In the Catholic mind, if something isn't enforced and you're not forced to do it, it's optional whether it's cultural or not. In the Protestant mind, if it's in the culture you have to do it.
In the Catholic mind, if something isn't banned you can do it. In the Protestant mind, if something isn't permitted explicitly you can't do it.
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Please tell me you don’t actually listen to anything this moronic cum hunter says to his gaggle of 14 year old poltards
I don't see him as infallible but he's an example of how you can pretty much be any politics you want and be Catholic without excommunication. That's why Catholics online have such extreme views in politics going both ways.
Kill youself beaner
Catholics end up extreme in either direction because they don’t take their religion seriously. Nick Fuentes is an excellent example of a cultural Catholic who actually doesn’t give a shit about being Catholic.
It's impossible to take seriously because it's inherently contradictory. It's a pedo cult that exists to fulfill the prophecy in Revelations.
>In the Protestant mind, if it's in the culture you have to do it.
>In the Protestant mind, if something isn't permitted explicitly you can't do it.
Ask me how I know you know nothing about Protestantism.
t. Catholic
Prots are always saying things like "You have to have the same Mariology as Montfort" without knowing it's not mandatory or say things "You aren't allowed to have a rosary" or "You can't have a Christmas tree" without those things being infallibly banned in their Bible.
>you cant have a Christmas tree
Those aren’t protestants, those are judaized americans. Religion invented by israelites and sold to boomers, who parrot it.
I’ve never heard a Protestant say any of those things and i have a Protestant wife and have been to multiple Protestant churches.
>In the Catholic mind, if something isn't enforced and you're not forced to do it, it's optional whether it's cultural or not. In the Protestant mind, if it's in the culture you have to do it.
Catholics literally worship demons like Pachamama because it's "cultural", while evangelicals fight against idolatrous cultural practices.
Where is bowing to pachamama mandated lol?
I hear them say it all the time. Christmas trees bad, alcohol bad, gambling bad, liturgical vestments bad....
>Where is bowing to pachamama mandated lol?
It's not mandated, it's a cultural practice that's normative for Catholics in many parts of the world.
>I'm saying Protestants have the idea if a saint does something it's mandated in the whole church
You are moronic.
>It's not mandated, it's a cultural practice that's normative for Catholics in many parts of the world.
If it's not mandatory I don't have to do it
I hear it all the time. Prots never get off your case. They also complain about Catholic cathedrals being rich but also complain if someone raises the minimum wage.
I, too, just scapegoat and make shit up as I go sometimes.
Nta, I grew up as a protestant and have never heard such things once.
Gambling is bad, and drunkenness is bad, but there is nothing wrong with Christmas trees or liturgical vestments. In fact, my church uses vestments and I'm a protestant. A couple of different protestant denominations wear vestments, like Lutherans and Anglicans.
Evangelicals worship Israel.
So do post-VII Catholics. Nostra aetate condemns racism and antisemitism btw.
The Vatican declared Palestine a state in 2015.
Wow, so did Sweden
You can deny the Holocaust yet still be in communion with Rome though. You can also be super zionist and be in communion too.
I feel like people keep coming up with ways to be different from the other sect. Like, someone wouldn't believe a certain thing if it was the same as the people they are against. Contrarianism.
For example?
>In the Catholic mind, if something isn't banned you can do it.
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to dig up corpses, and eat them?
Catholic authority has to have written something against that at some point.
>Catholic rules
>Optional
Wasn't this way in the Middle Ages. And that's a good thing.
Because nothing says “Christian” quite like burning to death anyone who disagrees with you
Nothing says "Christian" quite like being part of a denomination that looks nothing like early Christianity
>Infant baptism
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
https://toeternity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Infant-Baptism.pdf
>Baptismal regeneration
"Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp are silent on the issue,[8] however the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian among others connected following Christ in baptism with salvation.[9][10] Baptismal regeneration was also affirmed by Origen[11] and Augustine.[12] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration#Early_Church
>Sola Scriptura
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
>"All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16)
Where in this quote does it say 'scripture ALONE' or does it say scripture is 'sufficient'. The adjective/descriptive word 'beneficial' in greek is: ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos). Which is a conjugation of "ophelos", which means "profit" or "advantage" in all contexts found.
https://biblehub.com/greek/3786.htm
The only adjective for what scripture says to do is "profit" "advtantage", where does it say "sufficient"?
No where does a verse say that scripture is "sufficient": https://www.openbible.info/topics/sufficiency_of_scripture
The greek word for "alone" is "monon", https://biblehub.com/greek/monon_3440.htm. Can you find a verse where it says "scripture alone" or "what is written alone" is to be followed or god breathed? Infact, where does it say scripture is the only "god breathed" authority? https://biblehub.com/greek/2315.htm
Can you find that?
regeneration
I will go further and add this:
>word concept fallacy.
>Sophistry
You saying it is a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. Where was this 'fallacy' shown and do you have an argument defending anabaptist beliefs or would you just criticize and throw stones?
>Where in this quote does it say 'scripture ALONE' or does it say scripture is 'sufficient'.
>word concept fallacy.
I’ve already discussed scripture alone and you’re just a blithering moron. I already blew your ass open about Romans 3 so I’m fine with just throwing stones.
Max cope. And max denial. I had a feeling you were that guy from the other thread. (You) lost, you didn't reply at all. Or, all I recall was a little pipsqueek of a fart of a response which basically said "no you're wrong" (it was less than 10 words in response to a whole 2000 word maxed IQfy post). You've failed to make your case, and you continue to live in a delusional state of unrepented confidence. Being wrong is fine so long as you repent. But, all heretics are condemned for their stubbornness. The stubbornness here is evident by posting memes proclaiming anabaptist victory while being utterly wrong.
You didn't blow anything. You got shown for being a sophist, willing to corrupt scripture- just like Martine Luther- for your own suppositions, and had nothing else to say for your incorrectness.
in this quote does it say 'scripture ALONE' or does it say scripture is 'sufficient'.
>>word concept fallacy.
The meme indicates that the Timothy verse indicated "Sola Scriptura", which doesn't just mean "Scripture is infalliable", but Sola Scripture means "Scripture is the ONLY infalliable source of authority". Where in the verse does it say that? And how do you have confidence in your interpretation? What is the way one interprets scripture definitely with the ambiguity of language and how is that decided? And where does it say in scripture that people outside of the apostolic church, can interpret scripture infalliably? What is the historical evidence that people who make up their institutions are just as valid as those within? Was Pelagius, the gnostics, or Donatists endowed with the 'deposit of faith'?
Supposing God exists, does it make sense that God would allow the church to say they are the only infalliable source of authority in interpretation and decision making, for 1400 years? Would God do that? If God doesn't do that, where in the 1400 years from Christ to the reformation, was there a movement successful enough in saying...
....in saying "there is no one true church", the "church isnt an institution", and "all outside the church may be saved assuredly"?
Does it make sense God would just sit for 1400 years and not correct something leading millions of people into error and possibly hell?
>Does it make sense God would just sit for 1400 years and not correct something leading millions of people into error and possibly hell?
(See tmstmp 13:16)
Furthermore, where in scripture does it say "the Gospel of Thomas" is not scripture? Do you have a verse for that? What makes the Gospel of Thomas, Epistula Apostolorum, not scripture?
Afterall, they both claim authorship of the apostles? Does this not satisfy the "deposit of faith"? Oh, and, wait a minute! What makes the epistle of Hebrews scripture? Was it written by Paul. If not, why is it scripture? Where in scripture does it say that it is God breathed? Where does it say Acts or Luke for the matter is scripture! After all, it was written by Luke the Evangelist. NOT Luke the apostle.
Or, does all your 'scripture' rest on tradition. And if it rests on tradition, then is not the canon infalliable? After all, "scripture interprets scripture" and "scripture alone is the final authority".
I'm Baptist and my church teaches that neither communion nor baptism saves. maybe I was blessed with a decent leader group of pastors and elders?
Braindead denomination (Im not Lutheran btw):
online jesuits really like to make themselves obvious
Better safe than sorry. “Protestants” just have an over-fear of God perhaps.
Going on a date with a catboy is not banned in Catholicism?