"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" is the biggest lie I've ever heard. I used to be impressed by the supposed deep traditions of Catholicism, but when you dive deeper than the pull quotes from church fathers you see that so many traditions are late inventions. For example there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD, yet it's presented as some gigatrad practice. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "In point of fact there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050." and "it was only in the middle of the twelfth century that the Hail Mary came at all generally into use as a formula of devotion."
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Catholics simply show their poor education when they deny Protestantism an equally great culture. Virtually all the great contributions of England and Germany have been the result of Protestantism.
Blatant bullshit. How could you possibly think this?
Because I have a basic education?
Clearly not. It’s even alleged that Shakespeare himself was a Catholic. I bet you’re going to claim Goethe was a Protestant or something.
Shakespeare belonged entirely to English Protestant culture, cope however you like, his plays and the scant records of his life make it abundantly clear he didn't believe in any authority of a pope. Schiller himself credits Luther with laying the basis for the entirety of German culture up to that point, and indeed a freer manifestation of the Christian religion.
Citing historical accidents is irrelevant here, sir. For it may be that the form of a religion is acrimonious to art, and yet art is created in spite of it. We must look to the internal form of Protestantism as a body of theological doctrines, and discern its true spirit, and not only to historical examples of Protestant artists.
Protestantism is ultimately acrimonious to art because it is ultimately a purely legalistic, rationalistic religion. This is due to its separation of the concepts of "sanctification" and "justification". Justification in the Protestant sense means being declared righteous in the sight of God -- without any internal change in the believer's soul. Sanctification involves the change of the soul towards Godliness and Virtue. By separating the two concepts, Protestantism de-mysticises Christianity. There is no longer need for great devotions, buildings, statuary, sublime masses, sacred objects, wailing chants, pious acts. The believer is simply "saved" by an internal acquiescence to the reality of God and sin, and the need for salvation.
This rationalism is also present in the Protestant's hatred of form and ritual -- which is not so pronounced in Anglicanism and Lutheranism but is the natural evolution of Protestant doctrines. In Protestantism, these things are all "signs" or, in the low church denominations, even frivolities, which bear no true significance. The Catholic religion makes a true distinction between the priest and layman, between mere bread and the Eucharist. Such an amazing sense of the sacred, immanently real, is an inspiration to art.
Your definition of Protestantism is patently ridiculous and flies in the face of Luther's writings and the entire practice and tradition of the Protestant religion. Okay anon, willfuly ignore those absolutely genuine religious qualities unique to Protestantism. When I criticise the pompous superficiality of Catholicism I will ignore the genuine spirituality, unique to that artifice, which ideally, at least originally, underpins it. This is the problem with Catholics, they are so astoundingly stupid, stupid fundamentally, because they insist on rationalising (as if they were a medieval scholastics) the superiority of the Church anywhere and everywhere they can. It results in the most bunk logic, the most dishonest argumentation. A whole heap of stock arguments to be resorted to, ignorant of any real knowledge of a subject being discussed, it's no different from seeing the world through the lens of a cult. On every level your criticism is stupid. Initially, it is stupid because the definition is itself wrong: I could easily say (and this has a perfect basis in Pietism and tradition) Protestantism lays a GREATER emphasis on mysticism, because it orientates the individual to God directly, entirely above the status of the individual. This is not equivalent to saying the status of the individual does not matter, and the idea that Luther would be fine with an insincere faith is just ridiculous. Secondarily, it is stupid because it imagines Protestantism to only be a collection of documents, and as such the product of rationalism, rather than the product of an entire time, place, culture and spirit, just like every religion in existence, that intersects with and to some extent bases itself upon theological writings, the complexity of which cannot be boiled down to the ascription of mere legalistic quibbling. No, no, ignore that! Simply defend your pompous Catholic sense of superiority at all costs, ignore the English and German cultural renaissances, ignore the countless TRADITIONS of artistic culture that resulted from Protestantism, just keep repeating the same cliches and ignore most of history! In Italy, thanks to the Counter-Reformation, I can say Catholic ritual is reduced to a joke, and sincere faith was by and large replaced by bogus superstition. And there's no shortage of ridiculous Catholic theology, if one wants to highlight it, and not 'the best'. I will simply insist these bad elements are all Catholicism has, without any inspiration left for art, and one only has to look at a great deal of atrocious pseudo-traditional Catholic 'art', but.. oh no, that's only some cases, now you wish to be subtle, now you want to be partial and analyse things properly. It's so childish. You cannot have a realistic discussion with the type of Catholics that is dogmatically anti-Protestant. They insist on total cultural ignorance.
Finally a Jehovah Witness who knows what he's talking about.
None of these sects would show any appreciation for the Catholic religion, as I do.
Finally a Southern Baptist who knows what he's talking about.
Finally a Mormon knows what he's talking about.
Finally a seventh Day Adventist who knows what he's talking about
Finally a Presbyterian who knows what he's talking about
Your response is baffling. You rail at my "definition" of Protestantism -- but I never offered one. I analysed an aspect of Protestantism -- indeed an important aspect, one could say the most important -- namely the distinction between sanctification and justification.
You say I said "Luther would be fine an insincere faith" -- again, where are you getting this?
I said Protestants distinguish between sanctification and justification. They make a distinction between "becoming Godly" and "being saved". But of course, to be saved is nothing less than to become Godly, the process of salvation from sins IS just identical to the process of increasing in Virtue and becoming saintly.
In Protestantism, the process of salvation from sins is entirely separate from the process of becoming Godly. One must only believe. This internalisation of the religious process into mere acquiescence to a set of propositions instead of an active, life-long journey of self-transformation, is precisely where Protestantism becomes hostile to mysticism.
I am not impressed by your arguments that Protestantism, "like every religion", represents something deep and profound about the human spirit. Do you think the yapping Pentecostals, whose form of religious expression is to roll around on the floor and bark like dogs, represent something "profound" about the culture? Just because a religious community exists and is popular does not mean that the religion is praiseworthy.
Protestantism is, in its essence, rationalistic. The emphasis on the individual's justification through faith over the communal, ritualistic and essentially political expression of the Catholic religion -- how is that not at the root of modern rationalism, secularism, and liberalism?
I like what you write but man stop with the reddit spacing.
>t. tripgay
>tripgay
>muh reddit spacing
NTA but you're in the wrong
>your arguments that Protestantism, "like every religion", represents something deep and profound about the human spirit.
Never said that, you're a moron who can't read properly. If you want to point out stupid expressions of Protestantism, I can do the same for Catholicism, and that gets nowhere. Your entire post is nothing but misinterpreting simple English, and then desperately rambling about how Catholicism is superior on the most tenuous arguments. For example: Being saved is a process of becoming better, more godly. And what argument do you have to deprive Protestantism of an equally profound view of the matter? Instead you simply ignore any genuine Protestant interpretation, since you would never bother to gain academic knowledge of Protestantism, the views that Protestants themselves take. You certainly ignored my own description of it, to instead repeat yourself. There have been great artistic expressions of the particular Protestant approach to salvation, and that is undeniable to anyone with a basic education. There have been great incarnations of mysticism within Protestantism, that is also undeniable. These are veritable traditions of high culture. But your education does not go beyond Catholicism, your knowledge of everything probably comes from Catholic writers. To anyone with a brain Protestantism, at least that descending from Luther, has not been hostile to either art or mysticism. The extraordinary self-delusions, to literally say, 'it was an accident' that art and mysticism popped up here and there, even ignoring the lasting of centuries, is unfortunately an unexpected degree of desperation from people who swallow Catholic propaganda wholesale. Can't you look at history yourself, the specific examples, and see the truth? No, you MUST ignore any unique productive spirit in Protestant culture and say 'lalalalalala'. I understand the dogmatic refusal to understand anything in the highest theological spheres of Protestantism, but to rampantly deny every productive or good element, at every single stage, right down to the very lowest virtue... Astounding stupidity, but it's what should be expected.
You are a liar and not even a Christian.
Yes, you absolutely did say that. I quote: “rather than the product of an entire time, place, culture and spirit, just like every religion in existence….” According to you, “every religion in existence”, is to be viewed as an authentic expression of a culture’s spirit.
As for your other points, you simply refuse to acknowledge that Protestantism makes a distinction between sanctification and justification, and you won’t deal with the arguments against such a distinction. You just keep asserting, in writhing demonic anger, that Protestantism “just does” have an “equally profound” understanding, and your only evidence you proffer is that Protestantism has been around for a long time. That, as I have shown with the counterexample of the Pentecostals, is not a sound argument.
I don’t believe for a second you are even a Christian or love the truth. It seems like for you Christianity is a force of culture, a part of sentimental nationalism, something that allows you to drop names such as “Bach” and “Goethe” and talk about the centuries of tradition in Protestantism. You even hinted that “every religion” —- including the ones that most blasphemously deny our Lord Jesus Christ —- is to be considered noble and praiseworthy, whereas true Christians know that all of those religions are products of the devil. And you don’t even understand Protestantism because you seem to be denying that it makes a distinction between sanctification and justification, even though that is one of its central and most controversial doctrines.
You are, at best, a cultural Christian, at worst a secular intellectual who fancies himself cultured and therefore condescends to give credit to us barbarous Christians for our supposed “cultural spirit”, as though you stood above us and our petty theological disputes. The new atheists are more honest.
NTA but you are really dumb. The anon is making a distinction between unbiased truth and what he believes, you can't then call him a a fake Christian for having objective observation. Just accept that Protestantism is not acrimonious to art.
Finally a Branch Davidian who knows what he is talking about
Finally a member of the Westboro Baptist Church who knows what he's talking about.
Finally a Moonie who knows what he's talking about.
Finally, James Warren Jones graces the thread with a post. A true Protestant who knows what he's talking about.
>There is no longer need for great devotions, buildings, statuary, sublime masses, sacred objects, wailing chants, pious acts.
Yes, there is no longer any need for paganism.
>everything is paganism
Why are dispensationalist amerimutt Protestants so schizophrenically paranoid about this?
>everything is paganism
Not far from the truth.
American Churchianity naturally encourages schizotypal personalities. That's why it is so inundated with right-wing politics. They're conspiratorial by nature, and those who aren't are so constantly exposed to nonsense that they grow paranoid. "You can't eat candy on Halloween or you're sinning! Don't ask why! HYalloween is just a Satanist conspiracy ok! Joe Biden is the unironically antichrist (so was Obama and also Nancy Pelosi and also Hillary Clinton and also my neighbor who votes democrat)!"
Your point being...?
This is why everything is referred to as paganism. Because something they don't understand must be a conspiracy from the Devil.
What don't I understand?
For reference, I'm very involved in the SBC and it's an uphill battle against this stuff. I'm speaking from experience.
What is the general Evangelical opinion on Trump's new Bible with the Declaration of Independence and Lee Greenwood's country song added into it? It seems like the kind of thing that's kitschy enough to make even die-hard Evangelicals turn on Trump, but I could also see them falling hook-line-and-sinker for it.
NTA but it means American can never be traditional or have a long term stable religious environment
Cults and sects did this
Point being prots are scattered sheep without a shepherd. Led astray by 1830s Millerites.
Protestantism might be legalistic, but it's very hard to claim it has remained rationalist outside the rapidly declining mainline traditions. Even with Luther, we already see faith being set against reason. Reason is defective after the Fall for Luther. When Erasmus complained to Luther that a God who forces man to sin, then punishes him for it, seems evil, Luther's response was simply that man's reasons was so defective that God seems evil to us.
Misology reins today in Evangelical circles. Reason can be used pragmatically but is ultimately dangerous. Faith is faith. There isn't "faith seeking understanding," like Aquinas or "believe so that you might understand," as in Augustine and Anselm, rather "faith alone."
Everything boils down to faith -> justification. Sanctification, illumination, metanoia, and theosis are essentially absent. In the Reformed mold, there isn't even sanctification. Humans are piles of excrement covered in the pure snow of Christ. Even the concert is disgusting to God. Humans are repugnant to God, who saves a few for reasons forever beyond human knowledge, and consigns most to eternal torment because he hates his creation. Here, nothing of human reason can touch salvation. Our salvation has nothing to do with us.
>We must look to the internal form of Protestantism as a body of theological doctrines, and discern its true spirit, and not only to historical examples of Protestant artists.
>aka, we can't look at the actual cultural output of protestant artists. We have look at the doctrine and opine if it should've produced this output.
Holy cope. Are trad bros really that desperate?
>>""aka, we can't look at the actual cultural output of protestant artists.""
Great art has arisen from the Protestant tradition, yes -- but recently?
Just look at all the Catholic artists. They almost never tip the fedora, even if they've left the church.
Joyce, Picasso, Hitchwiener, Greene, Waugh, Pynchon, Scorsese, the list goes on.
Different forms of distinctly Protestant culture continue to exist, to be sure, but where are the notable Protestant or ex-Protestant artists - I dunno, in the past 100 years - whose art is informed by their formative Protestant religious experience?
Van Gogh, arguably. Beckett, arguably. T.S. Eliot, definitely... maybe... probably? Paul Schrader, definitely. Who else?
Wasn’t TS Eliot Catholic?
Adult convert to Anglicanism (raised Unitarian).
Reminds me:
C.S. Lewis, definitely.
Shakespeare was Catholic. His sister translated a Catholic Italian treatise. His father was Catholic.
> his plays and the scant records of his life make it abundantly clear he didn't believe in any authority of a pope
The fat Angloid king prohibited expressions of Catholicism.
To be fair Shakespeare made an indirect joke about Jesuits in Macbeth, but it was the kind of joke even a Dominican or a Franciscan of the time would have probably laughed along with. I don't buy the idea of Shakespeare being a full-blown recusant Catholic, but he obviously had Catholic sympathies.
The problem with sola scriptura is that even after you've binned the deuterocanonicals, the scriptures still cite non-scriptural sources. The problem with sola fide is that the Epistle of James pretty unequivocally condemns it (hence why the Reformers originally wanted to bin it along with the OT deuteros).
>His sister translated a Catholic Italian treatise
A random anti-Catholic treatise was signed 'J.Shakespeare', it could have been the work of thousands of others. Shakespeare's sister probably couldn't even read Latin. This is a ridiculous distortion of the truth. And Shakespeare father was not Catholic, period, there's zero evidence for that.
You're just lying.
You need to keep up with the new information.
>A University of Bristol academic has uncovered that a mysterious religious tract found in the attic of William Shakespeare’s Stratford home in the mid-1700s was written by the famous playwright’s unknown sister, Joan Shakespeare.
>The discovery was made by Professor Matthew Steggle from the Department of English who used online archives like Google Books to analyze a rare 17th century Italian religious text. His research revealed that a long-lost document, previously thought to be written by Shakespeare’s father John, was actually penned by Joan.
>The document in question is a religious tract pledging to accept death as a good Catholic. It was found hidden in the rafters of Shakespeare’s birthplace in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1757. Early Shakespeare scholars assumed it belonged to John, implying he was a secret Catholic at a time when the faith was persecuted in England.
>However, Steggle’s analysis proved the document was a translation of a 17th century Italian text titled “The Last Will and Testament of the Soul” published years after John’s death in 1601. By cross-referencing digital copies across European libraries, Steggle determined the only other “J. Shakespeare” who could have authored it was Joan.
>The mysterious Shakespearean tract contains quotes affirming Joan’s Catholic beliefs, such as: “I, [Joan] Shakespeare, do protest that I will willingly accept of death…conforming my will unto the will of God.” It also reveals her veneration of St. Winifred, a 7th century Welsh princess particularly revered by women for repelling male sexual advances.
https://thedebrief.org/digital-research-just-uncovered-a-family-secret-of-the-worlds-most-famous-playwright/
Shakespeare came from a Catholic family and was most likely Catholic. He's one of us. Sorry, prottie, but good luck getting a once-in-a-millenium genius next time.
Relax Protlard.
Prots have Joseph Smith
Prots have Charles Russell
Prots have KING JAMES from the LA Lakers
Prots have Steve Anderson
Prots have David Koresh
Prots have Jim Jones, kool aid man
Prots have Ellen White
Shakespeare, Nakespeare, what's the big deal?
It was found over a hundred years after in a house he had once lived in, and the guy who found it thought it was a forgery and academia is far from confident in its authenticity or attribution to the Shakespeare family. Compared to everything Shakespeare wrote and what we know about his life, it’s not evidence at all. Shakespeare’s plays would 100% be considered heretical to any Catholic. Modern Catholics will ignore this just to claim him.
Awww I love the way you cope :3
>good luck getting a once-in-a-millenium genius next time.
Durer, Milton, Rembrandt, Bach, Thorvaldsen...
not to shitpost but
>Durer
Not actually Protestant
>Milton
Discount Dante
>Rembrandt
Discount Michelangelo
>Bach
Discount Mozart
>Thorvaldsen
Discount Bernini
Everything you said is wrong. You are shitposting. Also Canova is the more correct Italian/Catholic comparison with Thorvaldsen.
>claim Goethe was a Protestant or something.
spiritually, yes. any sort of rebellion against medieval thinking in western civilization (including the ideologies that make this conversation both technologically and legally possible) ultimately derive from protestantism
any insightful thinker past Luther is spiritually protestant
>any sort of rebellion against medieval thinking in western civilization (including the ideologies that make this conversation both technologically and legally possible) ultimately derive from protestantism
Christ prayed for the Church's unity: it would mean the conversion of the world. John 17:22-23.
Luther created the individualism that defines modernity: "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." An attitude that ensures division and separation, as we indeed see in the many Protestant divisions. With that division being the engine behind the modern world's loss of faith, if Christ's words in John 17 are to be believed.
your ability to even read this post is sociologically, technologically, linguistically, legally only possible because of protestantism.
even debating this topic online makes (you) a spiritual protestant
Luther's novel theory of justification by faith alone was a pivotal moment in the development of modernity. Rooted in his personal anxieties about salvation, his neurosis-based theology unleashed a social contagion.
By undermining the collective cohesion of religious authority and fostering a climate of individual autonomy, Luther set in motion a trajectory towards a fractured society where divergent interpretations of truth proliferated. He destroyed the unity of the Church, leading to the collapse of faith in the West and the rise of a brave new neo-paganism.
We're all pre-op trannies now. Thanks, Luther.
>Thanks, Luther.
Well if the RCC didnt act like a bunch of usurious israelites then people would have condemned Luther instead of following suit.
>Well if the RCC didnt act like a bunch of usurious israelites then people would have condemned Luther instead of following suit.
The Church behaved badly wrt indulgences, but the real Church-dividing issue was sola fide.
The best discussion of the issue I've seen is in a short book called 'The Roots of the Reformation' by Karl Adam, a German Catholic historian.
>It is unnecessary to emphasize how much this hideous simoniacal abuse of indulgences corrupted true piety, and how indulgences were perverted to a blasphemous haggling with God. Night fell on the German Church, a night that grew ever deeper and darker as other abuses attached themselves to the excessive cult of relics and the practice of indulgences.
>Yes, it was night. Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marvelous gifts of mind and heart, his warm penetration of the essence of Christianity, his passionate defiance of all unholiness and ungodliness, the elemental fury of his religious experience, his surging, soul-shattering power of speech, and not least that heroism in the face of death with which he defied the powers of this world--had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time and the cleansing of God's garden from weeds, had he remained a faithful member of his Church, humble and simple, sincere and pure, then indeed we should to-day be his grateful debtors.
>He would be forever our great Reformer, our true man of God, our teacher and leader, comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people...
>But--and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation and of German Christianity--he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself, founded upon Peter, bearing through the centuries the successio apostolica; he let them drive him to commit what St. Augustine calls the greatest sin with which a Christian can burden himself: he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ.
The full text is available online here:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/roots-of-the-reformation-10330
I'm literally a troony and the heir to seven generations of Lutheran priests
it's all bullshit. digestible tales to guarantee low quality men access to vulnerable women and children. Catholicism is the same shit. thousands year old pedophile cabal. will be wiped out with the cleansing flame of jihad (non-denominational), same as the israelites, hindoo castists and other pedos
I cannot wait for the day abrahamoids are cleanses from this earth. not a single child is safe until that day
kek go a little less hard on the bait next time anon
the worst part is that every word of it is true
The idea of a troony calling anything else an excuse for "low quality men to get near women and children" with no sense of self-awareness or irony is too ridiculous to be true, sorry.
I'm a gold star HSTS
troonyism is confused self-awareness by definition.
>any sort of rebellion against medieval thinking in western civilization
I guess the Renaissance Humanists (who the Protestants will schizophrenically smear as "pagans" anyway) were all Protestant.
yes.
I can't believe the Puritans did all this, real Protestant work ethic(tm).
yes.
1050 is late?
>Virtually all the great contributions...
a basic education wrote that sentence.
>muh trad faith that goes right back to the apostles
>also here's something we made up in the middle ages that you have to do
Interesting.jpg
>that you have to do
? Source
>go to confession
>priest says pray 50 Hail Marys as penance
>if you don't, you are not in a state of grace and might go to hell
Not exactly. Confession and the penance are separate. Lack of penance doesn't invalidate the confession.
James 5:16
I do think confession the way it is used now has warped too far from it's original purpose, to tell your community of your sins and heal together with an Apostolic Priest giving guidance. The Eastern Orthodox seem to do a better job at this. You can still have a good confession in the Catholic Church, but you need a Priest who remembers the original idea, and it is a cumbersome ritual currently.
In the western world it has devolved into a sort of strict test where if you fail you go to hell, and I know too many Catholics who convince themselves they are unforgivable because they cannot hype themselves up into going into confession with the way it is autistically set up. This is not even going into the problem that Priests do not provide enough times for confession, if it is truly that important, then it should be as available as the Eucharist. This is also not going into how the Catholic Church proclaimed masturbation a grave sin to own the hippies in the 1960s.
Now I am not endorsing Protestantism here, because I'm my opinion they doubled down on the worst Germanic punishment impulses which originally caused the Catholic Church to become corrupt in the first place and caused the issues I just mentioned with confession in the Latin Rite. They had the opportunity to fix things, but made themselves de facto Popes instead of truly critiquing the heirs of Peter.
>is not even going into the problem that Priests do not provide enough times for confession
It's available all the time before mass. This is completely inaccurate.
https://masstimes.org/
>This is also not going into how the Catholic Church proclaimed masturbation a grave sin to own the hippies in the 1960s.
This has existed since the time of Onan. What are you even talking about.
Unfortunately my Parish only has it 30 minutes on Saturdays and not on Sundays, I fully agree with you that it *should* be available right before every single mass.
As for Onan, that is coitus interruptus
If even entertaining impure thoughts is a sin how is jerking off not a sin?
The Church Fathers equate Onan (at least in one dimension) with masturbation and the Talmud literally says that if you jerk off your hand should be cut off.
>Unfortunately my Parish only has it 30 minutes on Saturdays and not on Sundays
You can always go to another church if you really need to. The idea that confession isn't readily available isn't going to hold up at the pearly gates.
>I know too many Catholics who convince themselves they are unforgivable because they cannot hype themselves up into going into confession with the way it is autistically set up.
You go in, say when your last confession was, say what you did wrong, say sorry, and usually get offered to say some really simple prayers. It is incredibly simple and accessible.
>Priests do not provide enough times for confession, if it is truly that important, then it should be as available as the Eucharist.
It basically is though? Most parishes have confession before every mass, in addition to dedicated times every week, in addition to very common offers to schedule a separate appointment if you want another time beyond those.
you're so well educated but know nothing of which you write.
>Lack of penance doesn't invalidate the confession.
the quality of polemicists on this board keeps getting worse
Does the confession stand without penance?
Confession is scripturally based. Penance as well. The form of penance changes, but this doesn’t invalidate the sacrament, which, in this particular case, was instituted by Christ Himself.
Yes. My favorite verse. "If the special man does not forgive you, neither will I!"
I understand its an important practice for Catholics, however most believe that without the sacraments you are not covered by the blood of Christ, which if you refer to confession as a sacrament, then you're saying that your sins are not forgiven unless the church forgives them.
>John 20:21-23:
>Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
This pertains to the Apostles.
Early Christians believed in the succession of Apostles. Do you know better than they do?
Was Matthias not a successor to an Apostle?
Why would the Apostles be succeeded?
Would you say the work of the Apostles is not important?
That other than Matthew, Peter (who taught Mark), Paul (who taught Luke), John, James and Jude the others were just not relevant? And that their only importance was in preparation for the Bible?
Important? Of course. But, by the same measure, why are Tiberius or Pilate not likewise succeeded?
Tiberius was succeeded by Caligula.
Pontius Pilate was succeeded by Marcellus.
Unless of course you are implying that just as the Roman Empire, Christianity ended.
Did Jesus send his disciples to preach and teach need followers or did he send them to write the Bible and then their work is done? Is Peter's importance solely that of teaching Mark (alongside with Paul) and writing his Epistles?
Were the sacraments of the Apostles not important?
I mean why are Tiberius and Pilate, insofar as they relate to Jesus, not succeeded in this capacity? Even according to Catholicism, their acts were just as important as those of the Apostles.
They were not, as far as we know, part of the Church.
And why do you think Jesus bothered to teach the Apostles, including things that were not written in the Bible?
Wouldn't it be easier to just write the Bible? Why get so many illiterate Apostles instead of getting more like Matthew who could write?
Why would only the generation of the Apostles be able to absolve sins? Are the rest of us who live in other times out of luck?
Why bother to get Matthias to succeed Judas? If Judas can be succeeded, why can't the others?
And most importantly, why were early Christians accepting of the successors of the Apostles and their sacraments?
Do you think you understand Christianity that much better than the direct disciples of the Apostles? Of the people who learned under Peter? Of the disciples of John?
>They were not, as far as we know, part of the Church.
And? Succession being contingent on nothing but "being part of the Church" inevitably leads to "being part of Church" being contingent on nothing but succession. Circularity is textbook pagan thinking.
Why did you ignore the arguments in the post?
How do said "arguments" pertain to the question of Apostolic succession? For example, what relevance would Jesus teaching or not teaching the Apostles have to them being or not being succeeded?
The Apostles had an important job that had to be continued after their death.
Also:
Why would only the generation of the Apostles be able to absolve sins? Are the rest of us who live in other times out of luck?
Why bother to get Matthias to succeed Judas? If Judas can be succeeded, why can't the others?
And most importantly, why were early Christians accepting of the successors of the Apostles and their sacraments?
>The Apostles had an important job that had to be continued after their death.
This backward reasoning. All your other questions are likewise backwardly reasoned from the ideological claim that Apostolic succession is true. Moreover, this is also idolatry, i.e. the implication that the Apostles alone can absolve sins (an implication that you are clearly making in the first question). Absurd.
So, the Apostles were no big deal?
Not particularly, no. Recall that, through their Scriptural acts during the life of Jesus, the common denominator of their behavior is precisely the fact that they do not understand him, culminating in Peter (peculiar, no?) denying him.
Did something happen after the Resurrection that changed the Apostles?
Possibly.
They got a visit from Zombie Jesus with gaping wounds.
Protestants don't actually read the bible. They read John 3:15 and 2 or three chapters of Romans on Sunday and call it a day.
Satan speaks through you.
Apostolic idolatry is only one step removed from Marian idolatry.
You idolize your own intelligence
Perhaps. At least I don't idolize Pachamama.
If they were real people, such as random fishermen, then they would have been morons who couldn't establish anything. That's why Paul could come along and invent his version of Christianity. I suppose whoever could fill in the gaps and take power early would ultimately be the successors.
>Why would the Apostles be succeeded?
>Apostolic succession is blasphemous at best.
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true Christian doctrine is stated by Paul: To ensure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down, Paul told Timothy:
>“[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tm 2:2).
In this passage Paul refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. Thus, St Irenaeus of Lyons, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180:
>Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who... whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] 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; as 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 SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH [i.e. Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.
-St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2, 180 AD (emphasis added)
Btw, both the Orthodox and the Catholics venerate Irenaeus as a saint.
Now, you can interpret the texts of the Bible anyway you please, but Christ gave teaching authority to the apostles, and the apostles passed it down as described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:2, which same principle St. Ireneaus affirmed in 180 AD, as did the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
In short, the early Church - the Church established by Jesus Christ - was founded, from the beginning, on the principle of apostolic succession.
And thus it is said, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant -- because fundamental Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide are not found in the early Church. (And nor are they found in scripture, for that matter: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refutes sola scriptura: "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours," and James 2:24 refutes sola fide: "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone").
None of this means anything.
To elaborate:
Note, first, the absolute circularity of the claim: Apostolic succession is true since the Apostolic succession is constitutive of the Church and the Church is true by Apostolic succession; second, the absolute regressive barbarism of the claim: Apostolic succession is literally allows no "succession" therefrom; third, the absolute idolatry of the claim: Apostolic succession sits among doctrines exactly as the fetish object in the household.
Apostolic succession is blasphemous at best. There are a multitude of popes who clearly used the position for political leverage or personal gain. And others who clearly fornicated with women or fell to drunkeness. Falling from grace happens surely, but this can't work when these are the men who are apparently forgiving sins and also deciphering what we should and should not believe objectively. They have the last word on these things. To claim these men were the mouthpiece of God himself is to disgrace the righteousness it took for our sins to be atoned for. Men are not perfect, and neither were the apostles, but that blessing cannot have been passed down through an office so often disgraced by man's depravity. At least not without acknowledging that Christ did not ensure the perfection of his church. There's nothing to support that biblically anyway. That the apostolic blessing can be passed down due to being a student of them, let alone the student of the student's student's student.
1050 is an entire millenium after Jesus died. Pretty fricking late. Can you even imagine what traditions Christians will be inventing in the year 3024?
>late ?
You know we're dealing with eternity, right?
Also, 2 Peter 3:8
All the great contributions of England to culture have been from before the reformation.
spbp
>All the great contributions of England to culture have been from before the reformation.
Name five.
What the frick, moron. The religion does not inform the potency of the people, it's the other way around. "Protestant work ethic" is Germanic work ethic
>Protestantism
Catholics tend to be control freaks and have personality disorders in the family. Protestants are more free minded but come in many different flavors.
Finally, David Koresh chimes in, a true protestant, who knows what he's talking about.
Protestants can be anything at all. Some act like israelites, others like superstitious pagans, some go to mega churches, and some have great souls.
Catholics since Vatican 2 are also becoming a mixed bag but are much more homogeneous. There is stereotypical Catholic behavior that you can't unsee once you see it.
>stereotypical Catholic behavior
Like what?
They're all ashamed of the same things and feel guilt in a similar way. There is definitely a Catholic scheme.
Interesting observation.
> “Hmm, Protestants really place a lot of authority in this canon of scripture, but who curated the canon?”
> *reads history*
> “Damn. Protestantism is moronic.”
So you deny the power of the Holy Spirit, got it.
Was the holy spirit in Arius?
No.
Did Abraham and Moses need the Church to be saved?
>Sola scriptura
>and also the creeds of Constantine
>Sola Scriptura!
verses and takes out books from the bible
Se above
I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, although I don't doubt that it could be true.
Well who did curate the canon?
How unselfaware can one moron be.
>doesn't believe in sola scriptura
>justifies Catholic Church authority by appealing to scripture
I'm simply not interested in this debate and I don't think anyone weaponizing their catholicism or their protetantism is a Christian at all
truth is a sword
That may be true but it doesn't help protestantism either thoughbeit, since all Protestant traditions are even less traditional since they didn't exist before the 16th century.
Dear friend,
You stumble in your argument on a few matters. First, you assume that Catholics hold that all of our traditions date to Apostolic times. This is not the case. New devotions were regularly introduced throughout Church history, the Hail Mary prayer being one of them. Unlike the Protestants, we Catholics do not believe in a buried Truth, which must be dug up in ancient Biblical manuscripts and discerned by learned interpreters of scripture. Our Church is a living Church, which has the Spirit of God guiding it in the present, and thus new saints, new forms of devotion, can be continuously discovered. We are not an archaeological religion.
Secondly, you fail to understand the meaning of the quote. Where Protestantism fails is primarily in its assumption that "Scripture" is given, even though the actual process of forming the canon of scripture takes centuries of Church tradition. "Sola Scriptura" doesn't work if you don't know what "Scriptura" is. Luther famously wanted to throw out the Book of James, and the Protestants did exclude certain books that the Catholics accept. Scriptura itself cannot tell you what Scriptura is. The Church gave us Scriptura.
Finally, the biggest error of Protestantism, is in its separation of the concepts of justification and sanctification. This is a monstrous error, which inverts the mystical purpose of Christianity, ie. that of transforming the believer's soul into purity and Godliness. Instead, it puts as the ultimate end mere legal "justification" -- being declared righteous with no internal change.
>Finally, the biggest error of Protestantism, is in its separation of the concepts of justification and sanctification. This is a monstrous error, which inverts the mystical purpose of Christianity, ie. that of transforming the believer's soul into purity and Godliness. Instead, it puts as the ultimate end mere legal "justification" -- being declared righteous with no internal change.
Modern Catholics do this as well although they refer to it as "initial justification" and "justification", respectively
>Finally, the biggest error of Protestantism, is in its separation of the concepts of justification and sanctification. This is a monstrous error, which inverts the mystical purpose of Christianity, ie. that of transforming the believer's soul into purity and Godliness. Instead, it puts as the ultimate end mere legal "justification" -- being declared righteous with no internal change.
>he doesn't know about the Ordo salutis
I think this is a misrepresentation of the protestant doctrine.
They believe that the soul changes for the most part (some do not, admittedly, but it's clear Paul has said we have been given a new heart)
Christian sanctification is more close to pursuing-Christlikeness. We don't come to Christ and suddenly act like him. But we do have a heart to be like him. We go from being dead and dumb in our sin, to hating it. The protestants see sanctification as a journey of obtaining fruits of the spirit as they grow closer with him., and thus more behavioral changes begin to show (being able to abstain from sin and vulgarity that they previously were unable to, despite their longing to eschew it). They believe you become changed, just like the Catholics, they just focus on a different part of the Christian journey when describing sanctification.
And Justification as a legal status is described really terribly in that quote. The Christians are celebrating their new righteousness before God as "justified" in the blood of Christ. That they can come before God without hope. Not just that they are not going to be spared for the wrong they've done.
Yes we know Protestants believe in sanctification but they believe it is separate from justification. A Protestant is justified— legally made righteous before God, allowing him admittance into heaven — when he believes. Then he takes on a separate journey of sanctification. The Catholic view states that sanctification is justification — ie you won’t be “declared righteous” legalistically but you will be “made righteous” spiritually. And indeed this is what the Bible teaches:
>Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind [homosexuals], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.
As you see, Scripture makes no distinction between justification and sanctification as the Protestant heretics do.
Ah. I didn't know who I was talking to. My mistake.
How does this passage pertain to the argument? From the excerpt alone, it could just as easily be that the ones predestined to not possess the Kingdom were made unjust and the ones predestined to possess it were made just. Catholics and reading: blood enemies.
okay, but when looking for a scripture to quote his emotions liked the vibe, so clearly you're wrong and he is right.
That passage refutes Protestantism because it says: you were washed, sanctified, justified. In other words, the reason these people could inherit the kingdom of heaven is because they were given the grace to avoid sin, ie they were sanctified, and not because they were legally “declared righteous”. They were MADE RIGHTEOUS by God, and that is what gave them access to heaven. As far as predestination goes, I don’t believe in free will so I don’t disagree with that. But the point here is that God is in the business of making saints, spiritually transforming people, not changing sinners’ legal status to “Righteous”.
And why does the "transformation" precede the "legal status" rather than vice versa?
I say this as a proud Protestant and ex-Catholic, the biggest problem with sola scriptura is that it slowly becomes Sola Ego, what I believe it to mean is what it does mean. Calvin’s preference for Augustine to the point of fetishism is a sign of both Calvin and Augustine’s own biased experience clouding their judgement of scriptures whoes consensus of meaning contradicts them. For Augustine, his manichean upbringing lingered far after his Christian conversion, as his proclaimation of infant baptism, original sin and predestination speaks of a kind of Gnostic holdover, that the human nature is fundamentally broken, so babies ought to be cleansed of it immediately, and the “sparks of light” (elect) are few in number. Calvin, being a lawyer and scholar, saw in Augustinainism his own worries, that being a Protestant was a kind of “waking up” that God had ordained for his time in history for a select few, separated from the dumb masses and whoes main mission was to create heaven on earth in Geneva.
Church tradition is itself merely the aggregate of strongly held opinions by powerful or at least charismatic figures that are inshrined as saints. The Divine Mercy devotion, in a few decades, has become an integral part of Catholicism, all because of JPII’s polish nationalism and anti-communist outlook. Clerical celibacy came about in Rome as a kind of reaction against their recently schismatic brethren in the East and to increse obedience and Chasity in the priesthood. Protestantism is, at the end of the day, honest Christianity like Goethe said, because at the very least, it admits pastor Billy from the Assemblies of God doesn’t have to be listened to when he says Jesus appeared to him and gave him a prayer. The multiplicity of views offered by Protestantism is what’s allowed us to read our posts now, liberal democracy (what the internet basically is) is merely Christianity without Christ
Goethe already solved Catholic/Protestant disputes.
>We scarcely know what we owe to Luther, and the Reformation in general. We are freed from the fetters of spiritual narrowmindedness; we have, in consequence of our increasing culture, become capable of turning back to the fountain head, and of comprehending Christianity in its purity. We have, again, the courage to stand with firm feet upon God's earth, and to feel ourselves in our divinely-endowed human nature. Let mental culture go on advancing, let the natural sciences go on gaining in depth and breadth, and the human mind expand as it may, it will never go beyond the elevation and moral culture of Christianity as it glistens and shines forth in the Gospel!
>But the better we Protestants advance in our noble development, so much the more rapidly will the Catholics follow us. As soon as they feel themselves caught up by the ever-extending enlightenment of the time, they must go on, do what they will, till at last the point is reached where all is but one.
>The mischievous sectarianism of the Protestants will also cease, and with it the hatred and hostile feeling between father and son, sister and brother; for as soon as the pure doctrine and love of Christ are comprehended in their true nature, and have become a vital principle, we shall feel ourselves as human beings, great and free, and not attach especial importance to a degree more or less in the outward forms of religion. Besides, we shall all gradually advance from a Christianity of words and faith, to a Christianity of feeling and action.
Where did he write this?
Eckermann's Conversations.
>the mischievous sectarianism of the Prots will also cease
So Goethe was wrong?
Or we're still waiting ?
>So Goethe was wrong?
Yes, Goethe was wrong, both Catholics and Protestants failed to mature. Albeit German culture developed in quite a unified form until WW2. One could say Goethe was right until WW2 changed everything.
I hear this shit from both sides
Protestants will tell me they feel completely justified in being Protestants after reading the early church fathers and Catholics will tell me the exact same thing
I don't know who to believe
Honestly I think I see it more from Protestants, not Catholics
Tradcats festishize the middle ages they dont care about anything older than that
>I take grace in the proper sense, as the favor of God—not a quality of the soul, as is taught by our more recent writers. This grace truly produces peace of heart until finally a man is healed from his corruption and feels he has a gracious God.
Wow, clearly this is an entirely legalistic religion! Luther must have just been confused about his own beliefs and described them wrong.
Why can't Protestant churches agree on the very basic stuff such as baptism?
>Why can't Protestant churches agree on the very basic stuff such as baptism?
Because Lutherans hold to papist beliefs, and the Reformed are the only ones who follow the Bible correctly. Baptismal regeneration is an abomination.
Correct.
What is even the point of the term Protestant if no one agrees on what it means beyond trying to claim it themselves for moral authority and they all actually have their own specific church names with completely opposed theological ideas.
Like Universalists and Calvinists and Anglicans and Evangelicals and Reformed and Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are all technically Protestant, it is not until you get to Jehova's witnesses and Mormons do people even bother to call them something else, doesn't that make the term worthless?
Nobody is confused about the meaning, and nobody is claiming it means something other than what it really means. It's just you. Have you ever bothered to open a dictionary?
>Protestant, n. and a.: A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; hence in general language applied to any Western Christian or member of a Christian church outside the Roman communion. Opposed to Papist, Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted sense.
That is a fricking stupid definition though, without the "in the Reformation of the sixteenth century" part Eastern Orthodox could be defined as Protestant
It's stupid because the meaning would change if you removed the most important qualifying sub-clause from the definition?
nta but Orthodoxy and Catholicism both claim to be the original Church, both accepting that the "original Church" was meant to have apostolic succession which they represent before the other side broke off from them.
Even in their own name Protestants accept that they themselves broke off from ("protested") Catholicism. They hold no claim to verifiable succession and instead claim to be a recovery of an "early Christianity" that was for varyingly-understood reasons "lost."
>Even in their own name Protestants accept that they themselves broke off from ("protested") Catholicism
Not true, Lutherans profess to be the true original catholic church dealing with corrupt usurpers
Finally, Warren Jeffs a man who knows what he's talking about.
Finally a couple Southern Mormon Witnesses who know what they're talking about.
Anarchists can never agree on anything.
You are confusing Tradition and tradition
>To begin, it is important to note that Sacred Tradition is not the same as what we commonly understand by the word "tradition." We need to distinguish between the terms "tradition" spelled with a lower case "t" and Tradition" spelled with a capital "T." When we spell the word tradition with a lower case letter, we are referring to those things that are more often referred to as "traditions" and have a meaning closer to the word "practices” which are not part of Divine Revelation itself, but are pious customs that have arisen later in the history of the Church (CCC 2651). Examples of traditions include praying the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet, devotions to favorite saints, making the sign of the cross and the like.
>When Tradition is capitalized in this context, it refers to Sacred Tradition. The word tradition comes from the Latin word tradere which means "to hand on." Sacred Tradition is the Scripture as it is lived out in the Church. It is nevertheless the Word of God. Specifically, it is the Word of God that the prophets and the Apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This message which they received was "handed on" to the Christian world by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/god-man-and-the-universe-week-two/what-is-sacred-tradition
If an all knowing God can inspire people to write a book that is misinterpreted (either purposefully or not), how can we take it as being either true or that he's all knowing?
If I wrote shoddy misinterpreted instructions, I would be told off and potentially fired from my job.
It's not even logical for the whole book, let alone later interpretations and churches.
Why is God okay with this crazy game of misinterpretations, mistranslations, purposeful manipulations?
Newman did indeed say that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. I fully agree with him – to see in the Ante-Nicene record, for example, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura built into the high view of scripture held by the fathers, or to see a merely symbolic approach to sacraments – especially the Eucharist – might be possible if all we had were texts in the first 4 centuries discussing the nature of scripture or the Eucharist in a sort of nebulous way. But that is not the case. I maintain, prior to Catholic pre-commitments, that those centuries are inundated from the very start – yes inundated – with an ecclesiology (bishops, apostolic succession, examples of Roman jurisdiction) foreign to Protestantism – as well as many a statement regarding the Eucharist which seems to defy any Reformed interpretation (and more besides about Mary – saints -etc.) Even fathers like Augustine, who are frequently employed by the Reformed to lend credence to Reformed positions, write so many Catholic-like things antithetical to Reformed theology – one can marvel that Calvin ever thought it wise to employ Augustine to his ends in the first place. Indeed, Augustine was a bishop of the Catholic Church and knew himself to be so.
The Catholic hermeneutic can account for the ante-Nicene data, including the high view of scripture and the seemingly symbolic renderings of certain Eucharistic passages (say in Augustine); while the Reformed hermeneutic can only pretend itself to be the heir of the ante-Nicene church, frankly, by ignoring or neglecting wheelbarrow loads of ante-Nicene patristic thought and commentary.
Basically, whatever else the church in the first 4 centuries is; it certainly is NOT Protestant. Whatever obscurity there is to be found in the Patristic documents, there is at least one clear certainty, and that is the religion of the Fathers was not the religion of the Protestants. And that is the context in which Newman's claim was made -- the full import of which can only be gotten by reading the book in which he made that claim:
John Henry Newman, An Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine
Source 1: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
Source 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=YRoEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
>ecclesiology and the real presence are foreign to Protestantism
Lmao
NTA but to mainline Protestantism, not so much. But to a lot of weird Evangelical/Dispensationalist Protestantism that's particularly entrenched in American Christianity? Definitely.
>I fully agree with him
I, too, agree. History itself is a Vatican fabrication.
Catholicism has really been living rent-free inside the heads of every protestant theologian for centuries huh
Yeah. It pretty much answered my question when I was younger for why people don't just use good ideas from the middle ages instead of arguing about left-right bullshit or communism. Every time people try the specter of Papism rises up and people sperg out derailing such efforts.
>there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary
The text of the prayer is literally quotes from the Gospel and the specific devotional use of the prayer isn't portending to be some ancient thing anyway. A popular prayer sourced from scripture (Hail Mary) and a popular devotional practice (Rosary) not being sourced directly from apostolic times is a kind of odd attempt at a takedown that wouldn't bother Catholics nearly as much as other shit I as a Catholic could tell you.
Half of you frickers picked up your tradcath airs from Nick Fuentes.
A thousand year old tradition isn't trad enough for you?
> Only Protestants and Catholics exist
/his/
The early Church Fathers unanimously believed in the Real Presence, the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity, having bishops, infant baptism, intercession of the saints, and apostolic succession. Protestantism was not a return to the Christianity of old. If you care about history you'd be an apostolic Christian like Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
>Protestantism was not a return to the Christianity of old
Indeed. Protestantism is Christianity as such.
Christian history makes me incredibly wary of the Catholic church. The organization is marked by a suspiciously un-Christlike past. And its preservation is skeptical at best, seeing there were multiple occasions in which two popes claimed the papacy simultaneously. History of theology is not the same as Church history.
>Christian history makes me incredibly wary of the Catholic church. The organization is marked by a suspiciously un-Christlike past.
Have you even read First Corinthians? When Christ was still a living memory there were people doing bad sex stuff and shutting out the poor, in the Church itself. Paul never says "you are not the Church", he just calls them to penance and reform, same as Pope Francis does even now. The Church is 100% composed of sinners and always has been - this has never been a problem for us.
>the Real Presence, the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity, having bishops, infant baptism, intercession of the saints, and apostolic succession
Lutherans believe in all of these, and likely the other mainline Prots do too (at least some)
>He argued against intercession of the saints
He revered Mary and encouraged others to do so too. His argument was that people can directly pray and speak to God.
>For example there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD, yet it's presented as some gigatrad practice.
Some hymn was written...in the second millenium (you know, like the ones written by Luther that is pictured in OP, used as the normal form in several times in lutheran liturgies). Plus choosing the one made out of pasting together biblical quotes out of all things.
Don't mention that the credo is found in the acts of general councils, or even the early forms of creed is from the compilation of Apostolic Tradition. Not trad because, we didn't use those words until around 200AD. The Veni Creator was also written around the year 800 yet is usually sung at Pentecost. Guess the Holy Spirit is out.
It is also not the meaning of the word tradition.
In which verse do you find "Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, Now and at the hour of our death. Amen."?
>Don't mention that the credo is found in the acts of general councils, or even the early forms of creed is from the compilation of Apostolic Tradition.
You mean the Apostle's Creed? We're not even talkin about that and Protestants use it in any case.
Could you provide an answer to this?
>You mean the Apostle's Creed? We're not even talkin about that and Protestants use it in any case.
This is exactly what we are talking about since OP tried to make a general assessment based on dates and not just on the one example he provided.
As for the first question, you know very well the mother bit (or genetrix or whatever you call it) is in the visitation, although you can argue about making it explicitly God, instead saying lord meaning Messiah here which doesn't change one bit if you are one of those refusing the most basic theology and the council of Chalcedon. I'll be magnanimous and not ask whether you have an issue with the rest.
>This is exactly what we are talking about since OP tried to make a general assessment based on dates and not just on the one example he provided.
So you cited something really early when OP is talking about medieval inventions?
>As for the first question, you know very well the mother bit (or genetrix or whatever you call it) is in the visitation
No shit. I was responding to your claim that the Hail Mary is "the one made out of pasting together biblical quotes" when half of it isn't in the Bible. So your description of it was misleading.
>"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" is the biggest lie I've ever heard.
What do you mean by "protestant" here? If you mean the catholic church is corrupt and liars that's not a hot take. When people actually started reading the bible a little to closely issues arose and you got stuff like historical criticism tearing up the legitimacy of what the original protestant reformers thought they were defending. Now you can't seriously claim that the bible is some divine revelation and not a bunch of flawed documents glued together over time
Well, one prayer lasting 800-970 years sééms to seem pretty long.
what is the best book in favor of protestantism?
King James
t. Ryan Jones
>Ryan Jones
...what?
Prots worship King James
>Ryan Jones wrote a book about King James
I am still waiting for a protestant justification of Sola Scriptura that doesn't beg the question about what the canon even is or about how they even know they have the right one.
>verification not required
>you forgot to attache the Giga Chad image
Funny seeing as the catholic church fabricated all history between Caesar and 1000 AD
Catholics online really do nothing but hurt themselves when they respond in the way they have been in this thread and in most others on this board and IQfy which try to deal with Protestantism as anything other than a punchline. They make themselves out to be the exact kinds of fools we are warned of by Solomon, so the only types of people they'll end up winning over (if they even hope to win anyone over to Christ rather themselves) are other fools. The Orthodox honestly aren't much better, either; it's entirely understandable how "orthobros" and "catholarpers" became such a large portion of the online Christian "community". That's not to say there isn't a large amount of ridiculous Protestants online, but for the love of God, if you hate Protestantism and desire to aid people in breaking off from what you consider heresy, stop being a mirror of the people you hate. Consider how you interact with people online as a representative of your church.
>Eccl. 7:9 Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
>Prov. 18:7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.
>Matt. 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
>Consider how you interact with people online as a representative of your church.
Should the same not be true for all Christians?
remember this before your effeminate sensibilities lead you astray
LUKEWARMS get the LAKE
Prots are insufferable and should be verbally lashed, at the very least for the good of their
recalcitrant souls.
1 Corinthians 5:5
Protestantism is not a logical step from Catholicism. If you conclude Catholicism is untrue, you ought to stop being Catholic, and go have some other religious belief, or have no religion at all.
Protestantism is the belief that the Catholics made up everything except their holy book, which is perfect and infallible. There’s no reason to think that. When you get into textual criticism, such a belief becomes even flimsier.
Protestants hold the Bible to its word exactly as Jesus holds the flesh to its word.
Was banning Christmas Sola scriptura?
I'm not sure what I believe. It is true that it would have been much easier for Christ to write down exactly how the church was to operate and exact expositions on every single doctrinal issue that would ever arise. Instead, He instituted the Apostles, charged them to go and teach all nations, and ascended into the heavens. If we accept that He was fully God we have to take this to have been deliberate, and so it follows that He wanted His church to be organized, led, and developed by men, with His ministry as the basis. We have to accept that this development through the world-historical is as much a feature as a cause of confusion. Maybe the schisms and the repudiation of heresies over the ages contributed to a great dialectic which is still ongoing. Maybe the church always had to go through this dialectic in order to reach the stage it must be in at the end of time. That's not to say that I think it was good for anyone to cause a schism or for the mutual excommunications and wars of religion were good either, but rather that we should accept that humans and their disagreements make up a more important part of the church than we believe. Or rather that there is not so much an ideal church somewhere "out there" which we must realize in the here and now, but a true church which has been present with us all along but which is only as good and ideal as the fallen human beings inside of it can make it, within the bounds of the promises given by Christ and the Spirit poured on on Pentecost.
Even in their own name Protestants accept that they themselves broke off from ("protested") Catholicism. They hold no claim to verifiable succession and instead claim to be a recovery of an "early Christianity" that was for varyingly-understood reasons "lost."
> Do we not know that the resurrection of the dead is not a less miracle than creation, and much greater than continuation or preservation?
>Do we not know that the re-formation of man is a much deeper mystery than the formation?
>In the formation God spake, and man was made, he breathed into him the living soul, and had no sooner breathed it into him than this man began himself to breathe: but in his re-formation God employed thirty-three years, sweated blood and water, yes, he died over this re-formation.
>Whoever then is rash enough to say that this Church is dead, calls in question the goodness, the diligence and the wisdom of this great Reformer.
>And he who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator thereof, attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus Christ alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles.
>For the Apostles have not brought the Church back to life, but have preserved its life by their ministry, after our Lord had instituted it.
>He then who says that having found the Church dead he has raised it to life -- does he not deserve to be seated on the throne of audacity?
>Our Lord had cast the fire of his charity upon the earth, the Apostles blowing on it by their preaching had increased it and spread it throughout the world
>Protestants say it has been extinguished by the waters of ignorance and iniquity — who, then, shall enkindle it again?
>Blowing is of no use. What is to be done? >Perhaps we must strike again with nails and lance on Jesus Christ the holy living stone, to bring forth a new fire.
>Or shall it be enough to have Calvin or Luther in the world to relight it?
-Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 59
https://archive.org/details/catholiccontrove00sain
>hear Catholics claim Peter was a pope
>read Peter's epistles
>realize Roman Catholicism could never be right
You literally don't even think for yourself.
Your cult leaders tell you only they can interpret scripture. Then your cult leaders tell you scripture says only they're right. How are you so blind?
>I don't believe in Sola Scriptura
It's a shame people don't believe the Bible, a shame that so many would rather believe some priest or bishop or "holy father" pope (a blasphemy).
Luke 1:46-47, only sinners need a savior.
1 Timothy 2:5, only Jesus is the mediator (not mary nor patron saints).
John 14:6, only Jesus is the way (mary is not a co-redemtrix).
Stop giving attributes or titles that are only given to God to man.
the only thing i'd disagree with is the assertion that "purgatory" is a joke. Purgatory might be real, but you can't buy someone out by giving money to the Roman Catholic church
>inb4 purgatory HAS to be le fake
My opinion is that you can't know, after all, how can any human be in heaven before judgement day has occurred?
Purgatory is real, but the Catholic Church fricked up by trying to logic and infer what every step of it will be like. There will be some form of judgement and cleansing fire (and even calling it "fire" might be a mistake, as that is more the concept we identify it as) with afterwards the soul is ready for heaven, but the actual details are just being justified through half-visions and implications in scripture, humility would serve everyone good here
>It's a shame people don't believe the Bible,
I believe the Bible more than any man on earth.
I keep in mind that canons differ in different churches, so who is to say who included the right books?
I have faith in God and Jesus Christ, and he gave me an above average reading comprehension, so I don't need a priest or pope to tell me how to interpret the Bible because my salvation is between me and God. But I also don't need a particular canon to tell me which books should be canonical.
(And I trust that if I am in error about this, God will reveal that to me.)
So how would I believe in Sola Scriptura if I'm not sure if the canon and translation is immaculate?
>So how would I believe in Sola Scriptura if I'm not sure if the canon and translation is immaculate?
You claim to believe the Bible, but you don't believe God's promises from it. Or perhaps you don't have a real Bible, but one of the many translations of the counterfeit bible which introduces errors and attacks or undermines sound doctrine, and many of those perverted versions actually removed that promise from God by perverting the text to change its meaning from God's words to something else. The Bible teaches the authority of Scripture and sufficiency of it for the gospel, with the phrase "according to the scriptures" even being used twice and another similar phrase in Romans and even more instances of similar sentiments (i.e. "it is written" or "have ye not read"). If you're struggling to find God's word, Jesus said by their fruit ye shall know them and the Bible says God's word won't return to him void.
>Or perhaps you don't have a real Bible, but one of the many translations of the counterfeit bible
I have KJV and Gideons
Yeah I believe the words that I read and the promises, but you didn't answer my question, how do we know what books should be canonical when the canons differ in various churches? I don't trust in Luther or Calvin but Christ. I haven't done enough research to affirm or deny "Sola Scriptura" and I certainly wouldn't take the Catholic position and I lean towards the Protestant side, but I am not a member of a Church, I am a member of Christ, so you can't say that I don't believe in the Bible for not believing in Sola Scriptura.
Is there an example in the KJV or Gideons of a person going at it alone or simply a person who did this:
>I am not a member of a church, I am a member of Christ.
Sounds like rebel behavior?
How is one to choose the "correct" church? Are you denying that the Holy Ghost can save someone apart from the church? Is this semantics? for is not the body of Christ one church?
>wherever two are gathered in my name, I am also with them.
So Jesus is with me when I read the Bible with someone, but according to you, I need to be a member of a particular church to be saved. SAD!
>How is one to choose the "correct" church?
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church when He walked the earth.
At His word the Church is founded on Peter the Rock.
By His promise we know the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church.
Against all odds, for 2000 years, Christ has kept that promise -- and indeed He will keep it until the end of time.
In an uncertain world, that is one thing you can count on.
For anyone who is interested, the biblical and historical case for Catholicism is laid out concisely here:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and many churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth century. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.
>wherever two are gathered
Two Members of a church?
1 Corinthians 12:28
So your gonna fill all these positions? Nice
>Sad
Sad for your father
Proverbs17:21
Matt 18:20
>For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
He didn't mention a particular church.
But you deny my salvation and think my faith in Christ is superfluous.
Sorry but I'm a lot closer to believing in Sola Scriptura than the Pope.
so your a catholic, too? Originally I was arguing with someone who believes in Sola Scriptura, not you. I will never believe in your doctrines, but I hope that you, too, will be forgiven and saved. I believed you still can be, even if you stay a catholic, but you probably wouldn't say the same for me.
>Sorry but I'm a lot closer to believing in Sola Scriptura than the Pope.
Interesting, because Scripture plainly establishes the latter while refuting the former (2 Thes 2:15).
>He didn't mention a particular church.
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).
For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
I reject your pope and I believe that Peter would as well.
I guess we'll find out who's right when we're both dead
Drink your milk, child
1 CORINTHIANS 3:2
Got to get fed with cartoons so you can understand
You got to drink milk until you stop with the nonsense "I can do it my way if I want" "I'm smart"
1 Corinthians 3:2
>They hold no claim to verifiable succession and instead claim to be a recovery
Again, why are you lying? Lutherans do claim that succession
No they don’t
This is the based take on it. Imagine belonging to a branch of a religion that defines itself by being in opposition to another, older branch, and then also claims that its actually the secret original version lmfao
Yeah I'm sure original Christianity was "rediscovered" by Germans, sounds totally plausible
>Even in their own name
Post dead on arrival. Protestant was a name given to, not created and celebrated by, the people who protested the Edict of Worms, similar to how Lutheran was a Catholic pejorative. Practically all denominations' or sects' names started out as Catholic insults or other forms bickering, and really it's been that way even within the Catholic church itself from the very start. See the jesuits, pelagianists, montanists, nestorianists, jansenists, jovinianists, etc. Once again, Catholics don't seem to be doing that great of a job at being "deep in history" themselves.
Do you have a source for the claim that the designation "Protestant" was intended to be pejorative? It seems merely to merely track the "protest" and "protestation" language at issue in a straightforward fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_at_Speyer
In fine, the plain, descriptive "Protestant" seems quite a different kettle of fish from terms like Methodist, Quaker, or Shaker which were (in my understanding) originally *meant* to be offensive.
Ya bro
>For example there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD
Apart from the fact that half of Hail Mary is in Luke 1, yeah unless we're speaking of the most ignorant semi illiterate substrates, that were more a thing of rural societies, Catholics are generally aware that the tradition formed and refined with time and didn't come to existence Ex Nihilo in a precise point in time in its definitive form.
In fact, you are citing Catholic Encyclopedia as source.
You are pushing a false narrative that seems strong on the surface but can't stand on its legs upon scrutiny.
To be deep into history is to realise that catholicism as we know it did not exist prior to the protestant reformation and the medieval peoples of northern europe were never catholic.
>He immediately ordered his men to enter the buildings, and to take occupation of the public and private rooms until the time for sailing arrived. These men, urged on by the spirit of the devil, it is believed, rushed into the cloisters of the convent, and, as is usual with so ill-disciplined a mob, they each began to burst into different rooms in which the maiden daughters of important men in the district were looked after in order that they might learn their letters. Most of these girls had already made the decision to take the vow of chastity. The knights, feeling no reverence for the place and abandoning any fear of God, assaulted these girls and violently raped them.
>Not content with those crimes, some of them went to the lengths of committing sacrilege. For after first hearing Mass – clearly without any reverence – before the priest could put away his chasuble, they approached the altar and very quickly seized the chalice from it, gleefully, as if it were plunder.
>Every little hamlet went up in flames, each house being looted and then put to the torch. Neither abbeys and churches nor hospitals were spared. Hundreds of civilians – men, women and children, priests, bourgeois and peasants – were killed while thousands fled to fortified towns
The "catholicism" we see today is the outcome of the counter-reformation and only ever existed in southern europe. Northern europeans were historically never catholic and were basically still pagans and didn't care what a man in a pointy hat thousands of miles away said
Robin hood in the original ballads literally kills and robs from the clergy
At first view it might seem as if Protestantism were entirely destructive to this that we call Hero-worship, and represent as the basis of all possible good, religious or social, for mankind. One often hears it said that Protestantism introduced a new era, radically different from any the world had ever seen before: the era of "private judgment," as they call it. By this revolt against the Pope, every man became his own Pope; and learnt, among other things, that he must never trust any Pope, or spiritual Hero-captain, any more! Whereby, is not spiritual union, all hierarchy and subordination among men, henceforth an impossibility? So we hear it said.—Now I need not deny that Protestantism was a revolt against spiritual sovereignties, Popes and much else. Nay I will grant that English Puritanism, revolt against earthly sovereignties, was the second act of it; that the enormous French Revolution itself was the third act, whereby all sovereignties earthly and spiritual were, as might seem, abolished or made sure of abolition. Protestantism is the grand root from which our whole subsequent European History branches out. For the spiritual will always body itself forth in the temporal history of men; the spiritual is the beginning of the temporal. And now, sure enough, the cry is everywhere for Liberty and Equality, Independence and so forth; instead of Kings, Ballot-boxes and Electoral suffrages: it seems made out that any Hero-sovereign, or loyal obedience of men to a man, in things temporal or things spiritual, has passed away forever from the world. I should despair of the world altogether, if so. One of my deepest convictions is, that it is not so. Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefulest of things. But I find Protestantism, whatever anarchic democracy it have produced, to be the beginning of new genuine sovereignty and order. I find it to be a revolt against false sovereigns; the painful but indispensable first preparative for true sovereigns getting place among us!
Guys, call me moronic but I think we will see a mended catholic-orthodox schism in my lifetime. I truly truly believe it.
>but I think we will see a mended catholic-orthodox schism in my lifetime
Disagree. While Catholicism has done a complete 180 on their opinion of Orthodox in the last 200 years--except for Trad Caths which ties into my point later--there are internal movements that likely are going to push it into a new major schism soon. Orthodox are not going to be interested as long as the Pope seemingly is opening the door on Gay Marriage, for example.
Frankly, the only sort of union I could see happen, is if the Catholic Church suffers an immense cataclysm over the next two centuries, and the weakened faith more or less capitulates to most Orthodox demands. Now, there is still generally eccuminicalism that will be done, but again, as the German Catholic Church and American Catholic Churches fly out of control in opposite directions, the odds the Catholic Church suffers a major schism increase by the decade. Even before that, efforts to try and contain it will blunt efforts to work with other Churches.
Actually, I see even the status of the Church's center of power becoming a crisis much like it did during the end of the Spanish Empire and the Chinese Rites Controversy as internal contradictions boiled over. I've heard American Bishop wanting to 'de-italianify' Catholicism, Tradcaths wanting abandon Europe for Africa, Liberal Universalist Pro-LGBT Germans who want to dominate the curia, and the growing numbers of Catholics in Asia.
The Irish were doing writing and preserving Greek Classics before Charlemagne had even set up his Empire
The Church isn't any "less coherent" than it was in the past; you just see more things going on at once because information travels exponentially faster.
>the weakened faith more or less capitulates to most Orthodox demands.
You know that there are 6x as many Catholics in the world as there are Orthodox, even ignoring the fact that the Orthodox can't stop schisming over stupid political shit like Ukraine, right?
>you just see more things going on at once because information travels exponentially faster
Well yeah, the Catholic Church is not built to have every thought of the Pope go through social media and the media without the usual travel times
>You know that there are 6x as many Catholics in the world as there are Orthodox
Yes.
>even ignoring the fact that the Orthodox can't stop schisming over stupid political shit like Ukraine, right?
I mean to put that in and forgot to put it into the post, my bad. But yes, they also are going to fall into their own problems because of Ukraine, so they also will withdraw more inwards as the non-russian orthodox churches become more assertive and the russian orthodox church figures out it's post-war direction.
The orthos are struggling with money and hasn't been able to even maintain a functional missionary presence.
Catholics are not only massively larger than the orthos, but the church only seems split because of weak leadership. A stronger figurehead curbs the factionalism, and I think the orthodox can be absorbed by simply paying off their bills and their dependency on local government and with minimal ecumenical concessions.
Honestly, the question is ultimately going to be what those ecumenical concessions will be and to what scale.
The orthodox will not survive the next century in a major way without huddling close with catholics, their population is simply too small.
We just need a pope with fricking vision and ambition.
>The orthodox will not survive the next century in a major way without huddling close with catholics
Yeah, I see the writing on the wall. Once the Roman Catholic Church sanctions and absorbs the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church in turn sanctions the catholic church, then a true satanic monolith will be born. I see the plan of you commie devils.
>A stronger figurehead curbs the factionalism
Or they chud out and everything blows up
>We just need a pope with fricking vision and ambition.
You say that like that is easy. Both Francis and Benedict have genuinely tried and it utterly exhausted Benedict and Francis is growing sicker
Bold of you to think we will get our shit together fast enough to become an Anti-Christ Candidate. The papacy wishes it has the power and reach the American Empire has
Benedict and Francis are both uninspiring institutionalists who are just too damn old.
They need to stick the youngest, angriest cardinal they have up there. You can teach him some charisma and speechifying, but the church atrophies under atrophied people.
More importantly, the church needs to stop being so fricking scared of politics. They need to take risks with more hard lines on obvious morality issues.
If Francis excommunicated Biden for his genocide support, i could guarantee a start of a new age of explosive church power.
Every single pope is just absolutely terrified of wielding the power they actually have. It's like every single one in generations insists on being completely forgotten by history, and if you're remembered, you did a bad job.
>They need to stick the youngest, angriest cardinal they have up there
But this is not a game of EU4, they might need to do something but they will do it based on the actual institutional makeup of the Cardinals finding their Candidate
>Every single pope is just absolutely terrified of wielding the power they actually have
Well yeah, last time it was tried, around the fall of the Papal States, the Church got seriously injured by Italy being formed, the Status Pope was held hostage until Mussolini, and Vatican I made the Austria all but openly tell the Church off.
Vatican city is still a nation with national interest.
I think more actively threatening and engaging in excommunication of sinister catholic world leaders would improve the image of the church greatly.
The church's timidness comes across as corrupt, not humble.
>Vatican city is still a nation with national interest.
The Vatican is smaller than the Mall of America.
>more hard lines on obvious morality issues
Like it's doing with the death penalty?
What kind of cope is this? You have never read a pre-Vatican II encyclical? You find condemnations for everything under the sun. And praise for everything good.
>The orthos are struggling with money
All these orthodox jurisdictions in the west are pretty much used as a way to send money back to the home country.
Catholicism has already tried "absorbing the Orthos" through the creation of the semi-autonomous Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches. Byzantine Catholicism is already there for people who want something that's culturally closer to Orthodoxy (they even have married priests) while still being fully Catholic.
Catholicism has already done the ecumenical work on that end, the remaining Orthodox are obviously just going to obstinately refuse the Papacy, the Filioque and now the Immaculate Conception. I don't see a way through these issues theologically with them, but I can see them at least getting on nicer cultural terms in the East like they already basically are in the West where Orthodoxy is a minority.
>Orthodox are obviously just going to obstinately refuse... the Filioque
Eastern Catholics are schizophrenic on the Filioque debate. They also have Gregory of Palamas as a saint (which is insane).
>Eastern Catholics are schizophrenic on the Filioque debate. They also have Gregory of Palamas as a saint (which is insane).
This is just saying that Eastern Catholics are not true Catholics, which goes back to my point in this post.
That the Catholic Church is clearly headed to major schism in some form. And yes, that Schism could very likely come from radicalized American Catholics wanting to purify the faith in their vision instead of German Catholics trying to push for homosexuality acceptance depending on how the chips fall
>Eastern Catholics are schizophrenic on the Filioque debate.
Not really, they just don't use it in the Liturgy, which they aren't required to. They accept it theologically. Here's a pdf of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church explaining the situation with the Filioque in Eastern Catholicism.
http://archeparchy.ca/wcm-docs/docs/Pastoral_Letter_on_the_Creed.pdf
The German Synodal Path literally admitted a few weeks ago that they don't plan on doing anything that would constitute a schism.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/vatican-finally-reigns-in-german-bishops-over-schismatic-synodal-agenda/
As for the Church in America I don't really see any mainstream desire to be schismatic on literally anything.
>they just don't use it in the Liturgy, which they aren't required to.
Then what was the point of all the arguing in the past? Why are they allowed to have Palamas as a saint? Why are they allowed to have Mark of Ephesus as a saint? It's ridiculous
>Then what was the point of all the arguing in the past?
Same thing as the Chinese Rite Controversy, both ended up being duds that later Popes ended up trying to move past
If your definition of "deep in history" was a specific prayer and some beads on a string, then you're a midwit who never understood what the phrase meant in the first place.
>For example there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD, yet it's presented as some gigatrad practice.
good now become orthodox
Sub tuum praesidium dates back to about 250, pray that if you prefer. It is indeed one of the most beautiful prayers I know
>anons on IQfy (the literature board) shitting on Martin Luther, the very man to thank for their literacy.
Why are you people so dumb?
I'm not a westoid who was dependent on the israelitehannes israelitetenberg press to receive the good word of Jesus christ or have a literate populace.
>westoid
>JEWhannes israelitetenberg
Yup, an absolute moron. Thanks for clearing up any doubts.
Luther discovered writing?
Catholics sure are deep in history.
>the very man to thank for their literacy
We have the printing press to thank for that.
The Gutenberg Bible was literally a Catholic Bible and Johannes Gutenberg was Catholic. I don't know why Protestants try to appropriate them so much.
I didn't say anything about the Gutenberg Bible (which was in Latin) and yet you're bringing it up anyway; and of course no one claimed the printing press itself as some uniquely Protestant invention. When will internet Catholics get tired of acting dense? The world won't end if you recognize the role Martin Luther, with his translation of the Bible into German, his calculated exploitation of the printing press in spreading his treatises and pamphlets, and the rallying cry he sent forth to all Christians to read the Bible themselves and self-educate, played in the spread of literacy throughout Europe. Even further, he condemned the idiots who would pull their children out of school and refuse to teach them anything more than arithmetic and German.
>How do you think you will stand then? You will not be tainted by little drops of sin, but inundated by whole cloudbursts of it – you who now give no heed but just go nonchalantly along as if you were doing well in keeping your child from an education. But then you will have to say that you are justly condemned to the abyss of hell as one of the most odious and vile men who ever lived. Indeed, if you were to consider these things even now, while you are living, you would be truly horrified at yourself. For no conscience can bear to be found guilty of even one of the things that have been mentioned; how much less can it bear it if suddenly all these things, more than can be numbered, fall on it all at once? Your heart will then have to cry out that your sins are more than the leaves and the grass, indeed, greater than heaven and earth; and you will say with Manasseh, king of Judah, “The sins I have committed are more in number than the sands of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied” [Pr. of Man. 9]. Even the law of nature tells you that he who is able to prevent injury but does not do so is guilty of the injury because he certainly desired and willed it and would have inflicted it himself if he had had occasion or opportunity. These people, therefore, are certainly no better than the devil himself because they are so angry with both God and the world that they help to ruin both heaven and earth, and serve the devil faithfully. In a word, if we cannot adequately denounce the devil, neither can we adequately denounce these people who hinder the work and office of God, for they are the devil’s servants.
But I'm sure, since this is IQfy, everyone will just take it for granted that they'd have been literate regardless of the age they were born in, regardless of circumstances — wait, but of course everyone would have been an aristocrat (in the Evolian tradition).
It would be far more accurate to say that we have the Catholic Church to thank for the very small contribution that Martin Luther made to the spread of literacy, given that the Catholic Church motivated ML to write the things he did.
It would be perfectly accurate to say that we have God to thank for the wonderfully large contribution he made both to the spread of literacy in the west, and for the work he did through Luther in snapping the Catholic church out of its confusion (though only for a short while, they are so stubborn), which was the counter-reformation. In truth, the Catholic church was better off for Luther's attacks against it. There's a reason why Pope John Paul II — who is unsurprisingly derided by sedevacantists and other quasi-Protestants — praised him and called for a re-evaluation of the "questions raised by Luther and his teaching".
>>you have to thank Luther for the entire world's literacy!
Ridiculous, considering I was specifically and have been specifically talking about European literacy this entire time. Here's your (you). You're not making Catholics look too good, so thanks for doing my job for me.
>and for the work he did through Luther
Yeah, I get that, as per my above post:
>you have to thank Luther for the entire world's literacy!
>did he invent the printing press?
>no
>did he print the first book?
>no
Thank you Luther for not inventing the printing press and not printing the first Bible
i'm embarrassed by the fact that i used to be a bakkergay way back in the day
in my defense, i was a teenager, but now i meet these dudebros at the gym who are like
>UHHH BRO YOU READ? HAVE YOU READ PRINCE OF NOTHING??? IT'S LIKE SOOOO DEEP DUDE YOU HAVE NO IDEA
dear god, what a horrible fate
i pretend i have no idea what any of these things are and say that i only like harry potter and lord of the rings
>Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD,
its pretty much a direct quote of jesus' word to mary.
>gigatrad
even assuming its 1100 thats 900 years of tradition. how long is it supposed to be before its gigatrad?
In the end protties were the same as catcholics. Still the same pagan trinitarians at the end of the day. Still not doing any good, not helping anyone, not preaching.
They just go to uglier churches and see themselves as superior. Actually listening to some of the insane bullshit like redeemed zoomer and the likes and they're all crazy.
Baffling how stupid they are.
>For example there's literally zero evidence of the Hail Mary or praying the Rosary before the 11th century AD, yet it's presented as some gigatrad practice
That makes it pretty trad in relative to anything Protestants do. What the hell is the point of this thread? "Tradcaths aren't trad because their traditions don't come from Christ Himself, but us prots get a pass btw." I wouldn't even have replied to this 80IQ thread unless I saw it had so many replies. The OP has no argument at all and no one ITT has contributed anything to a productive discussion either.
>What the hell is the point of this thread? "Tradcaths aren't trad because their traditions don't come from Christ Himself, but us prots get a pass btw."
Yeah basically. These religions were made to bring down Catholicism and as long as they do so they grew, when they were moved to seed world with no Catholics (Early America) they end up constantly fighting each other and keep creating their own Churches edgier than the last, some even got out of Christianity entirely doing this
This is true, I think it either comes from considering the Fallen State of the Church and knowing we fricked up, or it comes from not being able to fully meet older requirements of the Church, which if followed would likely ensure a near sin free life, while living in modernity.
PS: Ingmar Bergman, definitely.