting subject, boring really. 
>As long as you are ...
Who gave you Christ powers to judge people?  And the keys of heaven went to Saint Peter, not you, so you have no power to say what is a sin or not. Sorry. 

Two replies, both ad homs, which is a fallacy of irrelevancy even if true. 
Who founded the Christian Church? Christ. 
Who founded the Lutheran Church? Luther. 
Who founded the Anglican Church? Henry the head chopper.
Replies: >>21618 >>21626
>>21617
And you continue to dodge the issue. As long as you are a member of the Roman Catholic church, you tolerate their heresies and thus are in sin and a hypocrite. You're literally just hiding behind "You can't judge me!" like a typical Liberal.
Replies: >>21619
>>21618
Thank you for your ad homs and making the discussion about me. 
I'm here to discuss religion. If you like you can start another thread specifically about hating me, but I don't intend to participate in that kind of wickedness that causes you to commit sin. 
I'm also pretty sure you're here to hate Catholics. You know, some of your criticism is valid, and a lot of it isn't.  
Have a nice day. I hope you feel more forgiving in the future.
Replies: >>21621
>>21619

You're just repeatedly misusing the term "Ad hominem" in order to worm your way out of valid criticism.  

If you're part of the Mormon church, it doesn't matter if you personally don't like the fact that they view Jesus as Satan's spirit brother, because you're part of the Mormon church.

If you're part of Jehovah's Witnesses, it does not matter if you do not personally like the fact that they view Jesus as Michael the Archangel, because you are part of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you're part of the Roman Catholic church, it does not matter if you do not like Mary worship, the Gospel of Aquinas, Muslims being viewed as worshipping the same God as Christians, or that Jews can go to heaven without Christ, because you're part of the Roman Catholic church.

You can't just be a member of a church and treat their dogmas and doctrines like your own personal cafeteria dishes that you can pick and choose for your own personal convenience and what you find personally aggregable or not.  Once you are a member of a church, you implicitly and explicitly agree with their core doctrines and dogmas.  As a member of the Roman Catholic church, your membership signifies agreement and consent with the catechism and the churches rulings and statements.  If you disagree with this, then you are just a Cafeteria Catholic at best.
Replies: >>21622
>>21621
No, I get it. You hate me. 
But attacking the man and not the argument is a fallacy of distraction. 
Besides, I can tell you're an expert at this and your skill in this type of argument you are very practiced and skilled. 
 Lets just say you win. I'm under no illusion that you're in this for the discussion. 
Matt 7:6. 
Consider me trampled.
2A74FEB2-E992-4E9D-9D97-D3489B8F5CCE.jpeg
[Hide] (322.3KB, 1200x864)
>>21617
The Catholic Church has killed so many people since its foundation that it makes Luther and Henry look absolutely and utterly meek. The Christian view of these people is totally different from your man-centric Whore of Babylon, which is ‘infallible’ in magisterium. Christians can recognize that Luther and Henry did bad things, but your Synagogue of Satan acts as if it has divine right to do the things it does.

>And the keys of heaven went to Saint Peter, not you, so you have no power to say what is a sin or not
God-breathed Scripture is sufficient for every good work and for training Christians in righteousness.

Your traditions of men are an abomination before the LORD. Your idols, your popery, your saints, all of them ought to be smashed and tread under foot. Remember what Moses did when he saw Israel worshiping the golden calf? Thousands died in the aftermath. Zealousness for the sake of God is no sin.
Replies: >>21644 >>21647
>>21626
Giga-based post.
Replies: >>21647
>>21626
>>21644
No, making stuff up. Wicked leaders (and they have to be wicked to become a leader) always make an excuse that most people will fall for e.g. the Russians are evil for Invading Ukraine for "no reason"; and they often use religion to fool the masses. 

Not sure how "God-breathed Scripture is sufficient for every good work and for training Christians in righteousness." is used to ignore the scripture that plainly states God gave the keys to heaven to saint Peter, made Saint Peter the head of the Church. 
I believe in God, and God plainly stated Peter is the head of the Church and has powers that the other apostles didn't have. 
It's not a joke, the Lord isn't babbling about rocks, never mentioned head chopping Henry or kill the peasents Luther, and it is clearly not a parable. 
I don't have any idols, and idols are against the Catholic religion, which is found in the Bible and the teachings of the Popes, and in the "traditions".
Replies: >>21654
>>21647
Christ is speaking about Peter’s faith, and this being the rock upon which the Church is founded, as exemplified by Peter, and Peter is the archetype for a Christian, and WAS head of the apostles, but this doesn’t establish that this continued afterwards in a legitimate manner. The keys being referred to are keys that any Christian can possess, because they are wielded by Christ, and all Christians are priests and kings who have access to the key of knowledge. All true Christians can bind and loose things on heaven and on earth. The saints will judge the earth, and even the angels in heaven.

Catholic idolatry is evident in their reverence for statues, paintings and other things that they will pray before, invoke, kiss and all of the other things that the LORD prevented us from doing. It doesn’t matter what pope cope and pilpul the neo-Pharisees have cooked up to get out of it via traditions of men. The LORD rebuked the Pharisees and their Corban. Same thing
Replies: >>21660
Screenshot_2020-11-20_Vatican_issues_coin_of_mother_carrying_‘earth_in_her_womb’_one_year_after_Pachamama_scandal.png
[Hide] (573.4KB, 714x872)
>>21654
> doesn’t establish that this continued afterwards in a legitimate manner
Then you deny that promise of the Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church until the end of time. 
You deny that Saint Peter had the power, given by God, to say that he should have a successor. 

Kings? See James 2:1-13 for example
2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
end quote
Then there's the rich man entering heaven that I'm sure that you know. 

Kings have no such power. 

'The Bad argument against statues and painting'
I'm tired of this bad argument, and it is thrown in as a fallacy of relevancy, a red herring. Fish Friday is tomorrow, today is Thursday and we eat meat.

Statues and paintings were used to teach the flock to the illiterate. They often couldn't read! Yes, so pagans fell into thinking they were idols because that is what they were before being Christian. A person who doesn't understand the faith is not damnation of the faith. 
The implicit lie hear is that the Catholic faith, as defined by the Bible and the Popes, says idols are to be worshiped. No, that is false and slander against the Church. The Church says it is a sin to worship statues. That is another reason why Bergoglio, an antichrist who dragged his wicked pagan idols onto the alter of Saint Peter is a servant of Satan.
Replies: >>21667
>>21660
You believe in a church founded on a man rather than the Word made flesh, 'THE ONLY ROCK'. The Rock is Christ - "the Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:4). "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." (Psalm 18:2). Thus saith the LORD 'For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? ' (Psalm 18:31).

All Christians reign as priests and kings. Thus saith the LORD, "[He] made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:6), "And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites." (Exodus 19:6), "and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him." (Romans 8:17). 

Do not deny the words of Scripture! 'TRUE CHRISTIANS REIGN WITH CHRIST, WE ARE NOT TAUGHT BY MEN' (1 John 2:27, Jeremiah 31:34, John 6:45, John 14:26), therefore your argument about the illiterate needing idols has fallen flat. The Spirit of the LORD will teach the illiterate, and engrave it upon their hearts. Thus saith the LORD: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4).

Come back to the true ROCK of Christ, abandon the popish ideas you hang unto, because you cannot worship both God and Mammon. A house divided will not stand.
Replies: >>21737
>>21686
>peter literally means rock
The papist thus denies Scripture and takes refuge in puns, princes and sons of men rather than the living LORD, the only Rock.

>then why would there be biblical instructions to ordain men as bishops who need to be good at teaching?
Only the LORD creates prophets, overseers, elders and true saints.

>one catholic church, one hundred jillion pr*testant denominations
Protestantism is a false Gospel, just like Popery.
7D19F28E-EA8E-4DFB-AE30-383C63627C51.jpeg
[Hide] (25.2KB, 542x350)
>>21686
>one catholic church
Which one?
>>21705
Why should I believe in your one true Catholic Church instead of pope Michael's one true Catholic Church? What makes yours special out of the 33 gorillion papist sects?
Replies: >>21735
>>21712
Exactly, that's why I'll trust infallible pope Michael over you, Protestant
>>21725
That's your personal interpretation I will trust the infallible church Jesus founded instead
>>21727
>source: my ass
Ok glad you agree arguments against sola scriptura are absurd.
>>21707
>>21707
>Why should I believe in your one true Catholic Church instead of pope Michael's one true Catholic Church?
Easy answer: Because he's dead. Died last August. 
A better answer would take longer.
>>21667
>the Lord was babbling about rocks...
Gaslighting. 
even the KJV is clear on this!
Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Simon was touched by Almighty God the Father and told Jesus Christ was his one True Son. That's what made Simon above all the other Apostles. That's why The Lord made him his Vicar.
Replies: >>22411
>>21705
The seat's been vacant before. Vatican I says the office will always exist, but never promises that it will always be held.
>>21712
There are at least 5 different "Catholic" religions that recognize the authority of the Pope, each one believing something different, not one of these that I know of hold the teachings of the Bible and the Popes. 
Novus Ordo - Not even a mass, rejects catholic dogma that the Church is the only path to heaven. 
FSSP - Corrupted Tridentine mass, says that the N.O. "mass" is valid, which makes them an anathema. 
SSPX - Corrupted Tridentine mass. Not sure if the Pope's after Pope Pius XII are true popes. 
SSPV - Less corrupted Tridentine mass (I understand they say the 1958 mass), more based, but deep into corrupting the faith of the Catholic Church with Mary worship and personal revelations. 
Sanbornist - True tridentine mass, but like the SSPV, corrupted by Mary Worship and personal revelations. 

At least the last two are just heretics and not anathemas or cursed by God. 
You can attend a mass served by a heretic, but not an anathema. 
Only problem is, the last one won't give you the sacraments if you don't admit to heresy, so they're useless.
Replies: >>21744
>>21740
see >>21742
There are at least 5 Churches that claim to be Catholic, and I don't know about Christ the King...
>>21745
I proved that the Catholic faith says that the Catholic Church, which the only real Christian Church, is the only path to heaven. 
You can cast insults about my ass all you want, but your soul will not reach heaven that way.
Bergoglio_and_Luther.jpg
[Hide] (197.9KB, 1050x750)
John_Paul_II_kissing_Quran.jpg
[Hide] (91.5KB, 1024x680)
pope_francis_pachamama_inca.jpeg
[Hide] (64.3KB, 517x549)
>>21755
The provide cites. 
I don't have the photos of John Paul II doing the naked pagan ritual. But these things these fake Popes are doing in these pictures are mortal sins. 
And "Ecumenical" was expanded to the freemason concept of all religions are valid in Vatican II. This puts them outside the Church. They are not even Catholic.
Replies: >>21832
>>21755
If what you're saying is that the actions and words of the Vatican and the false Popes are sinful, and that the teaching of the Church are that there is no salvation outside the Church, then you're rude, but almost correct.
Vatican 2 changed from the one Church of Christ to a Church of Christ, and then they used that to pronounce islam, paganism, protestantism, hinduism into "Churches of Christ". This is flat out damned (literally) Freemason belief
If you're saying that the church always said there were other Churches of Christ, that is flatly false as shown by the numerous councils and encyclicals already cited, and you're rude. 
Have a nice Advent!
Anyway, I encourage everyone, protestant and Catholic alike to return to the one true Church of Christ and study the teachings of the Bible, the true Popes, and the traditions. 

The Mary Worship needs to be cut away, as does the false Gospel of Aquinas, corruption of the faith by personal revelations, the corruption of the church for wealth, and false teachings.
Replies: >>21832
>>21798
>"fake Popes"
>implying any of them are real "Fathers"
I guess this is where you post your mental gymnastics to twist Christ's words or disregard them. As you papist lunatics always do. You act like you're offended over whatever whoever's post said, but you offend God with your vanities and abominations.

>>21823
The true church is not of this world. It's also disgusting how you people worship your church rather than God. All you people talk about is your capital-C church (a word never capitalized in the bible even once), you never talk about God. 

Reminds me of a dating profile of a girl I saw, all she talked about was how she loved church and church this&that and how she wanted someone to go to church with her. It's just churchianity, have some coffee and cookies and put up your feet and listen to a power point about a Christ they don't know. And the catholics are worse than that, think they're holy because they play dress up and fill their temples with idols.
Replies: >>21841
>>21832
>I guess this is where you post your mental gymnastics to twist Christ's words or disregard them.
Protestant denials of Matt 16, Ezekiel 34:23 and John 21 are legendary. All the while scapgoating these denials upon the Catholics that it is they who deny the words of Christ. 
I'd quote them again, but you give them no weight, will say Christ wasn't really talking to Simon Peter in an act of pure chutzpah, or twist them like the devil, and I have no interest in seeing you commit another sin. 
>The true church is not of this world. It's also disgusting how you people worship your church rather than God.
God made this world (Genesis), God came to this world (4 Gospels), and God created his Church in this world (Matthew 16, Ezekiel 43, John 21). 
I worship in a church, it is false to say I worship the church. I follow the Church teaching.
>>21841
The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 16 is a tough verse. It merits a much longer discussion and a more-appropriate venue than the "Slapfight Thread". The "binding and loosing" was said again by Jesus in Matthew 18, not exclusively to Simon Peter. But one additional reason I haven't seen mentioned yet, immediately after giving the "keys to the kingdom":
"But he [Jesus] turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." -Matthew 16:23

So Jesus also called Peter Satan.
Replies: >>21861 >>21881
>>21848
Ironic in a way, how God loves His ironies
Replies: >>21881
for me is the Evangelical Calvinist Baptist Nicene Creed Greek-language church of North America and the Antipodes
>>21841
>Ezekiel 34
Ezekiel 34 is a rebuke of bad shepherds (plural) and the prophecy of Jesus as the one shepherd that God shall set up.
Ez.34:5: "And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd..." prophesies what Jesus said regarding his imminent arrest and crucifixion: "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad."-Matt.26:31
Ez.34:16 Jesus is the fulfillment of this (Luke 19:10).
Ez.34:23: "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." Keep in mind the 'even' is in italics in the KJV, so it's added for readability to olde English speakers. The verse says David is the "one shepherd". So who is David? "I Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David..."-Rev.22:16, "...How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?"-Mark 12:35, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David..."-Matt.1:1. "...our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep..."-Heb.13:20, "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine... and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."-Jn.10:14-16
Replies: >>21898 >>21907
>>21841
>John 21
Jesus telling Simon Peter to feed his lambs/sheep may have multiple explanations, not mutually-exclusive. It could be a general admonishment, not meant exclusively for Simon Peter. Does Jesus not want anyone but Peter to feed his flock, such as James and John whom he also brought to his Transfiguration? It could be addressed only to Peter, as a way of Jesus making practical arrangements for the local church after his ascension. At any rate, this one admonishment could not be stretched to support what the Roman Catholic Church claims: Feed my lambs>Peter feeds>Peter rules>Peter moves to Rome>Peter has authority to transfer power>Successor rules in Peter's stead>Power transferred over and over for ~2000 years. Every step after Peter feeding the lambs would be a stretch on its own.
>>21848
>>21861
Christ was did not come to earth to deceive us. 
He recognized that the Father revealed the truth to Peter alone. No other apostle knew that Christ was the son of God. Christ himself told us that this revelation came from God the Father almighty. 
He made Peter the head of his church. 
He gave Peter the keys of Heaven. 
He asked Peter 3 times to feed his Sheep. 
Protestant takeaway? Peter is Satan and all the words of Christ were in vain  because Peter didn't want the Son of God to be crucified. God The Father erred. God the Son erred. 
'You're all lost and willingly so. '
You deny Christ and Christ will deny you.
Replies: >>21887
>>21881
 >He made Peter the head of his church.
1. Jesus is the head of the church, not Peter: "And he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church..."-Col.1:18, "...even as Christ is the head of the church..."-Eph.5:23, "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ..."-Eph.5:24
2. Peter calls himself an elder among other elders, and exhorts the other elders to feed the flock of God. (1 Peter 5:1-2)

You're building an enormous edifice on a few vague verses, which, in effect, replaces Jesus Christ with Peter.
Replies: >>21896
>>21887
Again? 
Head of the Church on Earth. The Shepherd promised in Ezekiel. You're not going to understand if you twist words. 
The servant tells his servants to feed the flock the fodder of his revelations from the promised Paraclete, the Holy Ghost. Seems obvious. 

Christians understood this for 1000 years. Then suddenly, the head of God's Church is replaced with a King or Martin Luther, and sin becomes okay because Christ paid the price so they can sin
Replies: >>21898
>>21896
>The Shepherd promised in Ezekiel
I already answered this here: >>21867 Jesus Christ is the Shepherd promised in Ezekiel.

>Then suddenly, the head of God's Church is replaced with a King or Martin Luther, and sin becomes okay because Christ paid the price so they can sin
Strawman. Sin is not okay: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"-Romans 6:1-2; and I reiterate that no man is the head of Jesus Christ's church (be it Martin Luther or earthly kings): "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"-1 Timothy 2:5

The scriptures say Peter was an elder. Peter calls himself an elder. He is worthy of respect, and I am sure in his lifetime he led the local church admirably. But it is unscriptural to elevate him to the position of mediator between Jesus and his flock, and extending that to support the authority of the present-day Roman Catholic Church to keep faithful believers out of Heaven is untenable.
Replies: >>21903 >>21907
>>21898
God is not the servant. Sorry, the Church has the power to explain the Bible and is infallable, not you. Nothing against you, but, you know, God says he sent the Holy Ghost (a.k.a God) to the vicar of Christ to explain it. 
You deny the vicar, the Church created by Christ... so... well, what you say is wrong anyway. 

About sin: Different protestant groups believe different things, and one pentacostal I've men was bragging about his pedophile exploits in Mexico and, when he saw my disapproval, he said Christ paid for all his sins so he's going to heaven and I'm not. He was emphatic on the Sin boldly, as God paid for the sins.

Protestantism is a multiheaded dragon, attack one head (that sin is okay) and another head bites you. Strange how Protestants overlook this in other protestants but all protestants hate the Catholic Church. 

Meh. Deny the Bible. I can't stop you.
Replies: >>21908 >>22003
>>21898
>I already answered this here: >>21867 Jesus Christ is the Shepherd promised in Ezekiel.

And Christ asked Simon Peter three times to feed the sheep while he was away. 
Not sure what the problem is, he appointed Simon Peter the job and said he would work through the Holy Ghost and Saint Peter. 
Simple, but if you want to reject the Church created by Christ, I guess you have to dump on certain Biblical passages. 
I get it. Protestants are taught to hate Catholics. Anyone converting to Catholic from protestant would lose their family, their business dealings, their friends and maybe even their job (a protestant rejected my Ph.D. thesis because my Advisor was Catholic, that and because it made his own research program moot).
So, we're never going to argue that, because Christ said that would happen; that family and friends will turn on you and people would hate you. 
I get it. Sad, tho.
>>21903
the roman "catholic" church is not infallible
Replies: >>21918
fourhundredthousand_keks.jpg
[Hide] (87.2KB, 700x1070)
>calls his church catholic (universal)
>is a schism from the true church

>blames protestants for being racist towards catholics
>catholics burned protestants at the stake for hundreds of years before protestants fought back

papists never stop being retards
Replies: >>21918
It's very simple, either you trust the church or you trust the bible, one of them can let you down.
Replies: >>21918
How do roman catholics explain the fact that St Thomas Christians were practicing bible-based apostolic Christianity in India since the 1st century? Despite having no contact with the roman see of St Peter? Were they not actually Christian because they weren't part of the roman church? 

If you need to be in communion with the roman church to be a Christian, explain the Saint Thomas Christians of Goa please

Genuine question
Replies: >>21918
>>21908
You're using a straw man to change the subject? Two fallacies in one. 
A true Pope is infallible on Faith and Morals. 
>>21909
>papists never stop being retards
The teachings of the Church on faith and morals, together with the Bible and some Church traditions dating back to the early church, are the faith of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. 
Insults and falsehoods e.g. claiming I said "protestants are racist towards Catholics" is a falsehood.  I said that the Protestants hate Catholics, not that they're "racist", Catholic is not a Race. 
>>21911
If you trust the Bible you trust the Church created by Christ. If you Trust the Church, you trust the Bible because the Church created the Bible around the year 4th century. 

>>21913
Why would you want an answer from a "Retard"? Either you're dumber than a retard, or you aren't asking an honest question. 
Either way, I prefer to not respond to hateful people
>>21918
>The teachings of the Church on faith and morals, together with the Bible and some Church traditions dating back to the early church, are the faith of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. 
These are just mantras, not fact, not scripture, and not from God. But your god is your "Church"

If the RCC was from God, it wouldn't work abominations, it wouldn't be full of pagan idols, it wouldn't have a single leader in earth because Christ is the head of the church. Anyone claiming to be in Christ's place on earth is /literally/ an antichrist too. I don't know how fucking retarded you can be and I'm not that anon either, I have just almost no patience for you fucking idiots because you despise of the Word of the Lord God.
Replies: >>21968
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (478.6KB, 542x535)
When did you realize that ‘apostolic Christianity’ in the sense held by Catholics and Orthodox was a giant meme? It all fell apart for me when I did a serious investigation into the early patristic sources on images / aniconism. There are no unambiguously pro-iconophile fathers before the fourth century, and by all standards kissing paintings and bowing before them as Orthodox do is a form of idolatry. I feel cheated, bros, I thought kissing paintings was apostolic… I was worshiping idols the whole time…
Replies: >>22008 >>22042
faithful_to_Tradition_true_church.jpg
[Hide] (34.5KB, 479x305)
1570303470698.jpg
[Hide] (42.1KB, 689x500)
cafetria_catholics.png
[Hide] (94.1KB, 400x365)
>>21966
And If I was as untruthful and rude as some, I might say you're god is sin. You'd protest, but using argumentum ad infintim fallacy, I'd just keep repeating it just to piss you off. 
But, I don't do that. You try to believe in God yet keep your friends, family and work. that requires you to hate Catholics, so you do. You even know, in the back of your mind, that Christ said that this world would hate those who preached His word. 

The faith of the Catholic Church (not all are Roman Rite) is in the Bible and the Teachings of the Church. 
The "Catholic Church" has been perverted, mostly by freemasons and communist and protestants. It is true that they now lead many souls to hell. I assure you tho, Bergoglio is not Catholic. Everything in the Catholic faith says he's not. A Catholic would never worship a pagan idol, allow the a Mass that isn't 800 years old to be said, allow the New Mass, allow the Eucharist to be taken in the hand, say the mass in the local venaculer, etc. 
To be of the Church founded by Jesus Christ per the Bible, you have to believe ALL of the faith.
Replies: >>21985
apostle_paul_2_thessalonians_13-14_on_traditions_and_word_and_writing.jpg
[Hide] (224.1KB, 1200x819)
If_you_believe_what_you_like_in_the_gospels.jpg
[Hide] (111KB, 577x349)
Bible says keep the traditions. 
I don't believe in what I like. I believe in the Bible, which tells me to believe in the Church created by Christ. Christ has a servant that looks after this Church, the first servant was Simon - Peter. 
Hope this saves your soul
Yea... You're not going to find a single congregation that believes the Bible and the Church. You have to read the teachings of the Church, and the Bible, and hope for the best. Vision of Pope Leo XIII and all that. End times. Test of the faithful vs. those who live in this world. Very difficult for us all.
Replies: >>21970 >>22042
>>21969
>Bible says keep the traditions. 
And all of the early Church Fathers believe that images are not permissible in a religious context. I keep the true apostolic traditions, meanwhile you are trying to claim that fourth century post-Constantine writings are the true 'apostolic tradition'
Replies: >>21974
>>21918
>If you trust the Bible you trust the Church created by Christ. If you Trust the Church, you trust the Bible because the Church created the Bible around the year 4th century. 
Funny, because it was the fourth century that the great apostasy began to happen when idolatry began to become mainstream in the churches, reaching its pinnacle at Nicea II.
Replies: >>21977
>>21970
>And all of the early Church Fathers believe that images are not permissible in a religious context

Says where in the Bible? 
Even in the old testament, right after God gave Moses the 10 commandments that forbid "graven images", God told Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant where the 10 commandments would be kept, which included "religious images". 
That pretty much blows away the argument that all images are graven images.
Replies: >>21978
Bible_without_the_Church_means_destruction.jpg
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
You have to understand the Bible. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Some folks take parts of the Bible out of the context of the whole and the "no images" meme is a good example of that. 
No, you're not supposed to worship the statue. That is a sin. 
The statue is used for teaching. Crucified? People couldn't read and didn't understand the concept. So, put a nice big Cross above the alter so people understand the suffering and death associated with it. It was used for teaching. 
Yeah, there are sinners in this world. Those who worship the statutes act in sin, but there's not guilt in them if they don't know it's a sin to think God or some saint is in the statue. Priest get lazy and let it slide.
Replies: >>21978 >>22042
>>21971
Yeah, it's not idolatry. Even after Moses got the 10 commandments forbidding graven images, God told Moses to build the ark of the Covenant, which had... images. 
Have a blessed life, and pray for understanding and faith in the Word of God. That's gonna require a Priest. Good luck in finding one. I don't think there are any left who aren't apostates and or Heretics. 
Why am I even here, given that I can't say go to this church building or that one? I donno. It was a promise I made. I was told it would be difficult. Geeze, seems impossible.
Replies: >>21980 >>22003
>>21974
The Bible is very clear that we should not be creating graven images. Because God demands that Moses create something does not void the commandments of God, which still stand. Also, you would have to prove that Moses kissed these images, and bow down before them like Orthodox and Catholics do today. There's zero evidence of this. And again, the unanimous patristic consensus prior to the fourth century (and there are many into the fourth century) is that images are not permissible in any context religiously. Since Catholics love to trumpet the Church Fathers so much, one would think they would care what they have to say, which again, shows how hollow the idea of the 'unbroken apostolic tradition' is.

>>>21975
>but there's not guilt in them if they don't know it's a sin to think God or some saint is in the statue
This exact argument is used by a pagan in Arnobius' work 'Seven Books Against the Heathen'.
Replies: >>22007
>>21977
This has already been refuted in the other thread. Do you care about the Church Fathers or not?
Replies: >>21993
>>21968
>I assure you tho, Bergoglio is not Catholic. Everything in the Catholic faith says he's not. A Catholic would never worship a pagan idol, allow the a Mass that isn't 800 years old to be said, allow the New Mass, allow the Eucharist to be taken in the hand, say the mass in the local venaculer, etc. 
>To be of the Church founded by Jesus Christ per the Bible, you have to believe ALL of the faith.
Then you reject Papal Infallibility, and are not part of the Church. Who are you to interpret doctrines? If Christ left the church in Peter's care, how could any Pope ever be a false shepherd? Could God have failed to keep his church? 

Basically: >I disagree with the Pope, but I'm still a true Catholic because the Pope isn't a true Catholic.
No True Scotsman fallacy, and essentially what every Protestant reformer thought.
>>21968
Replies: >>21986 >>21995
RCC_vs_Protestants.png
[Hide] (55.5KB, 1000x563)
>>21985
>>21980
Epistle of Saint Paul to the Epistle
 3:15. Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named:

All paternity... Or, the whole family. God is the Father, both of angels and men; whosoever besides is named father, is so named with subordination to him.
End Quote

So, if the Lord forbid the use of the word Father (I guess the Protestants think we're all bastards), why did Saint Paul say those who are subordinate to God are called father? 

Done this a hundred times. Your interpretation of the Bible is not right, as it leads to a contraction of Bible vs. Bible. We've been over this 100 times, and the next day, a protestant come back and starts all over. It's like arguing with a Jew, to be honest.
Replies: >>21994
>>21993
What are you even talking about? I asked 'Do you care about the Church Fathers or not?' Are you some sort of bot?
Replies: >>21996
reality.png
[Hide] (52.4KB, 1000x672)
>>21985
>Then you reject Papal Infallibility,
That doesn't even follow. IF Bergoglio is not Catholic, and a Catholic would never do the things he has done like put a pagan idol on the alter of Saint Peter, doesn't mean I reject papal infallibility on faith and morals. The catholic faith, which one must believe to be Catholic, says "thou shalt not have other gods before me" and Pope Frank bold as brass put his pagan fertility god on the highest alter in all of Christendom. 

 >Who are you to interpret doctrines?
I go by the Bible and the teachings of real Popes. 

>If Christ left the church in Peter's care, how could any Pope ever be a false shepherd? Could God have failed to keep his church? 
The flock belongs to Jesus, and his servant, the Pope, and the Pope's servants, the bishops, and the Bishop's servants, the priests and deacons, take care of the flock. They're servants of the Lord. 
Or do you think Elon Musk runs twitter all by himself? Do you think you can ignore the police and report directly to the Mayor?
Replies: >>22003
>>21994
I have no idea what your problem is.
Replies: >>21997
>>21996
>he can't even follow our reply chain
Replies: >>21998
>>21997
Well good for you. When you get to heaven, be sure to complain to Jesus Christ that I found you incomprehensible and that when you had no argument, you had to resort to ad homs.
Replies: >>21999
>>21998
Do you 'venerate' images, yes or no.
>>21995
>I go by the Bible and the teachings of real Popes.
In your own words, you're not allowed to interpret the Bible apart from the official interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church:
>>21903
>Sorry, the Church has the power to explain the Bible and is infallable, not you. Nothing against you, but, you know, God says he sent the Holy Ghost (a.k.a God) to the vicar of Christ to explain it.

I'm ok with saying the Bible trumps contradictory interpretations from any man, be it Luther, Calvin, or a Pope. The reasoning you give for the current Pope not being Catholic is convincing, I just want you to understand that the same reasoning was used by every Bible-believing Christian who left the Roman Church over the centuries. They saw doctrines and practices that they believed were unbiblical, and were convinced the organization had left the faith. Look at the regional churches that were addressed in Revelation. Local congregations fell into error and sin early on. That seems the common progression for denominations: new life -> fervor -> complacency -> falling-away. It was no different in the reformers' time, or our time. The true church is a spiritual body of everyone who believes the Gospel, trusting in the name of Jesus Christ. Denominations rise and fall. Tares are sown and grow up with the wheat. Some of the wheat stalks may move to a different field once they become outnumbered by the tares. It doesn't mean they founded a new church, just that the crop was transplanted to a new location. If all that was left in a field was 95% tares and 5% wheat, no candid farmer would call that his wheat crop.

>>21977
>That's gonna require a Priest. Good luck in finding one. I don't think there are any left who aren't apostates and or Heretics.
The current Pope not being Catholic casts a cloud of doubt over the whole organization. It's more fatal than you're conceding. If it's the direct church that Jesus founded on Peter, how could it ever have become infiltrated as you say? How could the College of Cardinals have selected a Vicar that isn't even Catholic? Didn't the Holy Ghost lead them in their selection? Whether the one shepherd in Ezekiel 34 is Jesus or Peter (on assignment from Jesus), it has become undone if now we return to the bad shepherds in the early part of the chapter. If the Pope is not Catholic, and the College of Cardinals are not led by the Holy Spirit, and the priests are mostly apostates or heretics (as you say), how could this be the church that Christ promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against?
Replies: >>22006
Are there evangelicals churches who are into secret societies like the Roman Catholic Church's jesuits and knights of malta?
Replies: >>22005
>>22004
Idk about evangelicals but some Christians are freemasons if that counts.
infiltration.jpg
[Hide] (60KB, 325x502)
>>22003
> you're not allowed to interpret the Bible apart from the official interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church:
Correct. The Church  taught us what it means. My problem is, they taught one catechism and I was okay with it, and the next thing I know I'm told that everything is a mortal sin and to do a penance of saying the Dolores Rosary. I'd never heard of it. 

>The current Pope not being Catholic casts a cloud of doubt over the whole organization. It's more fatal than you're conceding. If it's the direct church that Jesus founded on Peter, how could it ever have become infiltrated as you say?

For one, the Church was promised to prevail against the gates of hell until the end of time. Well, these are the end times. 
Pope Leo XIII had a vision; a conversation between the devil and God. It went something like the Biblical story of Job, but the devil was saying he could destroy God's church. Great test that, seeing who would keep the faith and who would be fooled by the antichrist. 
How could the Church become infiltrated? Heck the Freemasons plan to infiltrate the Church fell into the hands of the Church. It's been going on since the mid 19th century.
I've lost my book on it. The problem with the book is that some of it is controlled opposition that promotes Mary Worship. Controlled opposition works like that. Tell you what you know, then corrupt it; like the whole conservative movement can be mostly correct, but fall for the "must fight and die to support Israel" shtick.
>>21978
>The Bible is very clear that we should not be creating graven images.
I just pointed out that from the Bible itself God commanded Moses to put graven images (def 1) on the Ark of the Covenant. You come back and deny the bible? 
Exodus 37
1 Now Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood; its length was two and a half (a)cubits, and its width one and a half cubits, and its height one and a half cubits; 2 and he overlaid it with pure gold inside and out, and made a gold molding for it all around. 3 He cast four rings of gold for it on its four feet; even two rings on one side of it, and two rings on the (b)other side of it. 4 He made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry (c)it. 6 He made a (d)mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits (e)long and one and a half cubits (f)wide. 7 'He made two cherubim of gold; he made them of hammered work (g)at the two ends of the mercy seat; 8 one cherub (h)at the one end and one cherub (i)at the other end; he made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat (j)at the two ends. 9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, covering the (k)mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward each other; the faces of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat.'

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Exodus/37/type/nasb
Can we create heavenly images? 
I don't believe God can't make up his mind. Clearly "graven" is definition 2. There is no contradiction where you have to pretend that God superseded the word of God. That's not a characteristic of a perfect divine God. 

No, a graven image is that damned by God Almighty pagan image of Pachamama that the heretic Pope Francis put on the Alter of Saint Peter, desecrating it and showing to the whole world that the Papacy is over and the Vatican is fallen. 

The problem is, there are two definitions of Graven:
'graven'
grā′vən
transitive verb
 
 1) Carved.
 2) an idol; an object of worship carved from wood, stone, etc.
Replies: >>22015 >>22025
>>21967
just wanted to say that i love you brothers
Replies: >>22025
>>22014
>idolators get blown out
>make a new thread
>repeat the posts that had already been blown own
<eventually, they hope, people will stop replying
>>22007
And people didn't pray to the ark.
And God commanded the jews to kill shortly after giving the commandments, and later in Samuel 1 there is no ambiguity that he is commanding them to kill. This law is the word of God, He's free to contradict it He isn't bound by instructions to the created. You are. Do you have a note from God saying that you are free to engage in idolatry (repentance notwithstanding)?
>>22007
When the LORD commands something, we must do it. God quite clearly forbid all cultic images of Him, and of other gods, and service being offered to said images. You appealing to God's commandment to Moses to create the ark and the tabernacle after the heavenly patterns on the mountain does NOT give you license to create whatever images you want and to bow before them, and kiss them as do Orthodox and Catholics today. The Church Fathers prior to the fourth century are UNANIMOUS that images are not used by Christians in worship.

>>22008
I love you too, brother.

>>22014
Idolatry is one of the most pervasive sins of mankind. When Moses went onto the mountain for forty days, the Israelites could not even wait that long, and immediately demanded that Aaron make them a golden 'god'. Yet people today somehow think that Christians for centuries just somehow stayed pure from idols and never went astray? Ludicrous! The patristic testimony speaks for itself!

>>22023
>its a way to get Christians to argue about minute disagreements
If you worship idols and create images, this is not a minute disagreement. These threads are created to WARN Christians to cease from worshiping idols and using graven images in worship. You are like an Israelite who would say that Jeremiah is 'dividing' Israel for saying that worshiping Baal in the high places with incense is 'divisive'.
What is it with people feeling they're better than people who have statues, and then ignore big parts of the word of God, or dismiss them as God just gibbering about rocks and sheep?
Replies: >>22042
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (322.6KB, 560x864)
Everyone should read this book and see that the Vatican is closely tied in with CIA, Masonic lodges such as Propaganda Due, and the Italian Mafia. Very revealing stuff. Hardly the Bride of Christ, but a WHORE
Replies: >>22032
Bergoglio_with_boy_lover_symbols.jpg
[Hide] (95.4KB, 750x528)
bowing_down_to_pachamama_idol.png
[Hide] (897.8KB, 872x491)
>>22027
Yes. 

Who is a member of the Church created by Christ and part of the Body of Christ
"Catholic" faith (it's the one and only Church of Christ...) is that the only catholics are those who keep the Catholic faith. 

What is the Catholic faith?
1) The Bible, as explained by the Church of Christ. 
2) The teachings of the Vicars of Christ to the whole church, i.e. from the Office of Saint Peter. 
3) Some Church traditions. 
Nothing more. No personal revelations, no false teachings of "saints" (btw, people are designated saints as a matter of fact and not faith and morals so saying so and so is a saint  is fallible, and you're not required to believe) If a saint, say Aquinas, and the Pope disagree, the saint is in error. 
NONE of the Summa is required by the faith. Not. One. Bit. To believe in the errors of the summa e.g. every venial sin and temptation is a mortal sin is heresy if they refuse to abandon the error. 

Who keeps the faith?
Not the Vatican! (pictures relevant). 
There has not been a true Pope since 1958, maybe longer. 
The error made by "Modern Traditional Catholics"  (MTC) is to believe the infiltration of the Church suddenly happened when Vatican II was passed. That's false! The vast majority of Cardinals voted for Vatican II, showing that the cancer in the church was very far along. It started before the mid 19th century, when the Church found out about it. 
And Modern Traditional Catholic concept of traditional catholicism is wrong too; if you spoke of "Fatima" back before Vatican II, you did it in whispers. Saying that the Church could fall would be a lack of faith. Modern Traditional Catholics bought the freemason scam of Fatima hook, line and sinker. They worked for ages to supplant the catholic faith with Mary Worship and Marion apparitions that contained some truth. It was the classic poisoned apple; sweet and tasty yet deadly to the soul. 

Using the Corrupt actions of the freemason Vatican to lead souls away from the faith is a Sin
'The path to heaven is to become like children.'
That is,  stop asking stupid questions and accept the faith
Matthew 18:1-5 
1 At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them,
3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.
 
'The Lord says this is the worst sort of sin'
Matthew 18:6-7
6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
Replies: >>22040 >>22049
>>22032
>1) The Bible, as explained by the Church of Christ. 
2) The teachings of the Vicars of Christ to the whole church, i.e. from the Office of Saint Peter. 
3) Some Church traditions. 
Nothing more. 
Quit being dishonest. Catholics raise their traditions OVER the Word of the Living God and OVER and ABOVE scripture. The catholic church even boasts about changing God's laws and being above the Bible. I'd find the quotes but you'd probably just stuff your ears and sing. 

It's insane people can recognize the errors of the catholic cult, but refuse to leave it when there's literally no way to reconcile their errors with their doctrine with the scripture and with the Word of God. You're like a beaten wife with Stockholm syndrome. I really have no idea how to get through to people like you, it's like you've drank from the punch bowl too much and now you think there really is no salvation outside of that damnable cult just because they said so so many times, because it's certainly not scripture based as the scripture says there is no salvation outside of Christ. Well, catholics say Mary can save you too ,but that's also another exception because either [insert mental gymnastics that she can against the Word of God] or they'll deny that's part of catholic doctrine/practices, or some other dishonest nonsense. I don't know why you clowns even come to Christian boards/forums, all you do is ruin them with your antichrist agenda. Not even seeing how the "pope" "vicar of christ" itself is antichrist.
Replies: >>22041 >>22050
>>22040
Meant to quote/greentext the first four lines. I'm not going to stay to debate the catholic zombie, I'd have more luck converting a brick wall to the truth, or even slamming my head against a brick wall than for a catholic to hear God's truth.
>>21967
Apostolic succession isn't even scriptural. There's no basis for a continual worldly organization and hierarchy with a single central leader who calls himself in Chirst's place on earth, as if any man could take Christ's place or as if anything in scripture supports such nonsense 

>>21969
>Bible says keep the traditions. 
Yeah, then you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that helps determine what is a good or bad tradition as well as EVERYTHING ELSE that determines whether or not your tradition should be practiced. God HATES adopting pagan practices into His worship, but that's all idolaters do, and that's not even scratching the surface. I'd get into it, but you don't care about God or His Word

>>21975
>Some folks take parts of the Bible out of the context 
Look in a mirror.

>>22026
You dismiss God, His laws and commandments, and His Word. All you do is posturing and clever word games and attack people who stand for God. I am sickened by you.
Replies: >>22053
>>22032
>That is,  stop asking stupid questions and accept the faith
There's mortal danger in that, if, according to you, the present-day RCC is leading souls to hell. Everyone currently attending the Roman Catholic Church would go to hell if they don't ask the questions you have, and rely on their own judgment like you are, to see the anti-Catholic Pope. You can say the new official doctrines/interpretations contradict the old... so how do you know which is correct? If you are determining which is correct using the Bible as your standard, then YOU are interpreting the Bible and giving your stamp-of-approval to whichever Papal edict most closely aligns with YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
Replies: >>22057
>>22040
>Catholics raise their traditions OVER the Word of the Living God and OVER and ABOVE scripture
James White said it best, Romanists believe in 'Sola Ecclesia'. The papist Whore of Babylon is like a chameleon which shifts and changes over the centuries in order to blend in with the dominant culture and worldview. Just see how Francis is pro-globohomo today. If the world ever turned more deeply conservative, Rome would shift again and make itself conservative. They are a corrupt and evil worldly institution. Here we see the danger of forsaking Sola Scriptura.
Replies: >>22055
popery_catholics_mary.jpg
[Hide] (127.1KB, 1021x800)
popery_catholics.jpg
[Hide] (99.2KB, 595x399)
>>22043
>You dismiss God, His laws and commandments, and His Word. 
Ironic that papists can have the audacity to claim this.
Replies: >>22054
>>22042
You need to stop making personal attacks against me. 
If you want to say "all Catholics", fine. But all Catholics is a fallacy of absolutes unless you tie it to some defining quality of Catholics like "No catholic supports the Reformed Church", which follows from Catholic dogma. 

If you feel I take parts of the bible out of context, give examples. I gave the example of how some protestants take Matthew 16, where the Lord is speaking to Simon Peter as an individual who was singled out by God the Father Almighty as having revealed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. 
Out of context interpretations were it was a parable (there was no parable), or Christ was speaking to all the disciples (he clearly wasn't) or that the LORD, the Word of God, was gibbering about rocks mindlessly. 
it's about discussion. If you just want to post hate posts... well God bless and I hope you reform. 

Hope you get over your illness.
>>22051
>Ironic that papists can have the audacity to claim this.

Not sure who you're responding to as post 22043 was deleted but you seem to be quoting from the post of 8dcaa5 
I'm fairly sure 8dcaa5 is not a "Papist", and would also use it with the Popped P "P"apist to show contempt and as a slur. 
That's fine. Christ said there would be those who do that. 

But I agree with the context of your post. Mary Worship is getting out of hand. 
Real Catholic faith:
* Doesn't believe in personal apparitions. 
* Doesn't allow women to be priests, and they can only teach school children. 
* Only worships God. 

Mary Worship was suppressed before Pope Pius XII, who issues several decrees to encourage it e.g. Sacra Virginitas, Munificentissimus Deus, Fulgens Corona etc.

Pope Pius XII is a suspect Pope for many other reasons, like turning a charity fund into the Vatican Bank, run by the Rothschilds, changing the Tridentine mass in defiance of a prior Pope etc.
jerry_fallwell_jr_zipper_girl.jpg
[Hide] (26.3KB, 331x512)
>>22050
Again, the Catholic faith is the Bibles and the teachings of the true Popes. There has been a number of antipopes, but all of them since 1958 have been false popes. 

Most Catholics don't know the faith, and most protestants are taught a bunch of lies. 

Yes, there are bold sinners in every religion, aren't there? Thus damning an entire religion for the sins of a few, no one would be so bold to throw the first stone at the harlot before Jesus Christ, would they?
Replies: >>22056 >>22083
>>22055
Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, not the traditions of men like papalism.
Replies: >>22058
apostle_paul_2_thessalonians_13-14_on_traditions_and_word_and_writing.jpg
[Hide] (224.1KB, 1200x819)
Bible_without_the_Church_means_destruction.jpg
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
>>22049
>... and rely on their own judgment like you ...
It's not really my judgement: I'm going by the Bible, which describes the qualities of the Church e.g. Matt 16, John 21 where Simon Peter is the Vicar of Christ, and the Council of Trent which forbids what the current Church is doing. 
The Church MUST have Simon Peter as the Father, servant of God the FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
Okay, that rules out most of them!
Now, what does that church say? I've not heard a good argument that the church fell before the Council of Trent. You get the Orthodox argument but they rejected the Bible that says the Lord told Peter to feed the sheep and gave the keys to heaven to Peter alone.  So, it's not the Orthodox. 

>so how do you know which is correct?
If the Church fell before the Council of Trent, then both the old church and the current church are false, and the Promise of Christ that his church would prevail until the end of time was not kept, ergo Christ would not be God, and the whole thing is a farce. '''I reject this. Jesus Christ is God". 
If The Council of Trent is correct. then the Vatican is false, the seat is empty, and we're in the end times as promised by the Lord Jesus Christ. 

>Here we see the danger of forsaking Sola Scriptura.
yet, the Bible itself says no to the Bible alone. The Bible without the Church means destruction.
Replies: >>22083 >>22089
2a93d5a5bfb52634999956337d0f244610d1f48622cb1c535504132014846419.png
[Hide] (62.8KB, 518x580)
Baptist_for_gay_marriage.jpg
[Hide] (20.3KB, 271x136)
>>22056
But then the Lord Created the Church... 
Citing scripture just to deny scripture is a bad argument. 

Matthew 16, Ezekiel 34, and John 21. 


Ezekiel 34:23
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

23 AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. 

Someone made the meme above. Logically Sola Scriptura is untenable. It simply cannot be true. 

Did God act in Vain to create a Church headed by Peter? NO! I Believe Jsus Christ is the Lord God! The Lord did not die on the cross to bring us jokes in the Bible, or babble about rocks, or some other blasphemous twisting of the scriptures. 

And look at the fruits of it: There are currently some 3500 different protestant religions, each and every one rejecting the Church created by Christ, and having beliefs all over the spectrum from the ultra hateful Westboro Baptist to the sodomite Baptists. That means at least 3499 of these Churches are leading souls to hell.
Replies: >>22059 >>22083
shepard_question_marks.jpg
[Hide] (146.6KB, 600x534)
>>22058
>Logically Sola Scriptura is untenable
Proof?
Replies: >>22083 >>22096
>>22055
>and most protestants are taught a bunch of lies. 
You're calling God a liar then, because I get my info from the Word of God. I don't read theology books nor do I rely on the so-called wisdom of men, I rely on the wisdom of God.

You'd know about it if it read the bible and studied it instead of read your church fathers and studied that and other other nonsense. Not like you're even using a good bible, no, you use one distorted and perverted by the whore of babylon.

>Thus damning an entire religion for the sins of a few, no one would be so bold to throw the first stone at the harlot before Jesus Christ, would they?
Rather bold thing to say considering your cult's persecution, torture, and mass murder of the saints. 

Pic related is the sort of shit catholics post and say all the time. But of course, that's #notruecatholic right? You're like the atheists and the muslims, that's how you catholics all debate and behave and act. 

>>22057
>referencing the chapter alone instead of the single verse you twist while disregarding basically everything else and pretending this makes you an expert who solely follows the Bible
You don't hear God's word because you are not of God.  Catholics are satanists. 

>The Church MUST have Simon Peter as the Father
Nowhere in scripture. You're a delusional lunatic who believes a lie. 

>Vicar of Christ
Blasphemy.

>Council of Trent. 
>the Church
>the Council of Trent
Who cares? See how little this clown even actually discusses the scripture itself? He just asserts two chapters support all this nonsense. So dishonest. Why are you demonic parasites even on a Christian board?

The "Pope" is not Christ, you demon.

>>22058
Your den of money changers, scribes, pharisees, hypocrites, and liars is not the church Christ started. 

You have never actually read the bible, cover to cover, you've just read the catholic notes in the margins and the catholic subtitles and side notes and all the pernicious little whispers from satan, who is your father, and which is why you don't hear God's word.

>>22059
>Proof?
His tradition.
Replies: >>22086 >>22097
>>22083
>Why are you demonic parasites even on a Christian board?
Papists have been trying to destroy the true Gospel for centuries. Whenever they see a place trying to preach the true Word of God, they descend on it to screw up with babbling about traditions of men, rocks, and keys.
Replies: >>22088
>>22086
Scripture establishes the Church and names Peter as the rock upon which the Church will be based. 
The office of the Papacy (Church Father, the Vicar of Christ)
Ezekiel 34:23
John 21
Matthew 16

Once you accept scripture, then you start taking the true Popes as having received the keys of heaven per scripture, and start quoting the Council of Trent, Council of Basel, etc. 

Scripture also reject the idea of Sola Scriptura 
Refute Sola scriptura
2 Thessalonians 13-14
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16
Replies: >>22091
>>22057
>It's not really my judgement: I'm going by the Bible, which describes the qualities of the Church
If you are determining what is correct using the Bible as your standard, then YOU are interpreting the Bible and giving your stamp-of-approval to whichever Papal edict most closely aligns with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Your argument is circular: >I recognize the true Church through Biblical truths, and I can only know Biblical truths through the true Church.
Replies: >>22095
>>22088
>Scripture establishes the Church
No Protestant denies this.
>and names Peter as the rock upon which the Church will be based. 
Earliest patristic testimony affirms that the rock is the profession of faith, and good scriptural evidence affirms that Christ is the rock.
>Ezekiel 34:23
Literally refers to Jesus Christ.
>John 21
Doesn't prove an infallible and unbroken succession of Christ's 'vicars'. There was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century BTW. 

>2 Thessalonians 13-14
>2 Peter 1:20
>2 Peter 3:16
None of these refute Sola Scriptura. Do you even know what Sola Scriptura means?
Replies: >>22094
>>22091
>Earliest patristic testimony affirms that the rock is the profession of faith, and good scriptural evidence affirms that Christ is the rock.
That's not what Matt 16 says. 
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 
18 And I tell 'you that you are Peter',[b] and on this rock I will build my church', and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Simon is the rock. That's why the Lord gave Simon his Papal name of Peter. "I (the Lord) tell YOU (Simon) that YOU (Simon) are PETER (rock) and upon 'this' rock (Peter) I will build my Church (the One true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

You know, it's a simple reading of the scripture. Clearly the Lord says YOU (Simon) and doesn't refer to himself. Yes, Christ is the head of the Body of Christ, but he works through the Chair of Saint Peter on earth. 

Seriously, I'm tired of being gaslighted on this. Just admit you don't like what you'd have to do if you had to change to the Catholic faith and be done with it. 

>None of these refute Sola Scriptura. Do you even know what Sola Scriptura means?
Given that you just gas lighted me on Matthew 16, I'll admit that there are now two definitions of sola Scriptura, and protestants are known to play semantic arguments switching definition at will. 
Bottom line, either definition it means rejecting every teaching of the early church they don't like just like how the read the rest of the Bible.
Replies: >>22109
>>22089
You're saying everyone is wrong, except you. The Church that was given the key to heaven, and the Bible itself says you can't interpret the Bible without the Church... but they're stupid too! 
ONLY YOU! can "interpret" the Bible. 

I'm going to follow with the apostles who God promised to send the Holy Ghost to guide. If the Bible is true, the Apostles are true. I mean, God picked them. Are you saying you don't like the choices made by the Lord?! That YOU would be a better choice?! 
God made no such promise about protestants as he did the apostles and since there are 3,500 different protestant religions and they're all over the place with every belief under the sun, it's clear that at least 3499 of them are interpreting the Bible wrong.  

I hope you realize that your argument about your personal authority is not supported by scripture.
Replies: >>22103
>>22059
>Proof?
It was in the post for which you asked for proof. It's not my graphic, but take a look at the Cannon Conundrum. 

It's pretty obvious that I'm just being trolled.
Replies: >>22110
Catholic_v_Protestant_Founders.jpg
[Hide] (71.4KB, 720x720)
1570303470698.jpg
[Hide] (42.1KB, 689x500)
>>22083
> you demon
how is saying "vicar of Christ" to rule until the second coming of Christ blasphemy? 
You bear false and hateful witness against me.

Lord creates Church. Lord gives his church the keys to heaven. Church gives us the Bible. Church gives us other teachings e.g. Council of Trent. 

Time to stamp the dust of this wicked place off my boots. Every protestant, by definition, has rejected the word of the LORD and Biblical scripture. I'm trying to help you! Point out the parts of the Bible your false churches don't teach you, but now you're just heaping hate on me for telling you the truth. John 15:18.
>>22095
>You're saying everyone is wrong, except you.
Absolutely not.

>the Bible itself says you can't interpret the Bible without the Church
No, it doesn't. I've read the verses you quoted to another poster, and none of them support your proposition.

>there are 3,500 different protestant religions
This is deflection. Proving protestants false doesn't prove the RCC true. 

Your circular reasoning cannot be used to prove the authority of the RCC. If it could, then it would prove true every religion and cult on earth, as they all use the same circular reasoning: "The Koran says Allah would leave Mullahs to interpret the Koran for us... The Mullahs tell me the Koran is true and that it supports their unquestioned authority." "The Book of Mormon tells me all the Christian churches are false and God would send a prophet to restore the true church... Joseph Smith tells me he is that prophet and wrote the Book of Mormon under inspiration from God."
>>22103
>I've read the verses you quoted to another poster, and none of them support your proposition.
why even bother to post this? you protestants just say nuh-uh. it's so lazy. probably because you have 0 argument as to why it makes sense, because it makes perfect sense
Replies: >>22105
>>22104
Answer my last paragraph here >>22103 and I'll give a more-detailed answer regarding your question. I omitted the detailed response because it only serves to distract from the question at issue. If the scripture explicitly stated: "Book 1:3 - You cannot understand the scriptures but through the interpretations of the RCC", it still would be circular reasoning. The Koran, Book of Mormon, and the writings of L. Ron Hubbard make these claims, but you're not advocating their truth.
Replies: >>22175
>>22094
>That's not what Matt 16 says. 
Again, early Patristic testimony is often directly opposed to your Romanist readings of Matthew 16. I thought Papists were supposed to care about what the Church Fathers said? Or have you completely embraced the thinking of Cardinal John Henry Newman at this point?

>Bottom line, either definition it means rejecting every teaching of the early church they don't like just like how the read the rest of the Bible.
Anon, you are just showing us all now that you have never read a word of Martin Luther, John Calvin or any of the classic Reformers. The Reformers were very concerned with the Church Fathers and didn't believe that you could just throw out the early Church and believe whatever you want. This is what people from the Radical Reformation like Sebastian Frank thought, sure, because he wrote "Foolish Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory—of whom not even one knew the Lord, so help me God, nor was sent by God to teach. Rather they were all apostles of the Antichrist" — such views are heterodox, and do not align with the Apostles, the early Fathers and their Rule of Faith. 

Meanwhile, if we read John Calvin, you will see him frequently appeal to the testimony of the Fathers, and he himself even wrote the following:
>Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church ) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory – to put it very modestly – would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. Still, what commonly happens to men has befallen them too, in some instances. For these so-called pious children of theirs, with all their sharpness of wit and judgment and spirit, worship only the faults and errors of the fathers. The good things that these fathers have written they either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. You might say that their only care is to gather dung amid gold. Then, with a frightful to-do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval. 
https://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/totheking.html

Similarly, Luther affirmed the councils and many of the Fathers of the Church, even if he was not slavishly beholden to them. 

Ironically, 'it is Catholics and the Orthodox who do not align with the Church Fathers', as we see most specifically on their views of eschatology (typically they possess an amillennial reading of Revelation while the early Fathers were premillennialists across the board almost), their hyperdulia of the Virgin Mary, the veneration of religious imagery, and many more things.
>>22096
The canon does not invalidate sola scriptura. Sola scriptura stipulates merely that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. Why is Scripture the sole infallible rule of faith? Because all Scripture is God-breathed. Does this negate all tradition? Not in the slightest. We do however have a duty to reject all traditions of men and innovations that creep into Christ's Church and attempt to pervert it into a whore. It was already demonstrated here >>22109 that the Reformers who held a high view of the authority of Scripture never rejected the Fathers or councils. It is a sleight of hand though to claim that if I acknowledge said Fathers, or councils, that I must therefore acknowledge your modern institutions, which, as has been demonstrated, have departed from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints in the time of the Apostles. This is most clearly demonstrated with the veneration of images, prayers to the saints, Marian dogmas, and similar things. 

Scripture has always been held in a high regard by the early Fathers. Cyril of Jerusalem said that even the most common statements should be verifiable by Scripture, and Irenaeus wrote that Scripture was the pillar and foundation of the Church. Augustine even wrote that the decisions of bishops and their councils could be nullified if they were shown to be in disagreement with Scripture. Why? Because Scripture is the Word of God, authored by the Holy Spirit. Your so-called 'Apostolic churches' such as the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc. have departed from Scripture, and have largely departed from the writings of the earliest Patristic witnesses, so therefore we must say that you are not orthodox in the literal sense of this word, but have fallen from the purity of faith. Now of course one could merely respond with a 'tu quoque' response, and it is true that many Protestants today could be in a much less pitiful state, but I would still say that they are more orthodox for not having fallen into the cult of image veneration, Marian hyperdulia, praying to saints, and similar things, and trust in God alone.
>>21918
>If you trust the Bible you trust the Church created by Christ. If you Trust the Church, you trust the Bible because the Church created the Bible around the year 4th century. 
The "church" is an assembly of Christians not necessarily an official building, anything official is compromised by the devil. The cults like seventh day Adventists also consider themselves to be Bible oriented despite completely faulty doctrines like what Ellen G. White said about the false 2nd coming.
9781608331239_p0_v1_s1200x630.jpg
[Hide] (49.3KB, 410x630)
>>21532
Yeah, no.
https://archive.org/details/SlantManifestoCatholicsAndTheLeft
Replies: >>22134
>>22132 (me)
Also, https://youtu.be/DFaDD91WqV0
>>22109
>Again, early Patristic testimony is often directly opposed to your Romanist readings of Matthew 16.
So, you reject the Bible based on some other testament. 
btw, it's what the Bible says, the plain meaning of the scripture.
Replies: >>22213
ST_PAUL_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_25th_ANNIVERSARY_MASS_WITH_THE_LITURGICAL_DANCERS_Part_2_Novus_Ordo.png
[Hide] (1.4MB, 1186x667)
>>22103
>Proving protestants false doesn't prove the RCC true. 
True enough, but irrelevant. One wonders why someone would willingly belong to a false religion. 
We should be looking for the true religion. The Bible points to one that has a human who leads it in Christ's absence. The religion exists, but no one practices it; neither Protestants or Catholics. Catholics even have dancing girls.   
>No, it doesn't. I've read the verses you quoted to another poster, and none of them support your proposition.
I like my light from the sun or electricity. Gaslighting is so... overdone. 

I don't think this discussion is in good faith. I think folks are just trying to get my goat because they love their friends, family and business connections more than they love God. 
That's okay. Sad, but okay. Pick up your cross.
Replies: >>22142 >>22411
>>22141
Scriptures cited by Catholics in this thread as proof that you cannot understand the Bible without the church interpreting it:
>2 Thess. 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
This says to hold the traditions. This does not say you cannot understand the Bible without the Church as an interpreting intermediary.

>2 Peter 1:16-21 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Taken in context, verse 15 is stating that the words of scripture were not invented by the human writers who penned the words. It is not saying you cannot understand the Bible without the Church as an interpreting intermediary.

>2 Peter 15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
In Paul's epistles, as well as some other portions of scripture, there are clearly some hard sayings. It states that unlearned and unstable people struggle with Paul's epistles and other scriptures ("What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" is an example of Paul preemptively answering a question he knows some will ask because he is explaining a difficult doctrine they might take the wrong way). It says some parts are hard to understand, and a wrong understanding may lead to destruction. It does not say that you cannot understand the Bible without the Church as an interpreting intermediary.

There. I've given you the detailed explanation. Now I'll ask for the third time: answer my last paragraph here >>22103. If you ignore it a third time, I'll take that as you have no answer.
Replies: >>22155
which denomination supports israel the least? I imagine the orthodox might not that much since they're anti-war.
Replies: >>22148
>>22145
If you're asking because you're looking for a church to join, then you're asking the wrong questions.
Bible_without_the_Church_means_destruction.jpg
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
>>22142
'Sola Scriptura contradicted by the Bible'
Sola scriptura here meaning no church teachings or traditions, Bible alone. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
2 Thess. 2:15 explains why you can't reject the teachings of the church fathers and reject church traditions and is the answer why sola scriptura is contradicted by the Bible.

'You can be saved by just reading the Bible'
Is falsified by 2 Peter 1:20 and 3:16. 
No, you need the Church created by Jesus Christ.
Replies: >>22158 >>22162
>>22155
Ok, now I'm starting to think this is a bot. You respond to my explanation by citing, without explanation, the very verses I quoted and explained why they do not support your claim. If it's not a bot, this is the equivalent of plugging your ears and humming.

In regard to sola scriptura, you need to read the wiki article you quoted more carefully. "Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole INFALLIBLE source of authority for Christian faith and practice." [my emphasis added]. This means that it need not be the only source, merely the only INFALLIBLE source. So if the "Church" contradicts scripture, the Church is in error on any such point. Even you believe this, as you've explained throughout this thread using the Bible to show why the current RCC is in error.
>>22155
>>22158
At this point it seems like both of you are just arguing at each other, and neither are willing to concede any points, so it's just a shouting match to see who can get the last post.
Replies: >>22164
>>22158
>Ok, now I'm starting to think this is a bot.
Then why are you replying to a bot?

Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only source of infallible faith? 
That's all you have to do, cite the Bible, and explain away Matthew 16 in a way that doesn't presume the lord to be gibbering about rocks or trying gaslighting me that the Lord is speaking to all the apostles and not just Simon-Peter. 
Been doing this for weeks now, still nothing but outrage, hate and ad homs like I'm a bot. I think that's cognitive dissonance. 
And if the Church is fallible and the Bible isn't, and the fallible Church gave us the infallible Bible, which was changed by the Protestants 1200 years later, how does that work? Was the first bible in error? Which one of the dozens of Bibles out there that protestants use is infallible? 
Catholics have two Bibles, the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Bibles. 
No. This Sola Scriptura argument (no matter how the definition of SS shape-shifts) is just bad.
>>22162
>neither are willing to concede any points
Compromise is the root of wickedness. 
I can be enlightened, but I will resist being bullied into renouncing the faith in the Church created by Jesus Christ.
>>22158
Catholics basically are bots, they claiming to see see not, claiming to hear hear not, neither do they understand. But I think it's a bot too. Just the exact same lies every time, and I've seen it before as well. 

Catholicism should frankly be banned from every Christian board since not only are they followers of the pope in the stead of Christ, literally i.e. vicar of christ; but they're polytheists with countless other gods they just call them patron saints or Mary, and they claim Mary can hear their prayers all around the world, and that she can save them, and all the rest of it, they're absolute lunaticks. 

They make every single place unbearable even to discuss Christianity and that's literally one of satan's plans. And if it's not a bot, it's an extremely double minded man, unstable, and a huge hypocrite who cries fowl the moment someone calls out his lies but then won't hesitate to grandstand like a Pharisee over how righteous he is.
Replies: >>22173
I'll leave any inquiring minds with some of the things Jesus said regarding the Bible and traditions.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Matthew 22:29

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Mark 7:13
>>22053
>You need to stop making personal attacks against me. 
The pharisees didn't like what the Christ or the baptist said either.

>If you want to say "all Catholics", fine. But all Catholics is a fallacy of absolutes unless you tie it to some defining quality of Catholics like "No catholic supports the Reformed Church", which follows from Catholic dogma. 
blah blah blah blah blah, I don't care about your religious dogmas and your councils of boylovers and pederasts and self-righteous hypocrites who were all a bunch of sunworshippers and pagans underneath it all, I only care about God and His Word 

>Hope you get over your illness.
Yeah, typically satanist side remark, just sneering and jeering, pesronal character attacks because I spoke for God. All you do is speak for your abominable whore cult. 

You are a hypocrite, cry of personal attacks and that's all you have against me.
Replies: >>22172 >>22179
>>22169
Are you a baptist, by any chance? I am just wondering what religion would call your post "Christian". I know there are all kinds of Baptists, but I've never seen a Lutheran or a Methodist make a post like >>22169, not even when provoked.
>>22167
Not a rebuttal from scripture, more of an unsupported ad hom that isn't consistant with "Love your neighbor". 
I'm trying to get people to look at the Christian faith as Bible + teachings of the vicars of Christ, by citing scripture. 
If I could tap the gas used to gaslight me, the US energy problem would be solved!
Why is it unbearable to hear scripture? I quote Matt 16, and some folks act like I was pulling their fingernails out.
>>22105
i read it moron or i wouldnt have replied, it's just a load of crap. so what if someone else claims to interpret something else? that poster was there giving the reasoning and all you have is hand waving and simple denial which nobody cares to read.
Replies: >>22182
>>22109
>Luther affirmed the councils and many of the Fathers of the Church, even if he was not slavishly beholden to them
well which one is it? it's like christ put it "they honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" they would have significant trouble proving that what the fathers say meet their approval. give me anything the reformers believe and you will find it is uniformly rejected by the fathers, first among them being the authority of the pope and the councils. the catholic church conforms to these councils and has always done, and the authority of the pope has been affirmed by these councils from the beginning.
Replies: >>22214
Virgin_Mary_punchind_devil.jpg
[Hide] (80.6KB, 760x638)
>Ironically, it is Catholics and the Orthodox who do not align with the Church Fathers, as we see most specifically on their views of eschatology (typically they possess an amillennial reading of Revelation while the early Fathers were premillennialists across the board almost), their hyperdulia of the Virgin Mary, the veneration of religious imagery, and many more things.

there is no patristic consensus on this, only a few fathers such as justin martyr and iranaeus held to a premillenial position. others like augustine did not. there is nothing wrong with venerating (giving high respect) to the saints, neither is there a problem showing an even greater respect to the virgin mary, the fathers did both these things also
Replies: >>22214
>>22169
>I don't care about your religious dogmas and your councils of boylovers and pederasts and self-righteous hypocrites who were all a bunch of sunworshippers and pagans underneath it all
every time when these choleric, baleful  protestants run out of ways to defend themselves they resort to the same overused slander. they don't care that the jewish media overblew that scandal, which was only a scandal because the people involved tried to cover up their own actions, it actually happened at a lower rate than other places like schools. they don't care that the jewish media loves to attack christianity.
>Apostolic succession isn't even scriptural
Acts 1:21-26 they choose a sucessor for judas, that sucessor was numbered among the apostles, he was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away" in timothy paul tells him that his office had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands, and he tells him not to be hasty in handing his authority to others. he tells titus that he has recieved apostolic authority . the church fathers are unanimous on this, these fathers held the office of bishop and their authority was conferred on them down through the apostles to teach you the error of your ways.
>then you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that helps determine what is a good or bad tradition
a teacher is there to teach, how can you judge things you have no understanding of. your way is the blind leading the blind, endless disagreements and endless denominations with no understanding, no definitive answer, all babbling and quibbling about every verse in the bible pretending you're all divinely inspired to interpret. you will know them by their fruits, the fruits of the reformation are division, disagreement and ignorance. the fruits of the church are a rich and unchanging theology handed down from the apostles
Replies: >>22184
>>22175
Although I never received an argument in response, I still took the bait from a05f76 and replied with that detailed explanation of those verses you wanted:
>>No.22142
>>22179
Verses Cited in This Thread to Prove the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church Through Apostolic Succession:
>Acts 1:20-26: "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
It appears this is a unique one-time action to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms. Even if it wasn't, Peter's requirements for being an apostle were:
1. An apostle must have been with them all the time while Jesus walked with them; and
2. An apostle must have personally been a witness of Jesus' resurrection.
This disqualifies anyone born a generation later, including the long line of popes, who could not possibly fulfill the requirements.
Keep in mind that this was also before they received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. So perhaps this was just an idea they had, rather than done at the prompting of God - the scripture doesn't say. They cast lots to "hear" God's answer. So maybe God didn't pick Matthias at all, and that was simply where the dice fell. Jesus did appoint one apostle afterwards according to the scripture: Paul.

>1 Timothy 5:22: "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."
There's no context for this in the chapter. Interpreted in the light most favorable to your position (that some appointed others to the ministry in this manner):
1. It mentions nothing of apostolic succession, or the authority claimed to proceed from it; and
2. It may be a warning that by laying on of hands, you might be a partaker of the sins of the man you appoint - if not in actuality, at least in the eyes of the people observing. If he warns of it, it must be possible. If it's possible that a successor to Peter could be a practicing sinner, then we can have no confidence in the pronouncements from successors.
I don't have a strong conviction as to an interpretation of this, as the verse is seemingly isolated. It could be that Paul is speaking simply of vouching for pastors over local churches as they are founded.

>Titus 1:1: "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ..."
>Titus 1:3: "...preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;"
I'm not sure what you were referring to in Titus, I assume it's these verses. Yes, Paul was an apostle. He was appointed by the risen and ascended Christ directly, not through apostolic succession.
Replies: >>22186 >>22205
>>22184
>unique one-time 
the absolute cope. here we go

>This disqualifies anyone born a generation later, including the long line of popes, who could not possibly fulfill the requirements.
notice that we don't call them apostles, but sucessors to the apostles, just how paul says the apostolic office was conferred to titus? no you didn't
>not through apostolic succession
titus was, not paul and in there when he's telling titus to finish his mission in crete he says don't let anyone look down on you, it's an apostolic charge for an apostolic mission to a sucessor of the apostles that has been handed their authority.
>There's no context for this in the chapter
the context is that paul just got done telling timothy that he's recieved his apostolic authority through the laying on of hands, a symbol used since the old testament, where moses did the same to joshua to confer authority (Nm 27:18–23; Dt 34:9)


the fact that you feel like you can just declare that there is no context, and umm and ahh about various points shows that you aren't fit to perfectly interpret the scriptures, luckily there is a whole church that has been set up to do that for you, the proof is that there is a direct and unbroken line of apostolic sucession, these men, spiritually descended from the apostles and church fathers have been put there by christ and charged with a mission from the apostles, just as titus was to set you right and teach you the bible properly. nobody else has that authority
Replies: >>22197
>>22186
>the context is that paul just got done telling timothy that he's recieved his apostolic authority through the laying on of hands
Excuse me, I quoted and answered a different verse than the one you intended because you didn't give a citation to that one, I had to guess.
>"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim 4:14
The church elders laid hands on Timothy, and prophesied, and Timothy received a spiritual gift. This says nothing about a transfer of authority from one bishop/vicar/apostle to the next.

While we're looking at this chapter in Timothy, we might as well ask: "which church does the following?"
1 Tim 4:1-3: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;... Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."
Peter was married, why can't priests be married? Is it a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays during Lent?
I understand this changes the topic somewhat, I apologize in advance. But it leads to the next step required to be proven in the foundation of RCC authority: If the church was really founded on Peter and he was left with authority, how do I know the current RCC is the unbroken descent of that church when they seem to disobey scripture?
>>22184
>Excuse me, I quoted and answered a different verse than the one you intended because you didn't give a citation to that one, I had to guess.
you said context, i gave context
>This says nothing about a transfer of authority
together with the other verses it does as explained in my post

>I understand this changes the topic somewhat but let's start trying to slide the discussion with deflections and irrelevant bs to hide the fact that my weak answers and protestations have petered out
priests can be married, eastern catholics do that. as for meat ever heard of fasting? get real.

>how do I know the current RCC is the unbroken descent of that church
because the sucessors of the apostles are public figures that are ordained, the line of succession is documented for you and there is no disagreement that the priests and bishops of today form an unbroken chain of laying on of hands that goes back to the apostles themselves
Replies: >>22206
>>22205
Luke 4:38 "And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her." 
Simon Peter was married.

"Unlike the doctrines of the Church, which are the actual teachings handed down by Jesus and His Apostles and cannot change, Priestly Celibacy falls under the category of discipline in the Latin Church.  Disciplines are teachings or guidelines put in place by the Church through her good judgment and by the authority given to her by Jesus Himself to "bind" her teachings "on Earth" (cf Mat 16:19 and Matthew 18:17-18).  They are given for the pastoral good of the faithful, and are not "optional", but must be faithfully observed."
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/protestant-objections/why-can-t-roman-catholic-priests-marry.html
"Priestly celibacy...[is] not "optional", but must be faithfully observed."

1 Tim 4:1-3: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;... Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."

"The Church does teach that during all Friday's of Lent we are required to abstain from meat...A person who dies with mortal sin on their soul cannot be saved, meaning go to Heaven."
https://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2009_09SEPT/2009SeptHasTheVaticanEverStatedThis.cfm
Replies: >>22207 >>22210
>>22206
>Simon Peter was married.
ok?
>in the Latin Church
before you criticize, understand.
>abstain from meats
it's a fast, you are commanded to observe lent. it's not a no eating meat forever command.

interpret your bible the correct way, by taking heed of the elders placed by christ to teach you the right way, instead of your uninformed and misguided attack on the church you should listen to it's teachings. like i said there is a biblical basis for apostolic succession, these bishops were chosen and charged to suceed the apostles, you can read what they wrote down, we have writings from the early church, from people who were alive at the time of christ and the apostles writing down and communicating with eachother, all of them conforming to the catholic faith and catholic doctrines, especially these important ones about authority. recognise those that have this authority over you
Replies: >>22209
>>22207
>in the Latin Church
>before you criticize, understand.
Ok, so the Eastern Rites that allow priests to marry are the True Church, and Roman Rite Catholics have departed from the faith, given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils... Thanks for clearing that up.
>>22206
>Ok, so the Eastern Rites that allow priests to marry are the True Church, and Roman Rite Catholics have departed from the faith, given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils...
the verse is talking about a total prohibition of those things such as the false asceticism of groups like the gnostics and essenes, it's not talking about fasting, which is abstaining from god created foods, which you would have this verse condemn, meat or no meat, and as far as marriage goes the verse says this applying to all people who believe and know the truth, not just some. asceticism and abstaining from marriage is right for some people, the bible commands us to fast. do you not remember that we're told  there are men who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? if you can accept this then you ought to accept it, because it is right for some, not all
>Thanks for clearing that up
the irony is nothing will ever be cleared up enough for you because your idiotic stance demands that you test the people appointed by god to teach you by seeing if they conform to your flawed understanding of scripture, where you can nitpick and bend anything you like with no degree of objectivity so you can knock down a strawmen and pretend you've gotten to the bottom of the issue.
Replies: >>22211
foundation.png
[Hide] (94.7KB, 750x563)
>>22210
All Christians (RCC included) have believed and taught that the scriptures are the word of God, and that they are infallible. If I can't use scripture to test the people claiming to be appointed by God to teach me scripture, how can I know I'm not following devils? Distort however you will me trusting in my own reasoning, but I mean it in the general sense. Every human only experiences the world through his mind and senses. You're telling me I can't trust them, and I can't even understand what I read in the Word of God, but have to trust a random group making bold claims to supreme authority.
Replies: >>22212
>>22211
> If I can't use scripture 
the problem isn't scripture, the problem is you
>Distort however you will me trusting in my own reasoning
do you think your reasoning is flawless and perfect? no? what if there was a group of people Jesus sent, what if they could be traced publicly back to the apostles themselves, what if the apostles wrote all of this stuff down telling the world about how they'd conferred their authority to these people.
>random group making bold claims
not random, they're all bishops of a public facing church that has existed through history since the time of the apostles, never changing its stance on any issue, with the successors being publicly ordained and the line of succession publicly preserved from the apostles for the world to see. any false pretenders cannot stand against this, so they lie and try to diminish it. 
you know you can't understand the whole bible, the bible itself says very plainly and in many places how important it is for us christians to have good teachers and church elders, nobody is more senior or worthy of this position than the priests and bishops that are the successors of the apostles themselves, who have an unbroken chain of succession and carry their authority in the world today
Replies: >>22215 >>22219
>>22140
The Bible teaches us that God is the only rock and to have no other rocks besides him.
>For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? (Psalm 18:31)

>He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:2)
Replies: >>22226
>>22177
The Reformers are much more like the early Fathers than were the papists of Trent, Constance and other councils. This is just as clear as day when we look at early patristic ideas relating to iconography, salvation by faith alone, the authority of Scripture, a lack of excessive veneration of the Virgin Mary, etc.

Regarding your papist revisionist history, it's simply laughable. The early Church was conciliar, and didn't involve papal supremacy over the entire Church. Ecumenical councils literally put popes under anathema several times.

>>22178
>there is no patristic consensus on this
Simply false. Literally every EARLY Church Father believed in premillennialism - as you said, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp who literally KNEW the Apostle John), Barnabas, Papias, Lactantius, Melito, Hippolytus, Victorinus, Tertullian, etc. are all premillennialists. I even wonder how amillennialists think that the prophecies of Isaiah will even be fulfilled if Christ doesn't literally come and rule over the earth with an iron rod, the wolves lying down with the lamb, the nations who don't submit to Christ being destroyed, etc. Augustine is an anomaly and his views are foreign to Scripture (in this regard).
>>22212
>what if there was a group of people Jesus sent, what if they could be traced publicly back to the apostles themselves, what if the apostles wrote all of this stuff down telling the world about how they'd conferred their authority to these people.
God gave us Scripture as an written version of the teachings of the Apostles and the Prophets, who are the foundation of the Church. It is clear from reading these texts and from reading the earliest Fathers that the institutions who claim a succession directly from the Apostles are corrupt apostate institutions. As God said to Jeremiah: "Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!”" (Jeremiah 7:4). God's promises are conditional.
Replies: >>22220
274.jpg
[Hide] (27.9KB, 458x458)
>>22214
>papist revisionist history
>This is just as clear as day when we look at early patristic ideas relating to...

>salvation by faith alone
HERMAS OF ROME
And I said, “I heard, sir, some teachers say that there is no
other repentance than what takes place when we descended
into the water and received remission of our former sins.” He
said to me, “That was sound doctrine you heard; for that is really the case” [The Shepherd 2:4:3 (c. A.D. 80)].
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach
and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly,
and are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for
the remission of their past sins . . . are brought by us where
there is water, and are regenerated in the same way we were
ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and
Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of
the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ
also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven” [Jn 3:3] [
First Apology 61 (c. A.D.
151)].
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE
Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the
sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into
eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately
conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number
with her most venomous doctrine, making it her aim to destroy
baptism. This is in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps
. . . themselves generally live in arid and waterless places. But
we, little fishes after the example of our [great] fish, Jesus
Christ, are born in water, and find safety by permanently
abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no
right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill
the little fishes, by taking them away from the water! [
Baptism
1 (c. A.D. 203)].
Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none [ibid., 12].
We have a second font (itself one with the former) of blood,
about which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a
baptism,” when he had been baptized already. For he had
come “by means of water and blood” [1 Jn 5:6], just as John
has written; that he might be baptized by the water, glorified
by the blood—to make us, in like manner, called by water,
chosen by blood. These two baptisms he sent out from the
wound in his pierced side, in order that they who believed in
his blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been
bathed in the water might drink the blood. This baptism stands
in lieu of being bathed in the font when that has not been
received, and restores it when lost [ibid., 16].
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES
[P]erhaps some one will say, “What does it contribute to piety
to be baptized with water?” In the first place, because you do
what is pleasing to God; and in the second place, being born
again to God by water, by reason of fear you change your
first generation, which is of lust, and thus may obtain salvation.
But otherwise it is impossible. For the prophet has sworn to
us, saying, “Truly I say to you, unless you are regenerated by
living water in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you
shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore come. For
there is something here that is merciful from the beginning,
borne upon the water, and rescues those who are baptized this
way from future punishment, offering as gifts to God the good
deeds of the baptized whenever they are done after baptism.
Flee to the waters, for baptism alone can quench the violence
of fires. He who will not still bears the spirit of strife, because
of which he will not approach the living water for his own
salvation. [
Clementine Homilies 11:26 (c. A.D. 217)].
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism
[
Exhortation to Martyrdom 30 (
A.D. 235)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
Not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can
profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of
the Church [
Letters 72:21 (c. A.D. 255)].
Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favorers of heretics,
know first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and
truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do
battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of
God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; then,
that they are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who
are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of
blood, about which the Lord said that he had “another baptism
to be baptized with” [ibid., 72:22].
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
If a man does not receive baptism, he has not salvation;
except only martyrs, who even without the water receive the
kingdom. For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by his
cross, was pierced in the side, he shed blood and water; that
men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and,
in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom the
Savior is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can you drink the cup
that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with? [Mk 10:38] . . . For you go down into the
water, bearing your sins, but the invocation of grace, having
sealed your soul, suffers you not afterwards to be swallowed up
by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, you
come up quickened in righteousness [
Catechetical Lectures
3:10, 12 (c. A.D. 350)].
ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ
I know also a fourth baptism—that by martyrdom and blood,
which Christ himself underwent—and this one is far more
august than all the others, as it cannot be defiled by
after-stains [
Orations 39:17 (
A.D. 381)].
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
But I hear you lamenting because [the Emperor Valentinian]
had not received the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what else
could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too
now had this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun,
and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be
baptized by me. Did he not have the grace he desired? Did he
not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought
it, he received it. What else does it mean: “Whatever just man
shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest” [Wis
4:7]? [
Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian (
A.D. 392)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
In three ways are sins remitted in the Church; by baptism, by
prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not
remit sins except to the baptized. The very sins that he remits
first, he remits only to the baptized [
Sermon to Catechumens
on the Creed 16 (c. A.D. 395)].
I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic
catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the
baptized heretic; nor do we dishonor the sacrament of baptism
that the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor
do we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen is
preferable to the sacrament of baptism, even when we
acknowledge that some catechumens are better and more
faithful than some baptized persons. . . . For Cornelius, even
before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44];
Simon, even after baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit
[
On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21 (
A.D. 400)].
That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom
is supported by an argument that the blessed Cyprian adduces
from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was
yet said, “Today shall you be with me in Paradise” [Lk 23:43].
On considering this again and again, I find that not only
martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was
wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if
recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of
baptism for want of time [ibid., 4:22:30].
When we speak of within and without in relation to the
Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider,
not of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart
are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire] [ibid.,
5:28:39].
[According to] apostolic Tradition . . . the churches of Christ
maintain it to be an inherent principle that without baptism and
partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any
man to attain the kingdom of God or salvation and everlasting
life. So does Scripture testify [
The Merits and the Forgiveness
of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 (
A.D. 412)].
If unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of
the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were
washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he who said,
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5] also made an
exception in their favor, in that other sentence in which he
clearly said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will
I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” [
City of
God 13:7 (c. A.D. 419)].
POPE ST. LEO I
And because through the transgression of the first man the
whole stock of the human race was tainted, no one can be set
free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s
sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions
between the reborn, as says the apostle: “For as many of you
as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ: there is neither
Jew nor Greek” [Gal 3:27–28] [
Letters 15:10(11) (
A.D. 445)].
Replies: >>22223
>>22214

>papal supremacy
POPE ST. CLEMENT I
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous
events that have happened to us, we feel that we have been
somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points about
which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and
detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, that a
few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a
pitch of frenzy that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy
to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. . . . It is
right and holy, therefore, men and brethren, to obey God
rather than to follow those who, through pride and sedition,
have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we
shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we
rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at
exciting strife and tumults, to draw us away from what is good
. . . we may reach the goal set before us in truth wholly free
from blame. Joy and gladness you will afford us, if you
become obedient to the words written by us and through the
Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy
according to the intercession we have made for peace and
unity in this letter [
Letter to the Corinthians I, 14, 63 (A.D.
70)].
HERMAS OF ROME
You will write two books, and you will send the one to
Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to
foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do
so [
The Shepherd 1:2:4 (c. A.D. 80)].
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Ignatius . . . to the Church that has obtained mercy, through
the majesty of the most high Father, and Jesus Christ, his
only-begotten Son; the Church that is beloved and enlightened
by the will of him that wills all things according to the love of
Jesus Christ our God, that presides in the place of the
Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the
highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her
every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and that presides
over love, and is named from Christ, and from the Father [
Letter to the Romans, Greeting (c. A.D. 110)].
You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now
I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct],
which in your instructions you enjoin [on others] [ibid., 3].
ST. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH
From the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all
the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to
many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the
needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by
the gifts you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep
up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed
Bishop Soter has not only maintained, but added to, furnishing
an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the
brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his
children [
Letter to Pope Soter (c. A.D. 170), in Eusebius,
Church History 4:23:10].
Today we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have
read your letter. Whenever we read it, we shall be able to
draw advice, as also from the earlier letter, which was written
to us through Clement [ibid., 4:23:11].
The same witnesses also recommended Irenaeus, who was at
that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the bishop of
Rome [Pope St. Eleutherius], saying many favorable things
about to him, as the following shows: “We pray, father
Eleutherius, that you may rejoice in God in all things and
always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenaeus
to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in
esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ” [ibid., 5:4:1–2].
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put
to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an
evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse
opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that
Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized
at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;
also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes
down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this
church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the
faithful everywhere, in so far as the apostolic Tradition has
been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist
everywhere [
Against Heresies 3:3:2 (c. A.D. 189)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no
need for a long discussion and arguments. There is easy proof
of faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord says to
Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not
overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of
heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and
commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he
assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single
chair [
cathedra], and he established by his own authority a
source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the
others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy
is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one
Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to
this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he
deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
can he be confident that he is in the Church? [
Unity of the
Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (
A.D. 251)].
Cyprian to [Pope St.] Cornelius his brother, greeting. You have
acted, dearest brother, with diligence and love, in quickly
sending us Nicephorus the acolyte, who told us the glorious
gladness for the return of the confessors, and most fully
instructed us against the new and mischievous devices of
Novatian and Novatus for attacking the Church of Christ [
Letters 48:1 (
A.D. 251)].
Cyprian to Antonianus his brother, greeting. . . . You wrote . . .
for me to transmit a copy of those same letters to [Pope St.]
Cornelius our colleague, so that he might lay aside all anxiety,
and know at once that you held communion with him, that is,
with the Catholic Church [
Letters 51:1 (
A.D. 252)].
[Pope St.] Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God
and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the
suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the
assembly of ancient priests and good men . . . when the place
of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the degree of the
sacerdotal throne was vacant, which being occupied by the will
of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whoever
now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from
without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who
does not hold the unity of the Church [
Letters 51:8 (A.D.
252)].
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false
bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail
and bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the
throne of Peter, and to the chief Church from which priestly
unity takes its source [
Letters 54:14 (
A.D. 252)].
FIRMILIAN OF CAESAREA
[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate,
and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on
whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Mt 16:18]. . . .
[Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the
throne of Peter [quoted in St. Cyprian’s Letters 74:17 (c. A.D.
255)].
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the
parishes of all Asia, held from an older tradition that the
fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were
commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the
feast of the Savior’s passover. . . . But it was not the custom of
the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as
they observed the practice that, from apostolic Tradition, has
prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on the
day of the Resurrection of our Savior. Synods and assemblies
of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one
consent, through mutual correspondence, drew up an
ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the
Lord should be celebrated on the Lord’s Day, and that we
should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day
only. . . . Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at
Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity
the parishes of all Asia, and the churches that agreed with
them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the
brethren there excommunicated. But this did not please all the
bishops. And they asked him to consider the things of peace,
and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [St. Irenaeus of Lyons]
fittingly admonished Victor that he should not cut off whole
churches of God that observed the tradition of an ancient
custom [
Church History 5:23:1–5:24:11 (c. A.D. 312)].
Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named, became a
peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating on behalf
of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about
this question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the
other rulers of the churches [ibid., 5:24:18].
POPE ST. JULIUS I
[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made,
not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are
you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written
first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this
place [Rome]? If any suspicion rested upon the bishop there,
notice of it ought to have been sent to the church here; but,
after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own
authority as they pleased, they now desire to obtain our
agreement with their decisions, though we never condemned
him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, or the traditions of
the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel
practice. . . . [W]hat I write is for the common good. For what
we have received from the blessed apostle Peter is what I
signify to you [
Letter on Behalf of Athanasius (
A.D. 341),
contained in St. Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians
1:2:35].
COUNCIL OF SARDICA
It is necessary to add this—that bishops shall not pass from
their own province to another province in which there are
bishops, unless upon invitation from their brethren, that we
seem not to close the door of charity. But if in any province a
bishop has a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one
of the two shall not call in a bishop from another province as
judge. But if judgment has gone against a bishop in any cause,
and he thinks he has a good case, in order that the question
may be reopened, let us honor the memory of St. Peter the
apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the
bishop of Rome, and if he judges that the case should be
retried, let it be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he
finds that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he
has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The
synod answered, It is our pleasure [Canon 3 (
A.D. 342)].
If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision
full of sincere charity you have pronounced, that if any bishop
be deposed by the sentence of these neighboring bishops, and
asserts that he has fresh matter in his defense, a new bishop
not be settled in his see unless the bishop of Rome judge and
render a decision [Canon 4 (c. A.D. 342)].
ST. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS
You cannot then deny that you know that upon Peter first in
the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on
which he sat, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he
was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be
preserved by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on
their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another
chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact,
be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of
your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the
title of holy Church [
Schism of the Donatists 2:2 (c. A.D.
367)].
ST. JEROME
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none
but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this,
I know, is the rock on which the church is built [Mt 16:18]!
This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly
eaten [Ex 12:22]. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not
found in it shall perish when the flood prevails [
Letters 15:2 (
A.D. 376)].
The Church is rent into three factions, and each of these is
eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is
of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime
keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted
by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to
you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one
of them. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty
of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our
Lord’s cross and Passion, those necessary glories of our faith,
as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision.
Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in
Syria (ibid., 16:2).
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE I
The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the
prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because
Constantinople is new Rome [Canon 3 (
A.D. 381)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
[T]here are many other things that most justly keep me in her
bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the
Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles,
nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The
succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of
the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, put
in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate
[of Pope Siricius] [
Against the Letter of Mani Called “ The
Foundation” 4:5 (
A.D. 397)].
[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already
been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from
there replies too have come. The matter is at an end; would
that the error too might be at an end! [
Sermons 131:10 (c.
A.D. 411)].
POPE ST. CELESTINE I
We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus]
the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic
See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention
this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes
to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of
the opinions [on my behalf] [
Letters 17 (
A.D. 414)].
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: We offer
our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the
writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you,
the holy members, by our [or your] holy voices, you joined
yourselves to the holy head by your holy acclamations. For
your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole
faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And
since now our mediocrity, after being tempest-tossed and much
vexed, has arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid
before us what things were done in this holy council before
our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our
blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we may ratify
their determination [Session 2 (
A.D. 431)].
POPE ST. LEO I
Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . instituted the observance of the
divine religion. . . . But this mysterious function the Lord wished
to be the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that
he has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief
of all the apostles, and from him, as from the head, wishes his
gifts to flow to all the body: so that anyone who dares to
secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no
part or lot in the divine mystery. . . . And so we would have
you recollect, brethren, as we do, that the Apostolic See, such
is the reverence in which it is held, has numerous times been
consulted by the priests of your province as well as others, and
in the various matters of appeal, as the old usage demanded, it
has reversed or confirmed decisions [
Letters 10:1–2 (A.D.
445)].
As for the resolution of the bishops that is contrary to the
Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to
be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle
Peter [ibid., 105:3].
But if in what you believed necessary to be discussed and
settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own
wishes, let all be referred to us. . . . And though [the bishops]
have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank;
because even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the
similarity of their honorable estate, there was a distinction of
power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was
given to one to take the lead. From this model a distinction
has arisen among bishops also, and by an important ordinance
it has been provided that everyone should not claim everything
for himself, but that there should be in each province one
whose opinion has priority among the brethren, and again that
those whose appointment is in the greater cities should
undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the
universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and
nowhere should be separated from its head [ibid., 14:12].
ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS
We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed
obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of
the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in
his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it.
For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot
try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of
Rome [
Letters 25:2 (
A.D. 449)].
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the
midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, “We received directions
at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the
Roman city [Pope St. Leo I], who is the head of all the
churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in
the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take
his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry
out” [Session 1 (
A.D. 451)].
After the reading of the foregoing letter [i.e., the Tome of Leo],
the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the
fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus
the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus
believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [Session 2 (A.D.
451)].
7fd.jpg
[Hide] (73.8KB, 463x488)
>>22214
>Simply false. Literally every EARLY Church Father believed in premillennialism
literally everyone except augustine, clement of alexandria, origen or dionysius LMAO
Replies: >>22222
foundation2.png
[Hide] (76.7KB, 750x563)
>>22212
So would this picture be more accurate to your position? If you're asking me to recognize the RCC as the true church because of the historical record, I have to rely on my reason/senses to verify the historical record. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm just trying to find a common basis of understanding.
Replies: >>22221
>>22215
>claim a succession directly from the Apostles
there is no claim, it's literally true and plain to see, does anyone deny it?
>It is clear from reading these texts
what's clear? some retarded little hand wave about eating meat that you use as deflection after your other argument was crushed? please
Replies: >>22222
>>22219
>I have to rely on my reason/senses to verify the historical record
of course lol i don't have esp. besides that you're a fallible and flawed human being so any communication we have and attempt of mine to preach the truth to you is going to be tained by that imperfection caused by sin. i am telling you that since you are flawed you should look for something flawless to guide you, the only real candidate for that is the catholic church, because it is composed of the successors of the apostles, given a holy duty, and protected from the gates of hell prevailing against it.
>>22218
Those are not early Church Fathers and basically every single figure that I mentioned is earlier than any of them. Some 'apostolic tradition' you have there

>>22220
> They said, “Come, let’s make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest will not cease, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come, let’s attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything he says. (Jeremiah 18:18)
Replies: >>22225
>>22216
Yet if you dip yourself in water with no faith, it is of no avail.  Looks like you don't understand Sola Fide, just like you don't understand Sola Scriptura either.
>>22222
imagine quints being wasted on this godforsaken post. really says a lot about the sake of this shithole when an epic GET like that is some protlet saying augustine isnt a church father. fuck this board, i'm going to bed
Replies: >>22235
>>22213
>The Bible teaches us that God is the only rock and to have no other rocks besides him.
How many books of the Bible were written by the Lord? NONE! All were written by men who were divinely inspired as Christ sent the Holy Ghost to them. 
How many times has the Lord appeared to correct our errors? NOT ONCE! The Lord appointed Simon Peter alone as the "rock". The Lord did not say he was the Rock, he said he was the Son of God the Father almighty, the sacrifice to save those who believed in Him. To "Believe in Him" means following his word and not perverting His word.
God named Simon as Peter, said he would base His Church on this rock, and gave Simon-Peter the keys to heaven (the keys being faith and morals). \

tl:dr Don't worship rocks. Worship God, and do what the Lord says and stop trying to pervert what He said. HE suffered scourge and death to bring us his word, so believe it.
>>22214
Please present the  argument that the reformers; who denied Matt 16, John 21, 2 Peter etc that there is no such thing as a church Father and that you can use the Bible alone.
Popes are infallible only on Faith and Morals, the two keys to heaven. 
Church fathers? Worthy of belief, unless they contradict the Bible or the Popes.

The order of belief is:
Bible
Popes
Traditions. 

Nothing else is the catholic faith. Marion apparitions are not part of the faith, and while the Church or a Pope may say they're "worthy of belief" after cutting out the heresy e.g. that the Brown Scapular will send you straight to heaven which is heresy or that the Mother of Christ can give you stuff which is blasphemy.

Catholics believe in the sacraments not magic talismans, and that all things come from God, not Christ's Mother.
Replies: >>22236
>>22225
He was an apostate heretic.

"Who can worthily thank thee and adequately praise thee, oh Blessed Virgin, who by thy fiat has saved a lost world." Augustine

Mary can't save you.
Replies: >>22241
>>22228
>The order of belief is:
>Bible
>Popes
>Traditions. 
This is just a complete lie. This is just a troll.
Replies: >>22238
Denzinger's_The_Sources_of_Catholic_Dogma.jpg
[Hide] (137.2KB, 431x646)
James_2_10_on_Cafeteria_Catholics.jpg
[Hide] (159KB, 1046x720)
>>22236
It's in Denzinger's and gives cites to the Papal relevant Papal Encyclicals. 

Not that I trust Denzinger in all things, sometimes his source doesn't say what he says it does, but in this case, it's true. 

I'm curious, are you a protestant or a Catholic? 
Either way, this is Catholic Dogma. Believing a saint above a Pope is heresy, according to the Popes. :-D The Lord gave the Keys to heaven to the Popes, not to Aquinas. If you believe Aquinas over the Popes, you're simply not Catholic.
Replies: >>22240
>>22238
>Believing a saint above a Pope is heresy, according to the Popes.
Okay it's an error, but if you persist in the error it's heresy.
>>22235
>prot patristics
you're condemned by the fathers you yourself selected you dog
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found
obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto
me according to your word” [Lk 1:38]. But Eve was
disobedient; for she did not obey when she was a virgin. And
even as she, having a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless
as yet a virgin (for in paradise “they were both naked, and
were not ashamed” [Gn 2:25], since they, having been created
a short time previously, had no understanding of the
procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should
first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time
onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of
death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also
did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being
nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause
of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And
on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a
man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was
as yet a virgin; thus indicating the reference back from Mary
to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be
put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these
bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be canceled
by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty.
And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from
the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the
first, which has been canceled. For this reason did the Lord
declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first
[Mt 19:30; 20:16]. And the prophet, too, indicates the same,
saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto you.”
For the Lord, having been born “the first-begotten of the dead
[Rv 1:5],” and receiving into his bosom the ancient fathers, has
regenerated them into the life of God, he having been made
the beginning of those who live, as Adam became the
beginning of those who die [1 Cor 15:20–22]. Therefore Luke,
commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to
Adam, indicating that it was he who regenerated them into the
gospel of life, and not they him. And thus also it was that the
knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of
Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through
unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith [
Against Heresies 3:22:4 (c. A.D. 189)].

That the Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things,
and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is
supported by himself, and was making a recapitulation of that
disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree,
through the obedience that was [exhibited by himself when he
hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being
done away with, by that virgin Eve, who was already espoused
to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced,
through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin
Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the
former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she
fled from God when she had transgressed his word; so did the
latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that
she should sustain God, being obedient to his word. And if the
former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be
obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become
the patroness of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race
fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it
rescued by a Virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced
in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same
way the sin of the first created man receives amendment by
the correction of the first-begotten [ibid., 5:19:1].
Replies: >>22245
>>22241
>you're condemned by the fathers
Oh no, not your false cult fathers, whatever will le heckin protties do??!?11!!
Replies: >>22248
>>22245
another drooling protestant beast shambles in to the thread, too dumb to realise the one i’m replying to had held up those church fathers as examples of the true faith. but good for you for comin right out with i an labelling the earliest christians, some of them knowing the apostles themselves a false cult. really shows you how far we’re come as time goes on
Replies: >>22249 >>22264
>>22248
just because the church fathers were right on some things doesn't mean they were right on everything lmao. The word of God > the testimony of men
Replies: >>22250
>>22249
> just because the church fathers were right on some things doesn't mean they were right on everything lmao
um ackshually… i dont care and i’m going to stop propping up this shithole by effortposting and driving discussion here while this cucked admin is in charge.
to answer your question, we’re turning to the fathers to interpret the bible and glean from them information from its passages, so setting them against eachother serves no purpose, it ends up not being the bible vs the fathers, merely your interpretation vs the fathers. the fact is the church dosn’t call them fathers if they are heretics or otherwise don’t generally represent orthodox belief in their teachings. one or two may have said something that might not be right, i haven’t seen it but patristics is a study of that the consensus is between them anyway, itks never been about nitpicking
Replies: >>22271 >>22391
>>22248
I don't understand the Protestant argument, and I don't think there is one single argument but many. 

You get the feeling that everything before Luther/Calvin/Henry etc was not Christian, but they won't put a date when the Christian Church fell. With Luther? With the Orthodox v. Catholic split? in the 3rd century? Or like the Baptist, that it never was legit and they have this faith that the true church came from John the Baptist which is just not true and unbiblical. 

I believe that the Bible alone is enough to set the reader onto what the faith given to us by the Lord is, but that doesn't work. 
So, I asked for a date to see if we could find some common ground to add, and they won't give one, they'll give a dozen dates.
My experience is, when someone is so boldly illogical, they're not arguing in good faith, they're making excuses.
Replies: >>22271
I don't understand the Catholic argument.

This guy is Vatican II:
>>22250

This guy is a sedevacantist:
>>22264

So which version of Catholicism is the One True Church?
Replies: >>22278 >>22295
>>22271
If that's an accurate characterisation, I think Vatican II guy has the more-consistent argument. I can understand believing the current church because one believes the succession record and that Jesus would never allow his church to fall from the faith. But I don't know how I would begin to make the same argument with the caveat that it did fall sometime in the last 150 years and is still in error. If it diverged from the true faith anytime in recent history, how can I have confidence it didn't diverge from the true faith 1000 years ago?
Replies: >>22295
>>22271
>So which version of Catholicism is the One True Church?

Once you understand the Council of Trent (no saying mass in the vernacular or giving the Eurcharist in the hand), Quo Primum of Pope Pius V (mass cannot be changed) you rule out most of them. 

I ran into one that said the Tridentine Mass (Saying "Traditional mass" is cringe to me. That was never "traditional" but a product of Bugnini the Freemason), but they were so thick with Mary worship and false gospels they wouldn't give the sacrament to anyone who wasn't making sacrilege of it. 

The true version of Catholicism is found in the Latin Vulgate Bible and the teachings of the true Popes (see CoT and QP). There is no teaching church left. Best you can do are the heretics. You have to stay away from the anathemas. 

>>22278
Christ said his church would prevail until the end of time. Well, here we are. 
>how can I have confidence it didn't diverge from the true faith 1000 years ago?
Well, the Orthodox denied Matt 16, so they're not it.
Replies: >>22297
>>22295
You've mentioned "until the end of time" before, but that qualifier isn't in the verse:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -Matthew 16:18
Replies: >>22298
>>22297
>Thinking the church Christ established failed because groups within it had disagreements.
Replies: >>22303
>>22298
That's how the Jewish religion failed.
Replies: >>22312 >>22315
>>22303
 Jewish religion failed because its adherents rejected the Lord Jesus Christ
Replies: >>22314
>>22312
Did Moses come down from the Mountain with a failed religion? No. The religion was given to Him by the Lord, for the Son is the Word of God. 

The Jewish religion failed because they replaced the Torah from God to with the Talmud from Man and the Devil.
>>22303
You literally worship a God given to you by Jews.
Replies: >>22316 >>22365
>>22315
The Jews didn't invent God, God gave us Jews. 

Matt 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

So God can make jews all day long from a bag  of rocks.
>>22315
the irony is that if you truly observe the jewish religion and its history you realize that it is in desperate need of Christ but instead of accepting Christ it substituted Him for the interpretations of man.

The Talmud literally does the same thing that Jesus did, clarifying and expounding upon the OT, but without Jesus and is thus corrupt. Its a sad irony.
Replies: >>22380
bible.jpg
[Hide] (67.2KB, 364x995)
Replies: >>22379
Baptist_for_gay_marriage.jpg
[Hide] (20.3KB, 271x136)
westboro-baptist-church-1632266543.jpg
[Hide] (294.8KB, 600x450)
>>22375
Nice but not even true. 
The Church put together the books and made them cannon in the 3rd or 4th century. Saint Jerome and all that. The same Church keeping the books of the Bible by copying them. 
There was no protestants to hate the Church in the 3rd or 4th century, and the Ortho/Catholic split of the Christian church had not yet happened. Just a few heretics were about, and a lot of very wicked pagans. 
So yes, the "Church" gave you the Bible. 

And to keep the errors wrong in translation they made only two versions: Latin and Greek, because those were the international languages of the time. It wasn't done so that others couldn't read it, it was done so that other churches wouldn't distort it and fall into heresy. Look how many versions of the Bible there are and how many different religions there are; everything from pro-homosexual marriage to a hateful religion that gives militant Islam a run for their money, and that's just among the group called "Baptists". Did everyone speak Latin or Greek? Nope, and most people at the time couldn't even read. Keep in mind that Issac Newton wrote his "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" in Latin so that more people could read it, not to prevent the illiterate from reading it. And Newton wasn't even Catholic.
Replies: >>22387 >>22418
>>22365
The Talmud is to the Torah what the Summa is to the Catholic faith.
>>22379
Jerome held to a 39 book Hebrew Old Testament canon, and didn't believe that the Apocrypha could be used to justify doctrine. Protchads win again.
Replies: >>22389
>>22387
Good of you to put Saint Jerome so highly. 

>The books that compose the Old Testament canon and their order and names differ between various branches of Christianity. The canons of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches comprise up to 49 books; the Catholic canon comprises 46 books; and the most common Protestant canon comprises 39 books.[3]

It's nice you don't have so much to read.
Replies: >>22392 >>22393
>>22250
>i haven’t seen it but patristics is a study of that the consensus is between them 
However the church fathers were at variance on many points of doctrine. Tertullian was a Montanist, Polycarp was a Quartodecimian, Origen was later condemned as a heretic for supposing universal salvation, Augustine believed in double predestination (which was similarly later condemned), John Cassian was semi-Pelagian and Epiphanius was an iconoclast. You can't just point to a specious consensus of the church fathers because the church fathers had as many theological opinions as modern Christians squabbling online. In several of the later theological disputes this wasn't even resolved by way of consensus but by the active intervention of the Roman state threatening one party with death or exile. Only the elements of their individual doctrines which are confidently and firmly established in the word of Scripture, and not those which are conjectures birthed of manmade traditions, can be a rule of faith for Christians. The church fathers' writings are not infallible first order proofs and cannot be cited as if they were the Bible itself to sustain your dogmas.
>>22389
Your "source": Wikipedia.

My source: Jerome himself
>Preface to the Books of the Kings. Circa A.D. 391.
>This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, "Helmeted Preface," was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint "are not in the canon:"
>This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn 'from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.'
http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
Replies: >>22395
>>22389
>Good of you to put Saint Jerome so highly
And the phrasing of your arrogant post betrays the fault in your heart, for you Papists believe in putting the authority of men and worldly institutions in highest regard whereas we Protestants believe in putting the authority of the word of God in highest regard. Christ had no regard of the reputation of men ("Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth." Mark 12:14); the esteem of Jerome alone is tangential to whether one understanding he maintained or another is godly.
Replies: >>22396
>>22392
Saint Jerome is not infallible. 

I forget that Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea and place themselves in the position of deciding on the Bible.
>>22393
>you Papists believe in putting the authority of men and worldly institutions in highest regard whereas we Protestants believe in putting the authority of the word of God in highest regard.

I'm good with the authority of the Bible, the Council of Nicaea. 
I'm not good with you pontificating your own pronouncements.  

Christ gave the keys to heaven to Simon - Saint Peter, not you. Sorry.
Replies: >>22397
>>22396
>Christ gave the keys to heaven to Simon - Saint Peter, not you.
Matthew 16 Discussion:
The text:
>"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." -Matthew 16:13-20

"This rock" that Jesus will build his church on is either Peter, or on the confession that "[Jesus is] the Christ, the Son of the living God." He says "upon this..." I shall build my church, not "upon you...". Is Peter a "this", or a "you"? And are we so confident of our understanding of ancient grammar that we can comfortably rest on one reading over the other? And if so much rides on this, wouldn't God have mentioned it more clearly, or more than once? The epistles would've afforded ample opportunity to explicitly appeal to Peter's authority when giving correction to the regional congregations.

With regard to the "keys", no honest Christian would deny from the plain reading that Peter was given the keys. The question is: what are the keys? They are not physical. If they are, then the current Pope could produce them and settle the argument. So then they are spiritual. Keys unlock doors; they let you into a place that you could not enter without them. So then the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" let you into Heaven. What spiritual truth would let you into Heaven? The gospel. If the gospel is what unlocks and permits entrance into heaven, then not only was Peter given the keys, but so were all the Apostles (and any Christian who holds the gospel and can preach it to others). Specifically telling Peter that he was given the keys does not exclude the possibility of others having the keys as well - just as Jesus promising Peter the power to bind and loose did not exclude Jesus from also giving that power to the rest of his disciples in Matthew 18:18.
>>22397
Another protestant who believe God was gibbering about rocks. 
I guess anything to deny the words of Christ. 
Not a believer on this board. No one stands for Christ here.
Catholic_Church.webm
[Hide] (5.1MB, 800x900, 02:29)
Assuming the articles in this video don't misconstrue the truth; does this video not give evidence of a greatcsixkness within the roman catholic church?
Replies: >>22401
>>22398
"This rock" clearly refers to the rock Christ just named, Simon Bar Jona. There is no other Rock in mentioned by Christ. This false twisting of the words of Christ into he was referring to some other rock is pure deception, to justify leading people away from the Church of Christ to a church made by man. 

From their own Bible
 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ tells "thee", Simon, "that YOU are Rock'. That thou art Peter. And upon THIS rock (not some other rock not mentioned) I (Lord Jesus Christ) will build my church. (the Church belonging to Jesus Christ.

Simply taking Christ at his word. The Lord God is NOT being deceptive, not rambling in confusing speak that he is the rock meant by this. 

For over a thousand years 300-1500, this was the passage from the Bible:
18 et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam 

 
Google translate:
18 And I say to you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it

YOU ARE PETER - tu est Petrus
Et super hanc petram 
And on this ROCK... (plug petrus into google translate - it means stone. upper case Petrus translates as "Peter", the English name.)
NOT some other rock, THIS rock. 
This cannot be twisted by those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Lord and Word of God.
Replies: >>22402 >>22418
>>22399
 
You have another monk that says the church needs to be "reformed" not by returning to the faith and word of God, but to throw up the word of the Lord in Matt 16 and substitute the word of other wicked men. 

Why would I believe a monk who says monks and priest sin and throw out the Word of God?
>>22398
>Another protestant who believe God was gibbering about rocks.
I'll let the readers here decide which of us was "gibbering about rocks":
>>22400
^you
>>22397
^me
Catholic_v_Protestant_Founders.jpg
[Hide] (71.4KB, 720x720)
Screenshot_2020-07-24_Nearly_Half_of_United_Methodist_Delegates_Support_Same-Sex_Marriage,_LGBT_Clergy.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 919x811)
>>22402
argumentum ad populum, aka as the "bandwagon fallacy", is not a rational argument. 

I tried parsing the words for you. Christ called Simon a rock, then said he would build his church "on this rock". 
The only rock mentioned was Simon. 
You deny the word of Christ the Lord, and say he was talking about himself as a Rock. No where is another rock mentioned, so what is the associated with the pronoun "this" in "this rock"?
The twisting of the plain words of God, as is plain in the King James, Latin Vulgate, and the Douay-Rheims Bible is clear. 

Why do you even bother with a Bible, if you're going to rewrite the gift given to us by the Lord God anyway so you can make your own religions?  There are thousands of protestant or "Reformed" denominations, most of them allow some sort of mortal sin. 

I'm not saying that the "Catholic" Church hasn't fallen; these are the end times. 'I'm saying the faith that Christ wanted us to follow to achieve heaven is found in the Bible and the teachings of the true popes. '
Replies: >>22411 >>22418
>>22408
That wasn't my argument, my argument was listed here: >>22397. The only point of >>22402 was to point out your hypocrisy.
Throughout this thread, you repeatedly accuse others of what you are doing. 
When you break down a verse, you're "parsing words", when others break down the same verse, you characterize it as "gibbering about rocks":
>>22398
>Another protestant who believe God was gibbering about rocks. 
>>21737
>the Lord was babbling about rocks...
You accuse others of ad hominem attacks while attacking their persons:
>>22053
>You need to stop making personal attacks against me. 
>Hope you get over your illness.
>>22141
>I don't think this discussion is in good faith. I think folks are just trying to get my goat because they love their friends, family and business connections more than they love God. 
Also, google the definition of 'gaslight', because you've used it incorrectly throughout this thread.

>There are thousands of protestant or "Reformed" denominations
You keep responding to me with posts/pics criticizing Protestant denominations for their sin, but I've never tried to defend them. I've never made a claim that a specific denomination is the one and only universal church. I've maintained that the church that Christ founded is made up of people who believe the gospel, which have existed inside and outside of physical buildings and organizations since the beginning.

>so what is the associated with the pronoun "this" in "this rock"?
The confession that "[Jesus is] the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
>if you're going to rewrite [the Bible]
For the scripture to unequivocally support your reading, it would have to be rewritten to say: 'That thou art Peter, and upon THEE I will build my church.' He says to Peter "I will give unto THEE the keys..." in the very next sentence. Why wouldn't he say THEE in the one before it?

Stepping back to look at the big picture, here's a short list of verses that deal with salvation:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-How-To-Be-Saved/
They appeal to repentance, to faith, and to baptism. Not a single one appeals to, or tells people to seek, Peter. 
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." -Romans 10:9-10 
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." -Romans 10:13
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -Acts 16:30-31
I suppose the great mass of Bible verses telling people how to be saved are all fatally deficient, because they all fail to mention that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. You are "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..." -Mark 7:13
>>22411
In advance, sorry for mistaking >>22053 for you.
Jesus_and_those_who_cry_master_master.jpg
[Hide] (164.7KB, 850x720)
>>22411
>the church that Christ founded is made up of people who believe the gospel
All protestants and many "Orthodox" reject the Gospel of Matt 16.
So, no, they don't believe the Gospel if they don't believe  all of it. 

> here's a short list of verses that deal with salvation.
Necessary but not sufficient, protestants are very good about taking things out of context.
>""That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus"
And what of those who deny the Gospel of Matt 16 and John 21? Is denial of the Gospel also a path to heaven? Nope. 

Let's put it in context:
8 But what saith the scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart. This is the word of faith, which we preach.
9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.
12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

Thus, you see if you can't understand the simple words of Matt 16 and John 21, you don't believe (by Roman's 10:11). They don't hear the word of Christ (Rom 10:17), they hear the word of Martin Luther. 

And you can't just say "Jesus, Jesus!" and be saved. Christ himself warned against this.
Replies: >>22421
>>22379
>>22400
>>22402
>>22408
>>22411
1 Corinthians 1:10
 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all [a]speak the same thing, and that there be no [b]divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
NO ONE of you obeyd this not the pappist not the protestant
REPENT!
Replies: >>22422 >>22429
>all protestants reject the gospel of Matt 16

Says who?
>>22414

>the Gospel of Matt 16

The Gospel is John 3:16, not Matthew 16.  The Gospel is the Good News of the perfect life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our rebirth and salvation, not the "good news" of the leadership and works of St. Peter.

The fact is, you don't worship Christ, you worship the Roman Catholic Church and its idolatry of Peter.  And you do this to the point that you are utterly blind to what a rotten tree producing rotten fruit, the Roman Catholic Church is.  You tolerate it's various heresies, as if they are incidental to, rather than a logical product of Roman Catholicism.

The truth is that anything you don't like about Catholicism, that causes you frustration and confusion, is not some random thing that got attached to Catholicism by coincidence, but ultimately directly flows from its doctrine of Justification, which diminishes the work of Christ on the cross, and tries to make up for it with man's works.

You don't like the worship of Mary and the Saints?  They're the natural product of viewing Christ's work on the cross as insufficient for our Justification and healing the divide between man and God.  Thus, Mary and the Saints have to be added on as intercessors, and Mary is made more approachable and more merciful than Christ, because Christ's work isn't good enough.

Don't like indulgences or treasuries of merit?  Well that's exactly what you get when you preach that Christ's work isn't good enough, like the Catholic Church does.
 
Don't like rosaries, brown scapulars, miraculous medals, novena prayers and other tacky pagan superstitions in a thin coat of "Christian" paint?  That's what you get when Christ's life, suffering and sacrifice are only a half measure: you have to supplement it with goofy garbage to make up for it.  

Everything that you dislike or hate and that hurts your conscience about Roman Catholicism is not a bug, it's a feature.  Until you realize that, you're always going to be a slave to the legalisms of a false church, instead of truly being free to be a slave to Christ Himself.
>>22418
I appreciate you trying to heal our division. Truthfully, that's what we're aiming at:
1. Speak the same thing;
2. No divisions; and
3. Joined in same mind and judgment.

But look carefully at those words. Our debate is aimed at that goal (agreeing on doctrine, or, joined in the same mind and judgment). That scripture isn't admonishing us to "be nice", it's admonishing us not to be divided along denominational lines (if you continue reading). I've never advocated for a denomination, and I won't. But somewhere there's a line, where doctrine is so different that it's no longer scriptural. Questions of how we are justified, and the efficacy of Christ's work (as this anon argues >>22421) are central to what makes one a Christian. If we're divided, it's over the most weighty and important matters that cannot be overlooked.
Replies: >>22430
>>22421
As someone new to all this and still reading through the Bible.
How does _scripture only_ or _Jesus only_ get reconciled with the Old Testament?

The approach of everyone figuring it out for themselves was tried, which is why they ended up with the Levitical Priesthood. While they even had issues, they kept the _correct_ way of worship.

How is the Catholic church not seen as a continuation of that lesson?
Bible_without_the_Church_means_destruction.jpg
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
faithful_to_Tradition_true_church.jpg
[Hide] (34.5KB, 479x305)
>>22418
I see.... so the Protestants split into dozens and then thousands of different denominations that have beliefs from hate all sodomites to sodomy is okay, but the Catholics are thrown in there for not agreeing. 
The Catholic faith is found in the Bible and the teachings of the true Popes (i.e. Bergoglio, who some are fooled into thinking is a Pope, is not only an anti-Pope, but an anti-Christ). 
The faith is there, just no one believes it. 

>>22421
Fact is, you worship the word of Martin Luther and disregard any word of Christ you don't like. Sorry, Matthew 16 is Gospel and word of the Lord just like John 3:16, and if you don't believe the word of the Lord in Matthew 16, you simply don't believe in Christ. 


>>22427
>How does _scripture only_ or _Jesus only_ get reconciled with the Old Testament?
That is why God gave us a church in Matthew 16. 
That is why the Bible says you have to belong to the Church created by Christ. At least accept the true faith, if there is no building, priest or parish where the true faith is believed.
Replies: >>22439
>>22422
Protestant Churches are united in one thing: hatred of the Catholic Church and hatred of Catholics. 
On everything else, they disagree. Three thousand different beliefs among the "Reformed" Church,  but doctrinal differences don't seem to matter among protestants. United under one idea; not God, but hate of God's Church. I mean, even Martin Luther only had 98 differences! 3500 differences! That's what happens when everyone interprets the Word of God into something THEY want.
>>22427
>How is the Catholic church not seen as a continuation of that lesson?
Why the Roman Catholic church? Why not Russian Orthodox church? Why not the Methodist church? Why not the Mormon church? Why not Jehovah's Witnesses?
All will tell you should trust them, and that they are explaining scripture to you correctly (yet they teach very different things from one another). But you're in luck, the one thing most churches have in common is that all (or most) say the Bible is the infallible word of God. So you have a litmus test to judge these churches by. Since they believe it, you can hold them to it. If you want to know which is true, keep studying the Bible and judge for yourself. I wish I had an easier way for you to figure it out, but trusting in anyone else's judgment is dangerous. How do you know whether they're lying to you? Once you've decided to start listening to a church (whichever one that may be), it's difficult to change your mind, even if you've chosen the wrong one. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing. Before you read, pray and ask God to lead you into the truth, and trust that he will.

>How does _scripture only_ or _Jesus only_ get reconciled with the Old Testament?
Everything in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus Christ. The animal sacrifices to atone for sin, which had to be continually offered and were never enough. Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, sacrificed once, and for all time. Compare the story of Joseph in Genesis with the life and work of Jesus: Joseph was beloved of his father (God), hated by his brothers (Jews), betrayed for envy, bought with silver, faithful obedient servant, accused of a crime he did not commit, judged unjustly, made ruler over all, saved his brothers (Jews) and Egyptians (Gentiles) from the famine (God's judgment). These examples are the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament epistles teach how Jesus was the rest from our works that mankind was always looking for. He is the hero. We are called simply to believe that what he did for us made us right with the Father, once and for all. That's why it's called the Good News! Read the book of Hebrews in the New Testament for a better explanation.
>>22427
>The approach of everyone figuring it out for themselves was tried, which is why they ended up with the Levitical Priesthood. While they even had issues, they kept the _correct_ way of worship.
That's a perfect example of how fatal it can be to trust in man (or a church) rather than God. When Jesus came in the flesh, the Levitical Priesthood did not recognize or worship him as God. The priests and the rabbis led the mass of Jewish people into rejecting him. God incarnate. The one who spoke the words of the Book they taught from.
>>22429

Sad, but sadly not surprising.  Your ultimate measure of the trueness of a church is not based on how well it conforms to Christ, but merely its tenuous connection to St. Peter.  The Roman Catholic church could come out as a condoning blood orgies, or deny the Trinity tomorrow, and  you would remain a member, because for you, salvation is not a matter of being obedient to Christ, but a matter of being a member of the One True Church™, no matter how corrupt or heretical it gets.  Your version of the division of the sheep and the goats is not based on feeding the hungry, visiting the sick or clothing the naked, but rather that you remained a member of the Roman Catholic church, even as it preaches that Christ's Atonement only paid for 50% of our salvation and we have to make up the difference with Mary worship and suffering in purgatory (because Christ's death was not enough to pay the punishment due to us by sin.)
Replies: >>22440
bowing_down_to_pachamama_idol.png
[Hide] (897.8KB, 872x491)
archdioces_of_seattle.png
[Hide] (276KB, 1920x1080)
communist_crucifix.jpg
[Hide] (89.4KB, 1200x630)
Pope_John_Paul_II_kisses_wicked_koran.jpg
[Hide] (869.2KB, 2358x1565)
>>22439
>Your ultimate measure of the trueness of a church is not based on how well it conforms to Christ, but merely its tenuous connection to St. Peter
This is false. Christ is the one who identified Saint Peter. 
Nice straw man deception, this. 
>The Roman Catholic church could come out as a condoning blood orgies, or deny the Trinity tomorrow, and  you would remain a member, 
False again. I would say that the true faith that Christ wanted us to follow is in the Bible and the teachings of the True Popes. 
Bergoglio alias "Pope" Francis isn't even a Christian. He wickedly placed his literally God Damned pagan idols on the alter of saint peter. The Vatican alter has been desecrated and is no longer fit for the Sacrfice of the mass. He denied the divinity of the Triune God. He' s not even a heretic, he's not Christian. 
And Bergoglio isn't the only anti-Christ. Every Pope since Pius XII has been an anathema, cursed by God and shunned by all faithful Catholics. Every Pope since Pope Pius XII has told the damnable lie that other religions are a path to heaven. "Pope" John Paul II was especially wicked, taking part in pagan rites and kissing the wicked Koran. 
'But these damnable sins don't change the faith'
The Bible is still the Bible, Christ still gave the keys to heaven (faith and morals) to Saint Peter. Prior Popes have declared all this wickedness in Rome to be automatic excommunication; those who say that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in the hand are OUT of the Church, those who say that the Holy Sacrifice of the mass can be said in the local language are an anathema, to be shunned by all the faithful. 
'That is the Faith the Lord Jesus Christ gave us!' I adhere to the faith of God. 
I'm tired of these falsehoods. You know what you said isn't true. Why did you bear this false witness? I didn't come to this board to trick you into this sin. 
I remain with the faith of the Church created by Jesus Christ. There is but one FAITH that the Bible identifies as true, but no one on Earth seems to believe it.
Replies: >>22444 >>22446
>>22440
Bergoglio just won Argentina the World Cup by miraculously annulling a curse your arguments are invalid.
Replies: >>22445
>>22444
Trips.... 
Must be true. 
Kek has favored you
>>22440

>Calls me a liar for stating that he would stick with his church no matter how heretical it got,

>Proceeds to then list all of the damnable heresies and errors of the church that he's aware of, and then states his intention to remain part of the church in spite of these damnable heresies and errors.

I am at a loss for words.  I can only pray for you, because only God Himself can possibly get through to you.
Replies: >>22447
cafetria_catholics.png
[Hide] (94.1KB, 400x365)
James_2_10_on_Cafeteria_Catholics.jpg
[Hide] (159KB, 1046x720)
>>22446
I said what you said was false witness, because you made up stuff about me that you had no reason to be true. 
Catholic belief is that if you don't accept every bit of the faith, you're not Catholics. Those who pick and choose what to believe and what to reject are "cafeteria Catholics". 
A Catholic is someone who believe the whole Catholic faith. And like Catholics, there are sinners among the protestants. You can't damn the belief and dogmas because some don't follow it. We should be careful to not cast the first stone and be a hypocrite.
Replies: >>22530
Catholics aren't fond of the reformation but honestly how radically the Missal changed in the 60's seem like a reformation within the church for me. How did non-SSPX Catholics just roll with it?
Replies: >>22455
>>22454
Pretty sure that the SSPX uses the changed missal. The SSPV (society of Pope Pius V), I'm not so sure about. Pope Pius V put a curse on anyone who changed the Tridentine mass or used a mass that was less than 300 years old at the time of the Council of Trent. I think the SSPV uses the true Tridentine rite. Not sure, I think I heard Father Jenkin's say they used a modern missal. That would disappoint me. 
BTW, the whole point of Vatican II was to appeal to the Protestants. The 'ONE' church in Christ was changed to 'A' church in Christ; a fundamental change in the catholic faith. 
Does it look like Vatican II brought in any protestants? I don't think so.
Replies: >>22457
>>22455
>Pretty sure that the SSPX uses the changed missal. 
Yes. SSPX uses the  1962 missal.
https://angeluspress.org/products/1962-roman-catholic-daily-missal

Looks like a nice missal, other than Pope Pius V forbid it in 

'Quo Primum*'
We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing. 

* https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

Since Quo Primum was 1570, that means all rites after 1370 are forbidden, e.g. 1962 missal and the New Mass. New mass is also forbidden by the Council of Trent and those who say it is a valid mass are an anathema, to be shunned by all faithful Catholics.
Okay, I must have misunderstood Father Jenkins. They say the Tridentine mass per the Father Lasance's 1945 missal, which (I understand)  has no changes to the Tridentine mass, and adds the prayers after the mass instructed by Pope Leo XIII (??) and other changes for the Holy days of Obligation for Americans vs. Canadians. 

SSPV says a valid rite.
>>22447

This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  I.e. your position is basically "The problem isn't the Catholic faith, it's that Catholics aren't being good Catholics."

The reality is that the Catholic faith is exactly the reason why the Catholic faith is in the state it is currently in.  Vatican II is precisely what happens when the whims of Popes and Councils are placed as authorities above the Word of God.  If Scripture was the authority, Vatican II would have never happened.  Catholicism's errors and heresies are not the product of Catholicism being practiced incorrectly, but are the logical conclusion of Catholicism being practiced correctly.  These are just some of the logical fruits of Roman Catholicism:

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/965

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/872

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/879

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/944

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/1020

https://twitter.com/rcnonsense/status/1396890223892590592?s=46&t=gKcocOVJZxQ5vzXfum1Kmw

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/978

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/946

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/962

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/963

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/951

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/952

Y
ou yourself are a Sedevacantist.  According to this chart...

https://t.me/cursedpapistnonsense/848

....your own position is literally self-refuting, since it contradicts Vatican I.
Replies: >>23198 >>23199
protestants_when_they_enter_a_catholic_church_[7184969592664591659].mp4
[Hide] (1.2MB, 720x720, 00:12)
Replies: >>23202
pope_francis_pachamama_inca.jpeg
[Hide] (64.3KB, 517x549)
communist_crucifix.jpg
[Hide] (89.4KB, 1200x630)
John_Paul_II_kissing_Quran.jpg
[Hide] (91.5KB, 1024x680)
Christian_Charity_is_against_false_ideas.jpg
[Hide] (150.8KB, 1080x883)
Screenshot_2020-07-24_Why_Francis_Can't_Be_The_Pope_-_Accepting_Francis_=_Apostasy_-_YouTube(1).png
[Hide] (1.2MB, 1186x667)
>>22530
>This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  I.e. your position is basically "The problem isn't the Catholic faith, it's that Catholics aren't being good Catholics."

To prove that I made this fallacy, show me that how Catholics follow the Catholic faith. 

The faith is that all revelations come from the Bible (Council of Toledo 400 AD), the Popes, and Church tradition (Council of Ephesus 431 AD). Even the teachings of the Church Fathers, e.g. Augustine and Aquinas, if they go against the teachings of the Bible or the Popes e.g. Pope Saint Pius X, they're in error and in danger of heresy. Believing Saints over Popes was on of the condemned errors of the Janist. 

So everyone who believes in personal revelations commit the sin of superstition. That's just about all the Catholics I know.

The faith is that there is one Triune God; that God has three persons in the  Father, Son and Holy Ghost, each person God, each person not the other two. But Protestants are right, I've seen Catholics pray to the Mother of Jesus for this, that and the other things. That's not Catholic. They pray to Saint Mary to be delivered from evil. The proper thing is to pray to Saint Mary to pray to God to deliver us from evil. Seems like a small error but they've made a god of Saint Mary and believe she can give them things. Catholics believe all things come from God. 

Vatican I says that the office of the Pope will exist until the end of time, but obviously the Chair of Saint Peter has been empty before. Vatican I doesn't disprove that the Chair is empty. By the Council of Trent, anyone who says that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in the hand is an Anathema. The Vicar of Christ cannot be an anathema. By the council of Trent, anyone who says that the Holy Mass can be said in the venacular is an anathema. Again, the Vicar of Christ cannot be an anathema. By Bull of Pope Pius V no one can change ONE WORD of the mass, least they incur a curse of God. 

Now the novus ordo have dancing girls and women speakers. Dancing girls is ... not part of the mass, and women speakers were forbidden by Saint Paul.
Replies: >>23206 >>23208
>>22530
Here's another argument that Catholics are not following the faith:
Christians believe that Christ came for the Hebrews who were no longer following the Faith given by the Laws of Moses, the Torah. 

You see this as the Sadducees and Pharisees bore false witness against Christ to Ponitus Pilate - Forbidden by the Law of Moses and the Torah, yet carefully made sure that they didn't set foot in the court of Fort Antonia least they be unclean for Passover according to the their Babylonian Talmud - a law made by fallible men. 

If we're to believe your "no true Scottsman" fallacy in this case, then you have to assume that God Almighty erred. Either
1) the Law the Lord gave to Moses was wrong 
Or
2) God intended his faithful to lie. 
Or
3) God was wrong to think that they weren't following his faith (obviously they were not) and shouldn't have sent his Son, the LORD, to redeem them. 
Well, that cannot be true, God does not error. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy does not apply.
Replies: >>23206 >>23208
>>23176
True enough. The mass awakens grace in the soul. It is truly moving. It strengthens the faith. 
On the other hand, I'd rather attend a Tridentine or Dominican mass in a barn than a changed or false mass in the Vatican. 

The sin of the church is that they have given themselves over to money. Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to approve of Vatican II, right to make Bishops because the seat was empty per the council of Trent, right when he condemned the changes made to the mass under cover of Vatican II.
He was wrong to negotiate with the Vatican. If the Vatican was true, then he shouldn't have formed the Bishops. If they were an anathema, he shouldn't have shunned them. 
And when he came back with the deal with the devil: keys to Church doors as the Vatican controlled the Bishops and the Bishops owned the deeds to the Churches, she should have had the priest give mass in garages, barns and whatever space they could find until new churches could be raised. '

Now the Novus Ordo is having a fire sale on Church property because they're losing members and the members they have don't support the church.
Luther_sunglasses.jpg
[Hide] (213.1KB, 920x720)
Roman Popery is dead. Deal with it.
Replies: >>23206
>>23198
>>23199
>>23202

Wow, so you're saying that the Catholic Church itself has gone completely off the rails and needs to be...… reformed?  What a novel idea!  How innovative!  If only someone had observed this and thought of it sooner.... like approximately 500ish years earlier, give or take...  >>23205
Replies: >>23213
>>23198
>>23199
>>23202

Also, thank you for unwittingly proving my point.  The fact that the Catholic Church being  so corrupt is causing all of this, proves that the issue is not individual Catholics being bad Catholics, but individual Catholics trying to be good Catholics by obeying a corrupt church.
Replies: >>23215
>>23206
>Wow, so you're saying that the Catholic Church itself has gone completely off the rails and needs to be...… reformed?

not at all. 
I'm saying people need to be Catholics. 

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

The faith doesn't change. Last book I found that contained the teachings of the Church that I could find was "The Papal Encyclicals in Their Historic Context", printed in 1959. It omits a lot of encyclicals. Denzinger "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" is currently in print, and the Systematic Index, which cites the Papal Encyclicals for each belief; the beliefs being taken from the Encyclicals, is pretty good because you can check the source and see where the text is wrong. E.g. that not doing penance is a sin is taken from a list of errors taught by an anti-pope. However.. There is the sacrament of Penance, usual penance as in giving something up or doing something to show repentance for one's sin, and the penance that is given to do in the Sacrament of Penance. The only sin would be in not doing the penance given in confession. You can always go back to the confessional, and beg for a new penance if you can't do the one given

Catholics just aren't taught the Catholic faith. One priest I knew thought that the faith was the Summa Theologicia. Good heavens no! Error that the Jannist made and it was already condemned.
Replies: >>23217 >>23230
Jesus_and_those_who_cry_master_master.jpg
[Hide] (164.7KB, 850x720)
>>23208
What faith do you belong to? 
Just wondering what faith teaches one to twist words like that. 

There's the Belief, and the Catholic faith is true. 
There's the Catholic believers, who believe the true Catholic faith, and those are few.
Then there are those who think they're Catholic (or Christian, for that matter) and are not. 

The Faith is given to us by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, who worked thought the Vicar of Christ on earth. 
The Catholic believers are sinners, just like everyone else. But they have hope for salvation through the faith and the Sacrements. 
The those who think they're Christian but are not because they reject the Word of Christ for the Word of sinful men... well... Christ spoke about what happens to them.
Replies: >>23217
>>23213
>>23215

>not at all. 
>proceeds to elaborate on how the Catholic church has gone of the rails from the original earlier teachings, and needs to be reformed by going back to those earlier teachings.
Replies: >>23218
>>23217
Why do you use quotes to put words in my mouth that I didn't say? 

I said the Catholic Church is the Catholic faith. 
Those who believe the Catholic faith are Catholics. 
I pointed out those who aren't Catholics because they don't believe the Catholic faith. 
You take those who don't believe, and then claim I said those are the true catholics (utterly false).

What religion taught you to do that, or that this acting in bad faith and hate is pleasing to the sight of God?!
Replies: >>23219
>>23218

You literally espoused on how modern Catholics have departed from the original earlier Catholic faith, and how the church needs to be reformed in order to conform once again to the original Catholic faith that it was before it became the Novus Ordo church that you loathe today.  I literally just paraphrased back to you the essence of your argument.
Replies: >>23224 >>23225
>>23219
>You literally espoused on how modern Catholics have departed from the original earlier Catholic faith
Yes. And so did protestants. Are you throwing stones?

I believe in the Catholic faith, even the parts I don't know yet. 

What religion are you? You should state it if you've believe it. 

I didn't say "reformed". I said 'they're not catholic if they don't believe the catholic faith'. 
That means they're not IN the church to reform it. 
I said they need to be Catholic.

What religion are you? Which of the many protestant (or Jewish) religions teaches you to say these things as pleasing to the eyes of God?
Replies: >>23228
>>23219
> I literally just paraphrased
You changed the meaning of what I said, so you didn't "paraphrase". 
That you had to change the words means that you twisted them.
Replies: >>23228
>>23224
>>23225

Reform, in this context. literally means to change something back to what it originally was.  You're literally a Protestant in denial, and you'll engage in whatever mental gymnastics it will take to run away from this ugly truth:

Protestant Reformation: "The Catholic church has departed from the original faith and we need to change it back to that original faith."

Sedevacantists: "The Catholic church has departed from the original faith and we need to change it back to that original faith."
Replies: >>23232 >>23234
>>23213
There are no Catholics since the word Catholic itself means universal and the universal church has been broken by heresy.
Replies: >>23234
>>23228
Reminder that the word protest literally meant to be a faithful witness during the Reformation:
>protest (n.)
>c. 1400, "avowal, pledge, solemn declaration," from Old French protest, from protester, from Latin protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro- "forth, before" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward," hence "in front of, before") + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see testament).

>Meaning "statement of disapproval" is recorded by 1751. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/protest
Replies: >>23233
>>23232
Nice resource site Anon, thanks. One of the problems with human history is that it's professionally directed by human liars. Thankfully the Internet is a thing now. If we can record and preserve our current history, then hopefully the Globohomo will be exposed in their lies in the future.
>>23228
Not a single protestant wanted to change it back to what it was. 
Divorce was never allowed by the Church, King Henry wanted divorce. 
The Church always said give to the poor, Martin Luther didn't want good works, faith alone he said. 
The Church always said Bible and Popes, as the Lord said in Matthew 16. Martin Luther said God was wrong about that too and said Bible alone, which is insane because the Church, under divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost, created the Cannon of the Bible and selected which of the ancient text were correct and which had errors. For a millinia, the Latin Vulgate was ONE AND ONLY HOLY BIBLE. 
And Luther, in trying to appeal to the Jews and get their favor, butchered the Holy Bible and threw several books out. 

So no protestant wanted to return to the original faith. Each and every one wanted to Change the faith to their own liking. Luther even wanted to allow polygamy, having blessed a double marriage for one prince. 


>>23230
"Catholic" in this case is just a proper name for the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. You're talking little "c", catholic, a quality of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It's sort of like Democrats being the name of a party while democracy being a form of government characterized by mob rule. 

And the Church didn't spring from nothing in the 16th century. God created it, see Matthew 16. The Lord didn't say "Simon, thou art Peter, and I'll build my church upon the rock of Martin Luther in over a thousand years. Until then, everyone's damned."

I tried to have a discussion on when protestants thought that the Church lost legitimacy, as a way to find common ground in the early Papal encyclicals. General consensus was it was never legit. Christ did not create a wicked Church, that's just wrong.
Replies: >>23251
>>23202
Vatican 2 was a necessary and positive change, man. Nowhere do you even say why it's bad except that it is. Nobody speaks Latin any more and the mission of the Church is to spread the faith. What is wrong with you weird LARPers? I agree the Latin mass has its value, for those who can and wish to receive it. But there's no use expecting it from everyone, and those that do tend to just be muh tradition types.
>>23243
Vatican II changed the words that the Catholic religion was "THE Church of Christ", meaning there was one true Church created by Christ and  to "A Church of Christ."

That is damnable heresy. No one who believes in that will see heaven. This is infallible and indefectible ex cathera teachings of the Popes. 

'Have a nice day!'

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/papal-declarations-no-salvation-outside-church/
Replies: >>23256
>>23243
About the Mass.... Yes, "trad caths" as they are known call it "The Latin Mass"
There are two rites the the Mass in the Church: The Tridentine Mass, and the Dominican Mass.

What they get in the FSSP and the SSPX is the changed mass of 1964, and that's forbidden by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V. Any mass that wasn't 200 years old at the time of the Council of Trent was forbidden, and those who say such a mass are anathemas. 
These rules were put in place to prevent exactly what happened with the New Supper service that they say is a mass. They did it to get protestant money in the collection basket. The Protestants didn't fall for that!
Replies: >>23249
>>23248
>There are two rites...

Taht should be
"There are two Latin rites in the Roman Rite..." there are a number of catholic masses in other languages, like Greek and Armenian...
cyrilmetod.jpg
[Hide] (184.6KB, 944x630)
>>23243
Reminder that while the counterfeit Germanic "Romans" were being autistic about keeping the scriptures in dead languages the real Romans in the East were creating Old Church Slavonic to spread the faith to the pagans
Replies: >>23252
>>23234
FACT: the word Catholic isn't in the Bible tryhard.
Replies: >>23253
>>23250
>>23250
>Reminder that while the counterfeit Germanic "Romans" were being autistic about keeping the scriptures in dead languages the real Romans in the East were creating Old Church Slavonic to spread the faith to the pagans
Race, of course, has nothing to do with it. Being Germanic makes no difference, we're all supposed to be brothers in Christ 
The Bible was kept in two languages, Latin and Greek, so that it the divine inspired word of God could not be corrupted by a "translation" as the protestants do. A dead language has the advantage that it does not change like vernacular languages do.
And what good is it to have a bible if you're going to reject Matthew 16 and John 21 and make yourself false Pope?
Replies: >>23257
>>23251
>FACT: the word Catholic isn't in the Bible tryhard.
Why would it be? 
Before the East/West Schism where the East rejected the word of God where the keys were given to Saint Peter, the Church was called the "Church of Christ" or "Christian Church". 
Then at the schism, it became necessary to have a name for the two now separate religions: One took the proper name "Catholic", which means universal, and "Orthodox" which means conforming to established doctrine. Both churches claim to be universal and conforming to established doctrine. It's like how Republican and Democrat are the names of two political parties while republican means someone who supports a republic and democrat supports direct voting of the people. The party names have little to do with the meaning of their word that they're derived from. 

Sort of like how Lutheran is one who worships Luther, Anglican is one who worships the King of England, Calvinist is one who worships Calvin, etc. All claim to be Christian tho.
>>23247
You're one mentally ill cunt.
Replies: >>23280
>>23252
Your tradition is illegitimate.
What religion are you?
Replies: >>23271
The Apostle Paul says the Church has traditions. Which ones do you feel is wrong,  and which Apostle are you?
Replies: >>23271
Jesus_and_apostles.jpg
[Hide] (2.2MB, 3370x957)
>>23265
Christian.

>>23266
>Which ones do you feel is wrong
Those imposed from without the scriptures.
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."
Colossians 2:8

>and which Apostle are you?
Apostles are made by Christ, not men:
"Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)"
Galatians 1:1

The Holy Spirit teaches those abiding in Christ:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
John 14:26

"But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him."
1 John 2:27

Every Christian is an appointed priest of the Lord Jesus Christ:
"you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture... you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"
1 Peter 2:5, 9
Replies: >>23279
apostle_paul_2_thessalonians_13-14_on_traditions_and_word_and_writing.jpg
[Hide] (224.1KB, 1200x819)
>>23271
What denomination of Christian? Why so coy? Are you ashamed of what your faith is?

>Those imposed from without the scriptures
Scripture tells you that not everything is written in the Bible. 
Do you deny 2 Thes 13-14? How does that work? Bible only then throw out the parts of the Bible that you don't like as well as all the traditions and the words of the Apostles. 

>Apostles are made by Christ
Ah. Here I thought you were speaking as an authority on the traditions of the Church when you said they were illegit. You deny the Church traditions, and you deny the part of the Bible that says you need to hold to not just the writing of the Bible, but the word and traditions.
Replies: >>23293
>>23256
What denomination or religion teaches you to talk religion like that? 

Are you Jewish? Islamic? Some other type of Pagan? Do you think you're Christian? If you think you're christian, what denomination?
Replies: >>23288 >>23310
>>23280
I wonder if asking them what denomination allows or even teaches them to use such language in supposed defense of the Lord, that they become ashamed and don't say. 
Who knew?
Replies: >>23310
mary_the_first_influencer.jpg
[Hide] (41.7KB, 680x479)
>>23279 
>What denomination of Christian? Why so coy? Are you ashamed of what your faith is? 
A Protestant who testifies of the true faith in defiance of the Babylonian corruption of Rome. 

>Scripture tells you that not everything is written in the Bible. Do you deny 2 Thes 13-14? How does that work? Bible only then throw out the parts of the Bible that you don't like as well as all the traditions and the words of the Apostles. 
Everything authoritative concerning the faith is written in the Bible. Your wicked tradition invalidates the scriptures like the Pharisees: 
"making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” 
Mark 7:13 

>Ah. Here I thought you were speaking as an authority on the traditions of the Church when you said they were illegit. You deny the Church traditions, and you deny the part of the Bible that says you need to hold to not just the writing of the Bible, but the word and traditions 
I speak by the authority of the infallible word of God as preserved by the Holy Spirit in scripture. Your pagan pontiffs are no authority.
>>23293
>preserved by the Holy Spirit in scripture
Holy Spirit didn't translate the Bible and misuse words
Replies: >>23296
apostle_paul_2_thessalonians_13-14_on_traditions_and_word_and_writing.jpg
[Hide] (224.1KB, 1200x819)
Bible_without_the_Church_means_destruction.jpg
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
>>23293
>A Protestant 
Yes. What denomination. I get that you hat Catholics. Do they preach that or is that of your own invention? 

>Everything authoritative concerning the faith is written in the Bible

Bible says not everything concerting faith is in the Bible. So, not everything concerning faith is in the Bible.  
2 Thessalonians 13-14
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16

What you say is "wicked tradition" is literally Biblical, right out of 2 Thessalonians. 

>Your pagan pontiffs are no authority.
Not sure about the pagan popes, as that is an oxymoron, but the Lord Jesus Christ created to head of his Church. 
Ezekiel 34:23
John 21
Matthew 16
Note that it says " I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd." 
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord Our God, we serve Him. He's not "David".  David was a leader chosen by God to lead His faithful. 

I really hope this helps you to at least understand that Catholics are trying to follow the Bible so you stop hating them as Christ told us to love our neighbors
Replies: >>23297 >>23301
>>23294
>Holy Spirit didn't translate the Bible and misuse words
This is true. 
The Holy Spirit descended upon the Christian Church at the Council of Nicaea and guided them to determine what the books of the Bible were true, and which version of those books. 

For over a thousand years, it was the Christian Bible. Then this Martin Luther fellow threw out some of the Books to please the Jews. One would have to believe the Christian Church didn't exist until Martin Luther, which is absurd.
>>23295
Ib4 the Lord was making the Lord our shepherd. 
You know, I get the drift of that, but clearly it was the Lord who was speaking in Ezekiel 34:23. it doesn't say "I will place over them as on Shepherd, myself..." 
It says SERVANT. Servants are angels (can't put an angel over humans) and humans (like... King David in the scripture). So, yes, Ezekiel says there will be a human head of the Christian Church, and gave him the keys (faith and morals) to heaven 

We call that head "The Pope".   That's just a name. Had to give the position a name. There are requirements to be a Pope: 
1) Have to be ordained. 
2) have to be Christian (what the Protestant's would call "Roman Catholic")
3) Cannot have been a Heretic before hand. 

'As every "Pope" 'since Pope Pius XII has claimed that it is admissible for the laity to take the Eucharist in the hand, they're all anathemas (worse than a heretic) and the faithful must shun them. 
'As every "Pope" ' since Pope Pius XII has claimed that the Holy Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ, can be said in the local vernacular they're all anathemas and the faithful must shun them. 
'As every "Pope" ' since Pope Pius XII, and Pope Pius XII himself* has  said that it is permissible to change the Holy Mass, they're all anathemas and the faithful must shun them.
hills_of_rome_revelation.jpg
[Hide] (209.6KB, 1400x1050)
>>23295
>posts prevarications
"...from childhood you have known 'the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for SALVATION through faith which is in Christ Jesus.' All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped' for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:15-16

How is it so hard for you to understand that the traditions he speaks of are the ones 'that have been documented in the canon of the Bible'? The canon is closed because its books are the only uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit with authority to accomplish the salvation and sanctification of mankind. Or do you think God somehow gave an incomplete word to the world when Jesus Christ was the fulfillment and conclusion of the scriptures?

>I get that you hate Catholics. Do they preach that or is that of your own invention? 
Everyone who has read Revelation despises the Romish deception:
"The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written,

MYSTERY: BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.

I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement."
Revelation 17:4-6

There is no point arguing with you. At every occasion you love to lie without shame, and are the snake in the garden of this board, deceiving the innocent to their own destruction. Repent of your error or face the judgement:
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of cause for sin! For causes for sin must come, but woe to that man by whom the cause comes!"
Matthew 18:6-7

"When they opposed him and blasphemed, Paul shook his garments and said to them, 
'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean'"
Acts 18:6

The Lord Jesus is ever merciful to the remorseful sinner. Amen.
Replies: >>23302
>>23301
Well, at least you admit to hating Catholics. 
Just got to get you to accept all the Bible as the word of God. God did not make you his editor.
Replies: >>23305
2-maccabees-15-39.png
[Hide] (65.8KB, 1000x500)
>>23302
The Apocrypha is not the word of God. Neither did its authors consider themselves to be writing doctrinal scripture. Unless you think that Moses would have ended the Ten Commandments at nine and went "Lol, I dunno, drink some wine while reading this if it was poorly written."
Replies: >>23308
>>23305
You're not even making sense now.
Replies: >>23318
Screenshot_20221112-144857_Moon+_Reader.jpg
[Hide] (579.8KB, 1080x1033)
>>23280
>Do you think you're Christian?
Are you serious? You people are so annoying, all you care about is putting others down and excluding them.
>>23288
I have a life.
Replies: >>23311 >>23321
>>23310
I'm Catholic btw, since that seems to be so important to you (you love dividing, don't you?)
Replies: >>23322
>>23293
The tweet in your image is cute and reaches out to young people. Why do you hate everything?
Replies: >>23323
1-Corinthians-1-18-WEB-For-the-word-of-the-cross-is-foolishness-to-those-I46001018-L01.jpg
[Hide] (101.6KB, 700x700)
>>23308
You shall not understand until you forsake the abominations of Rome. May you be led to repentance. Amen.
>>23310
I'm not trying to put others down. That's only in your mind. 

>I have a life.
Would you like an eternal one? Why won't you say which denomination you belong to.

Btw, that's not scripture. It references scripture, but its not, and it's taking things out of context.
Replies: >>23327 >>23328
>>23311
Ah! Catholic! 

Which one? Novus Ordo? FSSP (Novus Ordo lite), SSPX, SSPV? Sandbornist? 

>you love dividing, don't you?
No, I hate dividing. That the issue. There is ONE Catholic faith, and the divine revelations are found in the Bible, where we see Our Lord Jesus Christ founding ONE CHURCH on Saint Peter the Rock and giving him the keys to heaven (faith and morals). Thus, the Bible and the Popes become the true Catholic Faith. 

And by Saint Paul, we know that Church tradition, e.g. the form of the various valid Holy Masses per the Council of Trent, are part of the faith. 

So, why are there 5 different "Catholic" religions, and most importantly, why do none of them keep the Catholic faith?
Replies: >>23327
Pope_Francis_and_the_circus.jpg
[Hide] (135.2KB, 1000x666)
pope_francis_pachamama_inca.jpeg
[Hide] (64.3KB, 517x549)
>>23313
I donno. It may be because he put a pagan idol on the Alter of Saint Peter. On that day, the Alter of Saint Peter was desecrated.

He's not even a heretic. He'd have to have been a Christian to be a heretic. He's more in line with Freemason beliefs, like John Paul II. 
Problem with that is if you're a Freemason, you absolutely cannot be Catholic, and a Pope has to be Catholic. 

And a Pope, being a Vicar of Christ, can't be an anathema either. True Catholics must shun an anathema. Every "Pope" since Pope Pius XII has said that the mass can be changed, that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in un- ordained hands, that the mass can be said in the Local venacular. 
Because Bergoglio made the FSSP become an anathema too. The Council of Trent has to be true, thus the Vatican has lost all legitimacy. 

Yeah, crazy me. I don't think Popes should be popular. That is a quality of the anti-Christ.
Replies: >>23327
hqdefault.jpg
[Hide] (16.9KB, 480x360)
>>23321
>Btw, that's not scripture.
Wow, I had no idea.
>It references scripture, but its not, and it's taking things out of context.
My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet.
>>23322
>division through unity
You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds.
>>23323
Meds here too. There's nothing wrong with syncretism to spread the faith so long as it isn't replaced/diluted. Those aren't pagan idols any more. The Andes is one of the most devoutly Christian regions but you lose your shit over handicrafts.
Replies: >>23333
>>23321
You do realize that there have been at least two other people in this thread?
>>23327
>My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet.
Catholic faith is that divine revelations come from the Bible and the Popes, not Saints. And the naming of saints a matter of fact. Popes, even speaking from the chair, are not infallible on matters of facts. 
I don't trust Saints. Saints have been wrong. For example, the Lord told the Apostles not to kill those who wouldn't convert, while some Saints, like Saint Louis, was saying run them throught with a sword. So... I like to go back to the Bible and Popes, those you HAVE to believe, and only by understanding them first can you detect what errors the saints made. 
>You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds
extra ecclesiam nulla salus
The Catholic faith, as taught in the Bible and the true Popes, IS black and white. You have to believe it all. 
If that seems crazy to you, you are what Catholics have named as the invincibly ignorant.
Sorry if that seems unfair to you, but I trust the perfect Justice of the Lord Our God.
download_(58).jpeg
[Hide] (13.6KB, 273x184)
Why isn't everyone who knows about the Orthodox Church not part of it honest question because the more research i do on Orthodoxy Roman Catholicism and Protestantism the more it truly seems like the only faith that is fully biblical and respects all the traditions of the church fathers and apostles and im not trying to rag on everyone else i just want to know why you are not orthodox i dont even really get being a traditional roman Catholic like SSPX because at the end of the day you have to submit to the Pope even though he says clearly heretical things and personally i just see Sedevacantism as complete cope please stop the cope joojn Orthodoxy all our churches have a reverent liturgy we have all 7 sacraments we have a valid priesthood we have apostolic succession we have the traditions of the apostles and church fathers we have infant communion and Chrismation stop submitting to a obviously heretical pope or believing in one mans interpretation of the bible and join the church founded by Christ
Replies: >>25875
The obvious answer that must surely have occurred to you is that I still believe my church is the Church. Putting that aside, I have some more reasons. Some of them are better that others. My lesser reasons are:
>I would want to make sure that I wasn't just joining because it's popular
Self-explanatory. The Church is not a club for cool kids. You should be resolute in your commitment.
>I am not sure if the grass is really greener on the other side
Every church is going to have problems. There's no point running from one set of problems only to get hit by another. Furthermore, you can be sure that the same infiltrators are aiming at EO if they're not already inside already. The idea of running away from your problems and hoping they don't follow you doesn't sound very wise to me. You see this attitude all the time. Just keep retreating until you have nothing left to defend. This is why they keep taking things from you.
>The Church has been in this situation before
There was a time (pre-Schism so this applies to you too) when the vast majority of bishops were Arian heretics. The Church has faced dreadful heresies before and will continue to do so. The fact that we live in such a time does not prove anything about the Church's validity.
>I just haven't interacted much at all with EO people
More of a practical reason than anything but I should add it for completeness' sake.

My biggest reason is hard to explain. I sympathise with your viewpoint very much but I think you're slightly mistaken on something. If you go around choosing which church you want to belong to based on what you think the Church is, how are you not a Protestant? At the very least, you're a giant hypocrite when you criticise them for doing what you have done. Now this is not the part where you're wrong. This is just to explain that the attitude of "I know what the Church is and I will judge my father on whether he conforms to it" is not how it works. The Church has wisdom and we receive it from our spiritual fathers. What then can we say about the situation? If we are to receive from our fathers but our fathers have gone astray, how can I say that it's not correct to judge them unworthy and to seek new ones? This is the part where you're mistaken: You have judged based on a thin slice of history as if all the saints who have come before us are dead and gone and no longer matter. You have judged that in this present moment, your former church has departed from the faith without considering that the innovators of today are a tiny minority in the face of generations of faithful Christians who are alive and praying for us in Heaven. And you are privy to no knowledge about how many future generations there may be. If you do claim that then show us a sign or submit to stoning.

This is why I put my lesser reasons first. Because they are not really lesser reasons but are part of a whole reason. I have not converted to another church because I have decided to trust in God. Correct doctrine is important but Christianity is not about being right per se, it's about learning to be God's sons. It's about humility and taking up our crosses and all the rest about which you should already know. Christianity is a religion that's done not a religion that's debated. It's a practical religion not an intellectual one. There may come a day when I convert to EO (or some other church). God has already led me to change my beliefs before and I would hardly be the first Anglican in my situation to cross the Tiber or Bosphorus. But I will leave that to God's providence. I will not let the evils of this age shake my faith but rather follow the psalmist when he says,
>Fret not thyself because of the ungodly: neither be thou envious against the evil doers.
>For they shall soon be cut down like the grass: and be withered even as the green herb.
God may want me to move to another church or He may want me to stay here or He may want me to move but on His own timing. Where He leads me, I pray that I will have the grace to follow.

>we have all 7 sacraments
It was my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that EO didn't follow the same list of seven defined sacraments but rather the viewed the whole life of the believer as a sacrament. It was only when pressed by Rome that they agreed these seven might be considered special.
>cope
The real cope is running away from evil instead of fighting back.
>>25867
I wasn't part of any denomination before I became Orthodox so I can't touch too much on this. It makes sense to us because we are already Orthodox but to other Christians "off the internet" they see things a lot differently. I was somewhat super duper zealot when I first became Orthodox and thought all my other Christian friends would automatically understand our positions and immediately convert. But that just isn't how things work. Some people just are not interested in learning how old Orthodox liturgy is and want instead to practice the old worship services that their own family members have always done. They are not interested in theological or scriptural debate, and honestly that is fine. We are still such a small fraction of Christians in the West, so we should be cautious in assuming that our side of the fence must appear enticingly green to everyone else.
>Fiducia supplicans ("Supplicating Trust")[1] is a declaration on Catholic doctrine that allows Catholic priests to bless persons in same-sex relationships and certain other relationships.[2] It was published in December 18, 2023 by the Catholic Church's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) and approved by Pope Francis.[3] It was the first declaration by the DDF since Dominus Iesus in 2000.[4]

While the declaration does not change Catholic doctrine on marriage, which the Church reserves for heterosexual unions, Fiducia supplicans was interpreted by Francis's supporters and opponents as a stepping stone to a future recognition of same-sex marriage by the Church. Francis advised that Vatican bureaucrats should avoid "rigid ideological positions" shortly after the declaration was made.[5] It overturned a 2021 policy by the Vatican's doctrine office, which had forbidden such blessings.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiducia_supplicans
catholics plz
Replies: >>26160
>>26158
Be me. 
Open my Catholic Missal. 
Lists sodomy as one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance. 
Remembers that the Catholic faith is infallible (never wrong) and indefectible (never changes). 
Reads about "Pope" blessing sodomite marriages. 
How do you bless a sin? 
The faith is the Bible and the Popes, but the Lord himself said Matthew 19:4-5. How can a real Pope say the Bible is wrong and bless sodomy?
Oh well...
Replies: >>26163
>>26160
IMO you already know the answer inside, Anon. Do you honestly think the problem is either with Jesus & His words, or with the faithful recording of them within the Holy Scriptures?
1703437445647-0.jpg
[Hide] (41KB, 688x360)
>Luke9:49“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.”

>50“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I actually asked God through a Bible generator and picture related is what he said. The infighting of Christians is so tragic, correction is fine but we should work together even if we disagree on a lot.
Replies: >>26385
>>26221
>The infighting of Christians is so tragic, correction is fine but we should work together even if we disagree on a lot.
Amen brother
I wasn't the one being argued with but there were some interesting questions ITT.

>which denomination bro, check em
Quaker

>how come/how so?
Not by lineage or marriage or anything, by grief/happenstantial divine grace/by accident

>why
It most closely resembles how (not necessarily what) I think on most matters

>you reject though some stuff in the Bible, don't you? DON'T YOU?
Yeah, original sin and sacrifice are not concepts that I understand properly. The idea of a blood debt that must be paid is unsatisfactory since death is a poor arbiter of satisfaction, that is to say it doesn't offer any. If it did then those doing the reaping would surely receive it. I do not accept the story that God booted us from Heaven in a rage but I anticipate that man requested it against God's better judgement. I accept that Jesus sacrificed everything for us so as to enoble us, but not because God demanded payment as tax collector from his debtors.

Ordinarily I would think these things are fine and simply lost to allegory - lessons left to a people who needed them in the exact manner they were given, but then again Jesus himself refers to Hell several times as a real place which is another aspect that I don't understand.

Since I believe it canon that the soul without God is not eternal and necessarily dies; to be prolonging suffering in some realm devoid of God would be ungodly or lacking in mercy.

That is about the extent of my heresy. I maintain it like that in order to be logically consistent. If you get butt-maddened I'll remind you that I crawled from a car crash just to find myself at this religion, it wasn't facilitated by inheritance or any way intentional.

>why NO U Catholics
1. Not just being co-opted but claiming that all others suck

They get full of themselves saying they're the only real Christianity even though their Pope's an evil gay atheist. You could fault my own in this way: Quakerism is an already defeated sect, co-opted and destroyed. Genuine adherents are scattered to the winds. So on the point of co-option it's debatably much worse, we just don't have "officially" any leadership to follow into sin like that. I can sit here claiming that *my* way, the *genuine* way, is the *best* way but it is not "the ONLY way or else fuck you". It just isn't. We've all got lineage. Yours is the most uninterrupted and the best? Well have some applause for the Pope you've got is the best one so far.

2. Getting leadership that's hedonistic and lazy since the 5th century, and then getting in the way of arguments to settle contradictions with other more meaningless ones about who next gets to be Pope

God promised me that whoever kills man will in turn be killed by man. Yet George Bush and Tony Blair are alive. They're getting to be very old men in fact. And every contradiction there is in the world leads men to less faith. The priestly class are meant to resolve deep fundamental problems. I get that there are wars and upheaval and it's hard to focus but 2000 years is a lot of years.

If I met Jesus I don't know if I'd argue or if I'd weep uncontrollably. But while you're refining grace it would be great if you could distill the truth.

3. Those contradictions unresolved as they are still get preached in sermons in a way that's insulting or otherwise untrue

I sometimes listen to the channel Sensus Fidelum, and it's not the Reverend Lovejoy delivery that's ripe for satire that I take issue with but the problem of being intellectually lethargic instead, and showing disdain of your audience for then doubting the things you say.

If that's all I thought that Christianity was I'd have left and never returned. I'm mindful that this will be 20 paragraphs long but I might even be able to find the sermon I'm refering to if I go looking for it.
Replies: >>26616 >>26638
>>26615
youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_Qnhd10S8
sorry have not figured out embed

How many times have I heard it now? The black death? "Necessary suffering". The potato famine? "Necessary suffering." The airplane crash? "Necessary suffering."

Centuries of weak excuses for reasoning that's clumsily used or chosen.

Guilt, guilt, guilt; you're not meek enough, you're not impoverished enough...

This is a man who I think believes what he says but whose work has become just another drudging daily graft on a Thursday afternoon. If that's what you got every Sunday you would not go.
Sorry about the projecting cope I wrote last night really just need God's help.
>>26615
>Yeah, original sin and sacrifice
So you reject the entire religion, in other words
>The idea of a blood debt that must be paid is unsatisfactory since death is a poor arbiter of satisfaction, that is to say it doesn't offer any. If it did then those doing the reaping would surely receive it.
I don't know what you mean by this. If your meaning is that the satisfaction would be received by the slayer, then you'll be satisfied to know scripture says it was the Father who poured out His wrath upon Christ on the cross. 
>I do not accept the story that God booted us from Heaven in a rage
It was the garden, not heaven, but since you don't accept that maybe instead you'll accept that we all decided to leave the land of magical carebears? I mean why not? Since apparently what God said isn't the standard here, what Anon likes is the standard, you can just make up whatever ridiculous pagan nonsense you want. 
>Ordinarily I would think these things are fine and simply lost to allegory
That seems very convenient doesn't it? It isn't you and your emotions that are wrong, it must be God's word that got it all wrong. 
>which is another aspect that I don't understand.
There is a BIG difference between "I don't understand" and "I don't believe".
>Since I believe it canon that the soul without God is not eternal and necessarily dies; to be prolonging suffering in some realm devoid of God would be ungodly or lacking in mercy.
Of course the soul dies. Nobody would ever say otherwise. The problem is that you are again acting on an autonomous, secular notion of "death" and making up for yourself what it means for the soul "to die". What the reprobate receives is not mercy, mercy only comes through Jesus Christ, what they get instead is justice. And the elect are passed over only because they already paid that great penalty for their sins upon the cross of Calvary.
>I maintain it like that in order to be logically consistent. If you get butt-maddened I'll remind you that I crawled from a car crash just to find myself at this religion, it wasn't facilitated by inheritance or any way intentional.
My friend, there is nothing consistent about that. And you did not derive this from a car crash, but from the same source as any other pagan: the foolish wisdom of man, and the whisperings of the enemy. I assure you that if you embrace the true religion it will also not be derived either from a car crash or from your own mind, but the very revelation of the true God.
nep_scared.gif
[Hide] (2.6MB, 200x200)
why is it so hard to pick a denomination
i just read through this entire thread in one sitting and all im getting is that protestantism is wrong because it doesnt trace back to the original church but the current catholic church is also wrong because it's practices are heretical, with different anons saying that it became heretical at different points but not mentioning any alternative place or method of worship to go that isnt heretical
what the fuck am i supposed to do, wheres the salvation?
The majority of this thread is just two anons getting in a galaxy-sized argument with each other where nobody wants to admit they're wrong (i.e. 99% of arguments on the internet). Ultimately Protestants and Catholics primarily disagree on sacraments and the nature of salvation, but the most important part is the belief in Jesus Christ as God's son and savior. The Apostle's and Nicene creeds lay out the foundation of Christianity, that is what you should believe in first and foremost. Start from there.
[New Reply]
472 replies | 108 files | 132 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1