Protestant

[Anonymous No.19407690]

Have you ever read any good arguments for Protestantism? Or good Protestant literature in general.

[Anonymous No.19407714]

>>19407690
Ask frater

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19407716]

Well, there’s the whole heresy thing. Which is plainly true. The Catholic Church is an imperial relic of the Romans. But in all honesty, there no one true church and there never can be. It’s a mass of inconsistencies. And an outright fabrication.

[Anonymous No.19407718]

>>19407714
>frater
Who’s that?

[Anonymous No.19407720]

>>19407690
Yeah, try this one author ahh whats is name oh i dunno MARTIN FUCKING LUTHER DUMBASS

[Anonymous No.19407724]

>>19407716
>But in all honesty, there no one true church and there never can be. It’s a mass of inconsistencies. And an outright fabrication.
>But in all honesty

I seriously appreciate your honesty. This reply felt like a breath of fresh air from the “mass of inconsistencies” as you put it.

[Anonymous No.19407754]

>>19407724
This isn't true at all. The teaching of the Church is remarkably simple and consistent. Love God and love your neighbour. This is the essence. Everything else stems from that. Butterfly is an interesting poster but I would not rely on their opinions for insight into catholicism. If you want to know more about the one, holy, Catholic apostolic church, the church that Christ founded and nearly all the apostles and martyrs for the first thousand years (1400 if you ignore the schism) died for, look at what it has to say in its catechism, please, don't believe atheists opinions about it. Remember Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and he sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles and they have built the true church. This is a matter of lineage and tradition founded by Jesus and passed on through the sacraments down to today. By degrading the sacraments to symbols or what have you, protestantism has cut the lineage and broken the traditions founded by God made man.

[Anonymous No.19407765]

>>19407754
>If you want to know more about the one, holy, Catholic apostolic church

Man the fact that Catholics cannot resist their cultish way of speaking really creeps me out

[Anonymous No.19407797]

>>19407690

[Anonymous No.19407798]

>>19407690
I was reading an article today about Judaism (please don't derail) and there is a point that was insisted upon very often, that a good Jew should, paraphrasing, be righteous "beyond the letter of the law", which is the same thing that Jesus criticized about the Pharisees. Well it occurred to me that Protestants are pretty much the same breed of people, except they also decide what "the letter of the law" means themselves. Every time I have a conversation about Christian ethics with a Protestant I really see just this: here, the letter of the law says this, according to me, therefore I can do it.

[Anonymous No.19407832]

Protestantism is a weird oscillation between extremes. On one hand you have hyper-logical analytical shit like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga that just feels like materialism with the formulas tweaked to allow for some abstract "God" at the end. On the other end you get crazy Pentecostal Evangelical shit that tries extremely hard to pretend to be "like the original Christians" when basically every Church Father would have shit on them. Protestantism is like a grab bag.

[Anonymous No.19407833]

>>19407690
>>19407714
>>19407716
>>19407718
>>19407720
>>19407724
>>19407754
>>19407765
>>19407797
Asking for Protestant literature is a little daft since that includes almost literally all literature of the past 500 years. However in terms of arguments, I think this is a good first place: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

[Anonymous No.19407842]

>>19407832
>every Church Father would have shit on them
nope, this is a lie. also the church fathers by and large weren't that close to the original church and even then they had remarkably little knowledge of Jesus's time period, Hebrew, even Aramaic, 1st century Judaism, etc.

See this post for more info: >>19407833

[Anonymous No.19407955]

>>19407754
Catholicism is literally blasphemic. Imagine praying to saints and a pope. Demonic judaism for goyims.

[Anonymous No.19407964]

>>19407690
>good arguments for Protestantism
Well, the catholic church is sort of bogus.That must've been a good argument because that's the one protestants originally made and its still kind of a thing today.

[Anonymous No.19407969]

>>19407690
I wouldn't consider any of them good literature but I've read a few local books about how and why the protestant revolution happened here, it's depicted as a retvrn to tradition, a simpler, more Christ-oriented religion as opposed to what they saw as the decadence and idolatory of the church. I kinda sympathize with them to some extent, at least regards their resistance against the state attempts at enforcing dogma on them, but I'm more sympathetic with the more laisez-faire attitudes of the papists, and I'm quite a fan of idolatory so I think the destruction of church architecture was pretty much unforgivable.

[Anonymous No.19407979]

I fucking hate catholics, good enough for me. God save the king.

[Anonymous No.19407982]

>>19407955
As opposed to what?

[Anonymous No.19407988]

>>19407969
>a simpler, more Christ-oriented religion as opposed to what they saw as the decadence and idolatory of the church

To be totally honest I thought this was what Eastern Orthodoxy was. It still sorta is but all the retards arguing over Church Fathers and dogma on here are leaving a horrible impression. I somehow see much common with the monks of Mt. Athos and the Puritans.

[Anonymous No.19408001]

>>19407988
Maybe read Matthew Henry's whole Bible commentary. Its a massive work, but its also free online, and its a Puritan work that is also widely considered the greatest bible commentary of all time. Very readable and engrossing.

[Anonymous No.19408009]

>>19408001
>Matthew Henry's whole Bible commentary

Awesome, I'll check it out. Just came across this endorsement of Henry from John Wesley:

>He is allowed by all competent judges, to have been a person of strong understanding, of various learning, of solid piety, and much experience in the ways of God. And his exposition is generally clear and intelligible, the thoughts being expressed in plain words: It is also found, agreeable to the tenor of scripture, and to the analogy of faith. It is frequently full, giving a sufficient explication of the passages which require explaining. It is in many parts deep, penetrating farther into the inspired writings than most other comments do. It does not entertain us with vain speculations, but is practical throughout: and usually spiritual too teaching us how to worship God, not in form only, but in spirit and in truth.

[Anonymous No.19408014]

>>19407982
praying to god/christ?

[Anonymous No.19408038]

>>19408014
Right answer.

[Anonymous No.19408048]

>>19408009
A great test of commentaries is Exodus 4:24, which is how I came across Henry. It's probably the most bizarre passage in the Bible, so if a commentary can handle it, its probably worth looking into. Henry also has some strong analyses of the Little Apocalypses of Mark and Matthew.

I've thought about getting the commentary in physical form but I frankly find the design of the current printing a little ugly. Calvin's commentary isn't bad either, and his commentary was endorsed by no less than Arminius, his literal archnemesis.

[Anonymous No.19408131]

>>19408048
>Exodus 4:24
What the fuck

[Anonymous No.19408155]

>>19408131
There's a reason Christianity did away with physical circumcision almost immediately after welcoming in Gentiles and why the Catholic Church has formally condemned the practice since the 15th century as a mortal sin.

[Anonymous No.19408216]

>>19408155
Then why are so many Christians still circumcised?

[Anonymous No.19408220]

>>19407716
Fuck off czech troon

[Anonymous No.19408281]

>>19408131
Academics generally see this as one of those stories explaining how circumcision came about. Specifically, how a midianite practice became a Jewish one, because Moses' wife was a midianite.

Additionally, many Jewish practices including circumcision originated as superstitions to ward off evil spirits. For whatever reason, these evil warding practices stopped being applied to demons and began to be applied to God in Judaism.

Calvin says this:
24. And it came to pass by the way. The expression, "the Lord met him," is here used in a bad sense, for an adverse meeting, or hostile encounter; as though Moses should say that the hand of the Lord was against him to interrupt his journey. In what form He appeared we know not, except that the words pretty plainly imply that Moses was assured of His anger, so as to be aware that his death was near. For had he not been instructed by revelation or by an angel, it would not have at all profited him to be shewn the impending danger. Nevertheless the cause is not expressed for which he perceived that God was so angry with him; except that we may gather it from what follows. For why should Zipporah have taken a sharp stone or knife and circumcised her son, had she not known that God was offended at his uncircumcision? Certain Rabbins, then, are unwise in their conjecture, that Moses had provoked God's vengeance on this occasion against himself, because he took his wife and children with him as being a useless charge, which would be likely to encumber him. They pronounce also, too boldly, on the nature of his scourge, viz., that he was afflicted by a severe disease, which endangered his life.

[Anonymous No.19408284]

>>19408281
Be it sufficient for us to know that he was terrified by the approach of certain destruction, and that, at the same time, the cause of his affliction was shewn him, so that he hastened to seek for a remedy. For, as we have just said, it would never have otherwise occurred to himself or his wife to circumcise the child to appease God's wrath; and it will appear a little further on, that God was, as it were, propitiated by this offering, since he withdrew his hand, and took away the tokens of his wrath. I therefore unhesitatingly conclude, that vengeance was declared against Moses for his negligence, which was connected with still heavier sins; for he had not omitted his son's circumcision from forgetfulness, or ignorance, or carelessness only, but because he was aware that it was disagreeable either to his wife or to his father-in-law. Therefore, lest. his wife should quarrel with him, or his father-in-law trouble him, he preferred to gratify them than to give occasion for divisions, or enmity, or disturbance. In the meantime, however, for the sake of the favour of men he neglected to obey God. This false dealing was no light offense, since nothing is more intolerable than to defraud God of his due obedience, in order to please men. There was a mixture too of distrust and ingratitude in it; for, if the favour of God had had its due weight, he would have been withholden by no fear from this pious duty. Let us then learn from hence to use reverently the sacraments, which are the seals of God's grace, lest he should severely avenge our despisal of them; and at the same time we should remember that the external profession of piety, and the worship of God is a sacrifice so pleasant to God, that he will not allow us to omit the care of diligently testifying it as if it were a matter of small importance.

[Anonymous No.19408287]

>>19408284
Not that he cares for the ceremonies themselves, but because he would have honor paid to the pledges of his grace, in proportion to the benefit which is received from them. On this account Paul bears witness, that a pestilence raged among the Corinthians when the Lord's supper was profaned, (1 Corinthians 11:30;) because it was an act of impiety that so precious a treasure should be lightly esteemed. But it is worthy of observation, that whereas Moses had two sons with him, mention is here only made of one; from whence is deduced the probable conjecture that one of the two was circumcised. [61] Some think that Eliezer, the eldest, was not so, because Moses had not dared to confess his religion so soon, and to awaken hatred on account of it. But I should rather imagine that when, in regard to one he had experienced the hostility of his family, he omitted it in the case of the second, to avoid the anger of his wife or his father-in-law; for if, in the lapse of time, he had attained more courage, he would not have hesitated to correct the former omission; but, worn out by domestic quarrels, he at last departed from his duty. By this example we are warned that we have daily need of God's help to support our strength, lest our courage should fail us, and our zeal should gradually grow cold or luke-warm; for Satan is constantly devising many temptations, by which he may either destroy or lessen our diligence. Therefore, whosoever desires to approve himself to God in the whole course of his life, must prepare the armor and the strength for enduring this contest; for if Moses was deficient in perseverance, we shall be equally, or even more liable to the same failure, unless the Lord uphold us by his Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19408421]

Interesting thread. Given me a lot to think about, especially that long article. May have to check out protestantism further...

[Anonymous No.19408428]

>>19408421
Same. I see the appeal, especially being plugged into all the current research instead of being walled off in Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19408480]

>>19408421
>>19408428
Catholic and Orthodox larpers here are the best argument for Protestantism. I have never seen a more insufferable group of incels anywhere. Apparently the catholic larpers larped so hard they got the biggest catholic forum on the internet shut down last year. Imagine being so insufferable about your religion that your own religion hates you.

[Anonymous No.19408518]

>>19407832
Of course it’s a grab bag anon, Protestant pretty much just means not Catholic or Orthodox at this point.

[Anonymous No.19408535]

>>19407690
no

[Anonymous No.19408550]

My personal research led me to the conclusion that Catholicism is most definitely wrong from every possible perspective (historical, exegetical, etc.), but between Orthodoxy and Protestantism there is no real conclusion, and it depends on what sort of evidence you choose to give more weight to. I believe Protestantism is best critiqued on a practical level, as it creates a situation in which the believer is forced to construct his doctrines by his own power and research rather than being able to comfortably lean on an authority. But perhaps that is what is required of us today.

[Anonymous No.19408552]

>>19407690
Read the many Protestant Scholastics(Chemnitz, Calvin, Turretin, Gerhard, etc.)
Or start by reading some prot confessions like Augsburg, Heidelberg, Westminister, etc.

[Anonymous No.19408555]

>>19408550
>the believer is forced to construct his doctrines by his own power and research rather than being able to comfortably lean on an authority
This isn't really true depending on what branch. Reformed don't believe this at all. Even Baptists and restorationists don't.

[Anonymous No.19408562]

>>19408555
Of course they don't believe that. What I mean is that, in practice, that's what you actually have to do. The believer has to weight the evidence of, say, whether one should baptize infants, come to his own conclusion, and join a church based upon that. Perhaps he'll realize he's wrong at a later point and need to switch.

[Anonymous No.19408568]

>>19408562
But at a practical level that is what Orthodox and Catholic do too. You still have to decide on a church to join based on something. And Catholics and Orthodox deconvert all the time, literally at orders of magnitude more than Protestants.

Also being certain of every theological minutiae isn't necessary for salvation in Protestantism because of adiaphora. Therefore, the switching issue is largely obviated.

[Anonymous No.19408662]

>>19408568
It's not the same. Within Protestantism, within the system so to speak, there is not an authority that can be relied on more than a normal person could be.

[Anonymous No.19408709]

>>19408662
But again, not in Reformed theology. Also I don't think Orthodoxy makes grand claims regarding the infallibility of the pronouncement of councils, so I don't see how its different. Ultimately you're arguing tautology, that Orthodoxy or whatever is right because its right. Its claims to authority still have to be judged by the same criteria that any individual Protestant claim would need to be.

This the is idiocy of Catholic argumentation.
>how do you know what the Bible is without an authority?
>I dunno, how do you know what the authority capable of determining what the Bible is without an authority that determines the correct church
Its just one step removed in epistemological skepticism

[Anonymous No.19408743]

>>19408709
I was a Reformed Christian and lost my faith over this problem. I have never been Catholic or Orthodox. What I'm telling you is what it is like on a practical level. Why was I Reformed? I felt like it was in accord with Scripture. How much had I studied Scripture? Not enough, frankly. Can I be sure that I'm not wrong? No I can't. I never felt like I needed an infallible handbook as in Catholicism, but Protestantism has always felt insecure to me, as if there is not a foundation I can confidently rest on, but rather something constructed by own flawed understanding that I cannot be sure of. Even if the first step to something else is under my own power, if it allows me to then cede this struggle, I don't think it's the same thing.

[Anonymous No.19408758]

>>19408743
But what I'm telling you is that other religions don't solve this problem. They just remove it one step. Any answer you give to "how do I know what the true church is" can be applied to the questions you look for the church to solve.

This is a philosophical problem that isn't solved in the way you're suggesting.

[Anonymous No.19408763]

>>19407690
There's literally no heaven or hell in the bible. They literally just made it up.

[Anonymous No.19408770]

>>19408763
There is actually no god in the Bible. Protestants also created this.

[Anonymous No.19408785]

>>19407765
>their cultish way of speaking
He's simply quoting the language of the Nicene Creed, which all orthodox Christians agree on.

[Anonymous No.19408795]

>>19408785
No he isn't, as he capitalized Catholic to ensure that it only has the specific institutional meaning of the Roman Church.

[Anonymous No.19408801]

>>19407833
>However in terms of arguments, I think this is a good first place: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

And in terms of concluding an argument, this is a good resting place: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

[Anonymous No.19408862]

>>19407716
You could only hold the viewpoint that there is no true church when you’re coming from a Protestant viewpoint, and a Protestant viewpoint alone. For a Catholic or an Orthodox, the question is intellectually valid, but religiously absurd and moreover, as it pertains to Westerners (which I presume we all here, for sake of argument) only one of these religions can be said to be a cross-historical expression of the natural religion/philosophy of the people and it’s decidedly not Protestantism. To any degree you can say “there is no true church” you can also say “to any extent there is a true church, it’s not Protestant” if for no other reason than that it’s simply not a church at all.

[Anonymous No.19408871]

>>19408801
Why didn't you post Brandon's rebuttal to that rebuttal, you coward? If you don't post it, it means you concede it destroys the catholic argument.

And I'll post it anyway if you chicken out :)

[Anonymous No.19408885]

>>19408795
>he capitalized Catholic
Distinction without a difference. He quoted the language of the Creed.

[Anonymous No.19408911]

>>19407765

[Anonymous No.19408964]

>>19408871
You are silly. If I'm a coward for not posting Addison's rebuttal, then by the same logic *you're* a coward for not posting Bryan Cross's rebuttal of Addison.

But it's a silly argument to begin with: let each poster post what he wants. On 4chan, you can always make a retort or counter to someone else's post, if you respond timely. Let each person look out for their own interests.

As for BA's attempt to rebut Cross, I haven't read it, and don't care to dig it up from where ever it may be posted. His initial argument was hardly persuasive; I have no reason to think his follow-up will be any better.

But feel free to post it; post it a thousand times, if it makes you happy.

By the by, I enjoyed watching this video the other day on the subject of "eucharistic ecclesiology": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLG9k7rkdo

[Anonymous No.19408980]

>>19408885
Christ is not honored by disingenuous speech such as this.

[Anonymous No.19409057]

>>19408964
>As for BA's attempt to rebut Cross, I haven't read it, and don't care to dig it up from where ever it may be posted
Well thanks for showing your hand. Next time don't bother. Once again I am reminded not to seriously engage with catholics because they always argue from proud ignorance and bad faith. I'll keep shitposting and trolling retards like you. You've once again proven how unworthy you are of anyone's seriousness. At least you guys have almost died out her and on the internet and on real life. I love the part where you got CAForums shut down because even catholics are so annoyed by you retards.

[Anonymous No.19409072]

Holy shit you’re going to hell

[Anonymous No.19409088]

>>19408964
I like how the Protestant cites actual historians and peer reviewed sources and even cites the consensus of Catholic scholars in his post. Then the Catholic makes specious hypothetical arguments and ad hominems.

Imagine being on the Catholic side and realizing even your own historians aren't on your side. Or your hierarchy who supports those historians. And then imagine still thinking you are correct about Christian history. When the entire establishment and the Catholic Church itself rejects you. What is the psychology there? Father abandonment?

Is there even one peer reviewed source that argues the existence of the papacy in the first century? Any one, anywhere?

[Anonymous No.19409140]

>>19408550
>My personal research led me to the conclusion that Catholicism is most definitely wrong from every possible perspective (historical, exegetical, etc.)

Yes.

[Anonymous No.19409144]

>>19409088
>b-b-but they're all liberals! the catholic church doesn't count because they're liberals too! only i get to define what counts as true catholicism and what real historical facts are! this is different from you not submitting to the pope because... it just is, ok??

[Anonymous No.19409151]

>>19407765

EXCUSE ME? Don't you mean the Holy Apostolic Eucharistic Magisterial Exegetical Catholic Church? HAEMECC+!

[Anonymous No.19409168]

Why did the early Church disagree with Catholicism?

>"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (Cyprian, Seventh Council of Carthage)

Dozens of other bishops at the council spoke after Cyprian made his comments. Nobody voiced any disagreement with what he said. They often appeal to scripture and reason to justify their position on the matter before them, but nobody appeals to papal authority. And nobody gives any indication of thinking that such an office existed or that departing from it or operating independently of it needed to be justified.

[Anonymous No.19409178]

Why did the early Church disagree with Catholicism?

One of the earliest patristic sources, Clement of Rome, wrote:

"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work." (First Clement, 32-33)

What must be read into the text in order to reconcile Clement's comments with Catholicism? We have to assume (1) that he only meant to exclude works that are somehow deficient (such as graceless works) when he referred to works "wrought in holiness of heart", (2) that he meant "faith and baptism", "faith and works", or something similar when he referred to "faith" as the means of attaining justification, (3) that the reference to "that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men" isn't meant to deny that baptism and other requirements have been added to faith since the Old Testament era, and (4) that Clement went on to tell his readers not to use the gospel as an opportunity to avoid good works just after telling them that we're justified through a combination between faith and works. Not a single one of those conclusions is likely, and the combination of all four is even more unlikely. What Clement seems to be communicating is justification through faith alone

[Anonymous No.19409338]

>>19409178
Clement's remarks are entirely consistent with the Catholic teaching regarding justification and salvation (which knows nothing of Luther's beloved snow-covered dunghill, I might add).

The Catholic understanding of justification and salvation is well-explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYAdaG60kl0

Clement of Rome, of course, asserted his authority over faraway Corinth (pic related), in the first century, despite the distance of Rome from Corinth, in accordance with the authority vested in him as successor to Peter. This is one of the earliest extra-biblical proofs of the Catholic papacy -- indeed, Clement effectively acted as a "bishop of bishops" - pace, Cyprian - in asserting his authority over Corinth in this matter.

>>19409168
The rather complicated Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen kerfuffle is explained here: https://medium.com/catholicism-coffee/papal-supremacy-pope-stephen-vs-cyprian-of-carthage-catholicism-coffee-cf21e0058150

[Anonymous No.19409467]

>>19407690
>any good arguments for Protestantism
All relitards are dumb, keeping up some Millenia-long internecine struggle about who's the dumbest is kind of... dumb

[Anonymous No.19409574]

>>19408216
because americans can't stop masturbating

[Anonymous No.19409691]

>>19409338
>(which knows nothing of Luther's beloved snow-covered dunghill, I might add).
Why do Catholics incessantly comment on rhetorical comments made by Luther rather than addressing Protestant doctrinal standards? Do you think Luther is some kind of Protestant pope? No one cares. All this does is make you seem either 1) disingenuous, or 2) uninformed about Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.19409844]

CATHOLICS NOT USE JESUIT PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM IN THEIR APOLOGETICS CHALLENGE (100% IMPOSSIBLE)

[Anonymous No.19409873]

>>19409844
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A 100% INFALLIBLE INSTITUTION TO RULE ON AN ISSUE YOU CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING DID YOU KNOW THAT????

[Anonymous No.19410064]

>>19408480
This. The Orthodox equivalent is roving packs of Jay Dyer simps in other people's YouTube comments.

[Anonymous No.19410136]

>>19407690
>Have you ever read any good arguments for Protestantism?
Only when critiquing the Catholic Church: The problem is when you point out Eastern Orthodox had the exact same problems over papal supremacy and so why not convert to them they revert to literal peasant thinking:
>'I am a man of the west! I cannot convert to the East!'
>'they are foreign and I want a religion my nation rules!'
Now these are based peasant sentiments, but when you claim to be the peak of Christian piety and it collapses into this when slight pressure is applied: that is just embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19410143]

I've never read any good arguments for monotheism full stop.

[Anonymous No.19410209]

Rather than the specifics, the chief inherent problem with Catholicism and "Orthodoxy™" are that as institutions of incredible age, ancient wrongs remain in them and they tend to refuse addressing and ridding themselves of such issues essentially simply due to how long they have claimed them to be truths. This is contrary to one of the two first commands that Christ Himself gave..."REPENT" and "believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15). If the "Church™" itself is unrepentant, how can they possibly claim to represent the teachings/commands of Christ? They are *antiChrist*.

The easiest primary example of this, which both Catholicism and "Orthodoxy™" share are certain degrees of "Mary worship", which became an official "Church™" dogma in the 4th century (the 2 branches split around 700 years later). They should, in these days of essentially ubiquitous literacy and personal Bible access in one's own language, coupled with easily learning the history of the particular belief (first showed up in late 2nd century gnostic fan fiction Gospel of James, which Catholic Answers even admits as the source of "Tradition™", have strong enough movements from within themselves to finally correct these long standing ills and restore prayer to God (Father/Son/Holy Ghost) alone but they instead dig in and double down.

Protestantism, which certainly results in its own sets of inherent issues, at least allows for an agility in this regard. Issues can be faced and corrected within a denomination, and if not, then at least within a specific *independent church* using the Holy Bible as the only truly dependable resource we have on earth for Christian doctrine.

[Anonymous No.19410253]

>>19408763
Based and literally true.

If you want a wild ride start comparing what comes from the Gospels and what comes from Paul.

[Anonymous No.19410308]

>>19408862
I’d say that Eastern Orthodoxy is culturally the most authentic Church and much of the Apostolic traditions are preserved in them (thanks to things not getting lost in translation, what with their continual use of Greek), it’s unfortunate that the Orthodox here are Jay Dyer types. They’re so far from the monks of Mt. Athos, for example. Or even the American Orthodox fathers I’ve talked to, one of whom was born a Lutheran and then converted to Orthodoxy because he saw it as “most authentic”.

But Protestantism as a rejection of the dogmatics and corruptions of Catholicism needed to happen and the criticisms still hold against many of the Orthodox retards here.

[Anonymous No.19410333]

>>19407690
Hegel. Lutheranism on the highest metaphysical plane.

[Anonymous No.19410347]

>>19409144
There really is no solid rationale for submitting to the Pope, is there? Unless you’re a Deus Vult LARPer or something. Otherwise it’s just convincing yourself to be a fool for a guy and corrupt church.

[Anonymous No.19410359]

>>19410209
UH IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INFALLIBLE INSTITUTION TO TELL YOU WHAT THE BIBLE IS YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE IS OKAY? WITHOUT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DEFINING THE CANON IN THE 1500S NO ONE COULD KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE IS

[Anonymous No.19410370]

>>19410136
>The problem is when you point out Eastern Orthodox had the exact same problems over papal supremacy and so why not convert to them they revert to literal peasant thinking:
Protestants have historically not had cause to formulate apologetics against Eastern Orthodoxy. That being said, papal supremacy is far from the only objection Protestantism holds towards Catholicism, and much of it carries over to Orthodoxy. Any pro-Protestant argument for their own doctrines to be correct would of course carry over as well.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.19410491]

Honestly Luther isn’t a bad place to go, if you want a bit better, Charles spurgeon especially his psalms commentaries are very good, and if you want pre-Protestant material which went influenced Luther, tauler and St. Bernard of clairvaux are very well, Luther also highly valued Augustine, this anon >>19407833 is completely correct that a large amount of literature is pervaded with a Protestant theme, something I really really enjoy is Spenser’s four hymns, the first two are much more in line with Catholic-aesthetican thought whereas in the latter two he makes a complete shift over into a Protestant conception of deity, poetry and so forth. Otherwise there’s a lot of stuff you can read, mystical lit like the chymical marriage, more normie lit like the pilgrims progress, there’s so many options. Best of all is to just get a Bible and study it with a good commentary.

[Anonymous No.19410502]

>>19410136
>based peasant sentiments
99% of all Christians were illiterate peasants

[Anonymous No.19410534]

>>19410333
Would rather go from Luther to Hegel and Kant than read the same deranged ramblings of the Church Fathers over and over desu

[Anonymous No.19410541]

>>19410370
>Protestants have historically not had cause to formulate apologetics against Eastern Orthodoxy
I honestly only see conflict between the two groups when Jay Dyer tries to debate people. But he’s literally retarded so I don’t think that counts as legitimate discussion. I somehow see a better common ground between the Orthodox and Protestants than either of them with the Catholics.

[Anonymous No.19410547]

>>19410491
>a Protestant conception of deity
What would that be?

[Anonymous No.19410592]

>>19409691
Why do Protestants incessantly comment on rhetorical comments made by Catholic anons rather than addressing Catholic doctrinal standards? Do you think a random 4chan Catholic anon is some kind of pope? No one cares. All this does is make you seem either 1) disingenuous, or 2) uninformed about Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19410595]

>>19410592
Because that's who I'm talking to. Are you talking to Luther?

[Anonymous No.19410598]

>>19410064
>roving packs of Jay Dyer simps
kek

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.19410610]

>>19410547
To be more precise, a Protestant conception of the means towards deity, the core sentiment of Protestantism is that we must adhere both to the letter and the spirit of the law and more than this, we must have a living relationship with the Christ as a person, with God as person, the Protestant view and the Catholic view (depending on which you point as there are many of these which argue) both focus on God as obscure and alien but also revealed and in the world, however aesthetically among the Catholics this often manifests as using the beauty of the world as a means of contemplating God, and while the Protestant agrees, it is clear the Protestant move is towards using Christ himself as the manifest and revealed connection with God. If we examine the model of Dante, and by extension Hugh of st victor, St bonaventure and other such, we see that there a platonic movement from the created world through abstraction of its beauty towards grasping the deity, whereas the Protestant rejects the essential aspect of both works and faith saying, greater than these, is the relationship with God, for faith without works is dead and works without knowing Christ are meaningless as Christ says many will come to him saying “lord, lord” and he will tell he does not know them. And this is the core of the Protestant movement, not allowing the human crafted infrastructure nor the great abstract and alien aspect of deity to make us forget the humanity of god and the living relationship with God. This living aspect as experienced in prayer, Bible study and in contemplation with the Holy Spirit guiding us is the core of it.

Now of course Catholics aren’t universally against this and I have noted catholic writers above who share the same opinion who greatly influenced Luther. Fundamentally the Protestant movement was supposed to be a rejuvenation/reformation.

[Anonymous No.19410640]

>>19410209
>The easiest primary example of this, which both Catholicism and "Orthodoxy™" share are certain degrees of "Mary worship", which became an official "Church™" dogma in the 4th century (the 2 branches split around 700 years later).

What you fail to understand is that the Marian doctrines are rooted in scripture. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is Mary's role as the Second Eve, in parallel to Christ's role as the last or second Adam.

Now, you are dismissive and even contemptuous of these doctrines. That is unfortunate, and I doubt anything I say can change that. However, for those with an open mind I leave a link to a talk that includes a fine exposition of various Marian doctrines by a Bible scholar who went from being an anti-Catholic Protestant to a faithful Catholic... because he could not resist the clear teaching of scripture and the early Church Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJWwqs0Ajs

[Anonymous No.19410649]

>>19407690
>Prot lit
>Sola Scriptura

[Anonymous No.19410655]

>>19410064
>Jay Dyer
No one has refuted his Transcendental Argument for God

[Anonymous No.19410658]

>>19410640
>Second Eve
Which means nothing. Adam was given federal headship over humanity, Eve was not. Sin comes through Adam.

[Anonymous No.19410659]

>>19410347
>There really is no solid rationale for submitting to the Pope, is there?

Well, the office was clearly established by Christ, pic related.

Here's a young Catholic who defends the doctrine in conversation with a thoughtful young Protestant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2o-ZVdWYE

[Anonymous No.19410678]

>>19410610
Somehow one of the best posts I've ever read. I'm going to do a fair dive into Protestantism now. Thank you, anon.

[Anonymous No.19410685]

>>19410659
The keys (the power of binding and loosing, which is what keys do) are given to all of the Apostles, not specifically Peter.
>Mt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
"Ye" is plural

[Anonymous No.19410687]

why do catholics pray to saints instead of just to god

[Anonymous No.19410696]

>>19410595
>Are you talking to Luther?

Very snarky.

On a more edifying note, here's an interesting Catholic vs. Orthodox debate on the papacy:

Papacy Debate on Isaiah 22 & Matthew 16 | Suan Sonna (Catholic) vs. Ubi Petrus (Orthodox)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFXEb4MSyU8

[Anonymous No.19410702]

>>19410655
His argument is literally retarded. It's just the "god of the gaps" but with obnoxious pseud posturing.

[Anonymous No.19410707]

>>19410685
This. Peter is just highlighted as a prominent disciple because he had historical relevance with the apostles.

[Anonymous No.19410713]

>>19407690
There are no good arguments for Christianity of any denomination. It's all for retards.

[Anonymous No.19410715]

>>19410687
>create a system where you promote men
>tell people they need to pray to these men

[Anonymous No.19410740]

>>19410658
>Which means nothing.
As I said, you are dismissive and even contemptuous of these doctrines.

But for those who are interested in learning more, in addition to checking out the fine video (>>19410640), you could also take a look at this article, which explains why Eve was a type of Mary, just as Adam was a type of Christ (from which it follows that Mary is the fulfillment of that type -- the Queen of Heaven, Rev 12:1, and the mother of all Christians, Rev 12:17):

https://catholicism.org/second-eve.html

[Anonymous No.19410761]

>>19410685
Let us not talk falsely. The keys were given singularly to Peter, at the same time as he was given, singularly, the power to bind and loose. Mt 16:19.

Later, the power of binding and loosing was given collectively to the other apostles, but they were never given the power of the keys. Mt 18:18.

[Anonymous No.19410768]

>>19410761
What does a key do?

[Anonymous No.19410778]

>>19410687
>why do catholics pray to saints instead of just to god

This article offers a quick rundown on the practice:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints

[Anonymous No.19410787]

>>19410740
I opened your link and the first line is wrong.
>“Death by Eve, life by Mary”
Death came by Adam not Eve.
>Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men...
>Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...
>Rom. 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one...
Typology is created where Scripture creates it. It isn't created by wholecloth.

[Anonymous No.19410790]

>>19408980
Did you learn this from your entirely personal relationship with Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19410798]

>>19410790
I suppose those in communion with Jesuits would feel Christ is honored by deception?

[Anonymous No.19410829]

>>19410768
The keys are in reference to Isaiah 22. In granting the power of the keys, Christ made Peter 'Prime Minister' among the apostles. In the OT the keys were, and now are by dint of Christ's words, held by a single office-holder, not a collective.

Suan Sonna explains the doctrine during the course of this discussion, starting at about 1 hour and 41 minutes in (specifically at 1:41:55): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rcCy61y3yQ

[Anonymous No.19410842]

>>19410787
>I opened your link and the first line is wrong.
>“Death by Eve, life by Mary”
>Death came by Adam not Eve.

Eve *cooperated* in Adam's fall, that is the point; she opened the door. Mary reverses that, by giving birth to Christ.

[Anonymous No.19410843]

>>19407716
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

[Anonymous No.19410845]

>>19410829
What do keys do? Can you answer that?

[Anonymous No.19410851]

>>19410842
If a lord sins his vassal is not responsible. Adam was the head of mankind and sin comes through him. This is how Scripture addresses this matter.

[Anonymous No.19410855]

>>19408980
I accurately described what the anon I was responding to was doing -- in an attempted "gotcha," he drew a distinction without a difference. He ignored the substance of the remarks he was responding to. Essentially the equivalent of dismissing another person's remark because they mistakenly wrote "your" instead of "you're."

Thus, there was nothing disingenuous in my remark.

[Anonymous No.19410871]

>>19410851
>If a lord sins his vassal is not responsible.
It's not a lord-vassal relationship at issue here, rather a husband-wife relationship, and moreover, were both parents of the human race.

[Anonymous No.19410883]

>>19410845
Keys do not "bind and loose." What is called "binding and loosing" is in reference to Jewish teaching authority. The video link explains this.

[Anonymous No.19410888]

>>19410871
The husband is the lord of the wife.
>Eph. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
>23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

[Anonymous No.19410892]

>>19410883
Keys lock and unlock. Can you show me the clear difference between "locking and unlocking" and "binding and loosing" in the sense of teaching authority?

[Anonymous No.19410902]

>>19410845
>>19410883

Further to my remark, see the Jewish Encyclopedia, which explains that "binding and loosing" is a "Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting."

See: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing

[Anonymous No.19410913]

>>19410888
Yes, that's why Adam bears the responsibility for the Fall, as indeed the Second Adam is the sole Redeemer of the human race.

However, just as Eve cooperated in a singular way in the Fall, so too did Mary cooperate in a singular with the redemption of the human race, by giving birth to the Savior.

[Anonymous No.19410920]

>>19410640
great, impressive, I agree with all this

now tell me the versicles where it says we must pray to the ark to save us.

[Anonymous No.19410933]

>>19410913
Eve could not cooperate in the Fall because the Fall was a consequence of Adam's federal headship of humanity, which she had no part of. She sinned first, and yet sin came through Adam. She is utterly subordinate in this matter.

[Anonymous No.19410938]

>>19410892
>Keys lock and unlock. Can you show me the clear difference between "locking and unlocking" and "binding and loosing" in the sense of teaching authority?

See my remarks about "binding and loosing" here: >>19410902

As for keys, see Isaiah 22: The keys were given to the 'Prime Minister'. They were both a symbol of delegated power.

Jesus, who is Lord of the House of David, gives those keys, singularly, to Peter in Mt 16.

There, Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging His kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim (see Isaiah 22).

[Anonymous No.19410948]

>>19410938
So keys are purely symbolic and not directly tied to "binding and loosing" (which is what keys do), so when the "binding and loosing" is also given to the other apostles, it has nothing to do with keys. Lol.

[Anonymous No.19410960]

>>19410798
MAN THIS IS ONE HOT BURN HOLY POOP
NOT IRONICALLY

[Anonymous No.19410974]

>>19410920
Well, I don't claim that it follows from Mary's role as the fulfillment of the type of the ark means that Mary saves us.

The significance of the doctrine may be summarized as follows:

>It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

It is one piece in the puzzle explaining why Catholics give a very special regard to Mary, and to Mary's role in salvation history.

Another important aspect is the issue of prayer to saints, which most Protestants reject, but which is explained here: https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints

Other points are touched on and explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJWwqs0Ajs

[Anonymous No.19410976]

>>19410798
Certainly no more deceptive than Pastor Brayden at your niece's baccalaureate shucking and jiving his way through "deeply personal" stories of his third believer's baptism after philandering with members of the Women's Auxiliary.

[Anonymous No.19410986]

>>19410974
>In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.
Truly amazing idolatry here.

[Anonymous No.19411009]

>>19410933
>She is utterly subordinate in this matter
THIS
PILLOW PARTY ON THAT FAGGOT ADAM HE SHOULD HAVE SAID NO WAY BITCH YOU DONE FUCKED UP NOW I DO NOT EVEN KNOW THAT YOU ARE NAKED

[Anonymous No.19411022]

>>19410948
>So keys are purely symbolic and not directly tied to "binding and loosing" (which is what keys do), so when the "binding and loosing" is also given to the other apostles, it has nothing to do with keys. Lol.

Just as in Isaiah 22, the granting of the keys is a symbol of granting authority - essentially, the authority of a Prime Minister.

So the keys are a symbol that signify a real grant of authority.

The power of binding and loosing is the power to forbid and permit. As explained by the Jewish Encyclopedia article, "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees." For example,"they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person."

Thus, the Church use of anathemas -- a final, dispositive judgment.

To summarize, the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing are distinct but conceptually related in that both were grants of religious authority by Jesus Christ, with that authority in turned passed on to the successors of the apostles.

The video link I noted earlier explains this point in greater detail.

[Anonymous No.19411030]

>>19410933
>Eve could not cooperate in the Fall because the Fall was a consequence of Adam's federal headship of humanity, which she had no part of. She sinned first, and yet sin came through Adam. She is utterly subordinate in this matter.

Well, she clearly did cooperate in the Fall, and indeed she tempted Adam to sin.

If you believe the Bible, that is.

[Anonymous No.19411037]

>>19410986

There's no idolatry, unless you think that Jesus Christ stooping to be born of the Virgin Mary was somehow idolatry??????

[Anonymous No.19411051]

>>19411030
The Fall is not the same thing as the sin. The Fall is the sin being imputed to all mankind and death entering the world, which occurs due to Adam, and solely Adam, sinning, because Adam is the federal representative of humanity. Eve is not part of this.

[Anonymous No.19411076]

>>19407690
Why read Protestantism when they are either mainline which is the most pozzed of all or Evangelical which is low iq Israel-worshipping money grabs? It goes clearly from observation that Protestantism has failed in its entirety
At least Catholicism and Orthodoxy have stable theology and subsets that are still deeply traditional

[Anonymous No.19411133]

>>19411051
You want everything to fit within the theological categories of the "federal headship" doctrine, which, in respect to the issue at hand, does not really act as a clarifying lens.

We are talking at cross-purposes. If you are interested in understanding the Catholic position wrt Mary as "Second Eve," I would respectfully suggest you read through this article, which weaves together the many relevant passages in Scripture: https://catholicism.org/second-eve.html

In the final analysis, you may still disagree with the Catholic position, but you will understand the rationale for Catholic belief, and better than I can explain it on this thread.

[Anonymous No.19411156]

>>19411133
And let me add, but nor is the doctrine of Mary as Second Eve in opposition to the doctrine of "federal headship," as such. There is no necessary conflict between the two positions, at least insofar as I understand it.

And part of this is that the Jerome remark “Death by Eve, life by Mary” has to be placed into context. Jerome well understands what you are saying about Mary vs. Adam's role wrt sin, and would agree with that.

[Anonymous No.19411201]

I always appreciated the “back to the basics” nature of Protestantism. There’s something zen about it.

[Anonymous No.19411276]

>>19407690
Umm, have you heard of the book of Romans? It's part of the Bible and completely refutes catholicism. The only answer retarded caths have is to either call Paul a false apostle or to use an out-of-context reading of James (who agrees with Paul btw).

We should be asking if there are any good arguments for catholicism. Catholicism is no different from the pharisees Jesus criticized.

[Anonymous No.19411293]

>>19411076
>le epic tradcath/orth larper
yawn, go shill your occult illuminati garbage somewhere else. protestantism's failures don't mean cath/orth suddenly makes sense. protestantism should be fixed, nobody should be jumping ship to a false gospel.

[Anonymous No.19411307]

Why did some schizo catholic need to spam literal ad links to basic bitch catholic e-pologist sites to fuck up the thread? Do we not care that he is obviously underage?

[Anonymous No.19411326]

>Hmm today I will vaguely pray for direct contact with the supernatural

[Anonymous No.19411347]

>>19411307
cathtards are autistic little faggots who literally embarrass themselves and their gay little cult in every thread

>>19411326
sorry your pineal gland's calcified, bro

[Anonymous No.19411350]

>>19411276
fuck man i havent felt so called out by anything else in my entire life kek

[Anonymous No.19411440]

>>19411276
>slave to his own pride

Honestly the most annoying part of these tradcaths.

[Anonymous No.19411447]

>>19411326
Protestants found their own version of theoria without all the dogmatic garbage.

[Anonymous No.19411531]

>>19411307
>seeing ads on the Internet

[Anonymous No.19411682]

>>19410541
>But he’s literally retarded
Well he’s pretty much never lost a debate so...

[Anonymous No.19411759]

>>19411682
>pseud internet debates as measures of intelligence

Have any animals made nests in the huge cavity where your brain is supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.19411859]

It's interesting to hear how close both Calvin and Luther get to transubstantiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY1f2C5vI0

[Anonymous No.19411984]

>>19407832
>Protestantism is like a grab bag
Exactly. Protestantism led to the current religion of self worship. Besides, nobody who cares about history is Protestant

[Anonymous No.19411993]

>>19411859
Stop with the YouTube posts and apologetics links. They don't convince anyone and you look like a raging faggot. You're not a bad arguer and can do better with your own shitposting abilities.

[Anonymous No.19411996]

>>19411984
>nobody who cares about history is Protestant
Except for that being disproven in this very thread within like 3 posts.

I like how the Protestant cites actual historians and peer reviewed sources and even cites the consensus of Catholic scholars in his post. Then the Catholic makes specious hypothetical arguments and ad hominems.

Imagine being on the Catholic side and realizing even your own historians aren't on your side. Or your hierarchy who supports those historians. And then imagine still thinking you are correct about Christian history. When the entire establishment and the Catholic Church itself rejects you. What is the psychology there? Father abandonment?

Is there even one peer reviewed source that argues the existence of the papacy in the first century? Any one, anywhere?

[Anonymous No.19412017]

>>19411993
I'll post what I please, thanks very much.

Turn down your ego. This is 4chan, not your own private forum.

[Anonymous No.19412031]

>>19411996
I'm not Catholic, I'm just interested in history. There are early Christians who make a big deal about excommunicating anyone who doesn't believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. Justin Martyr writes about this in his Apologies. Clement writes the same thing and adds where there is no Bishop, there is no Eucharist. Early house churches and underground churches were revealed to have altars and baptismal fonts for infants. Does this sound Protestant to you? It's literally a religion of self-worship and chaos. There is not a single doctrine tha all Protestants believe, which leads me to believe it is in its essence a neo-gnostic movement

[Anonymous No.19412125]

>>19412031
What history book on Christian origins have you read? Name a single current researcher in this field. Cite a source that indicates the existence of the papacy in the first century that has been peer reviewed.

Since you're "just interested in history"

[Anonymous No.19412135]

>>19412031
You are the biggest pseud I've ever read on 4chan

[Anonymous No.19412144]

>>19412031
>>19412125
Also what historical critical methodology did you apply to your epic analysis on primary source texts you cited? What is your familiarity with Greek? What credentials allow you to interpret the context of anything you posted? Where did you read it? A catholic blog?

[Anonymous No.19412147]

WLC appeals to my autism

[Anonymous No.19412165]

>>19412125
>current researcher
Why would I care at all about the writings of some critical theory loser? There are compilations readily available of early Christian writings compiled by Philip Schaff, J.B. Lightfoot, and a host of other people, all translated into English. Better to get a grasp of early Christian beliefs from early Christians, rather than Pastor Reverend Billy Bob of Second Baptist Bible Church.. And I don't believe there is any precedent for a papacy. The first ecumenical council (council of Nicea) even uses the Bishop of Rome as an example of Bishops who shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other Bishops. Ever read the Nicene Creed? Read the Canons of Nicea? They aren't very Christian my dude

[Anonymous No.19412168]

>>19412165
Aren't very Protestant *
>>19412135
Refute what is said

[Anonymous No.19412171]

If you read the church fathers, you are led to a moderate catholic/orthodox position. Real presence but not transubstantiation. Mysticism but not weird hesychasm/Palamism. Veneration of the theotokos but not mediatrix bullshit. Petrine primacy but not ultramontanism.

At the same time, the fathers teach salvation by faith rather than works (so point for the protestants) although they simultaneously teach regeneration by baptism, seeing no contradiction.

The problem is finding a church that consistently and prominently teaches the above positions that we can identify as patristic. Neither the RC nor Orthodox nor any prot cheetah that I know does. Compromises and humility are in order, and respect for those who make a different choice.

[Anonymous No.19412179]

>>19412171
Prime example of someone who has given into complete self-worship. God Himself isn't capable of maintaining the truth but you are. Pathetic

[Anonymous No.19412180]

>>19412165
Oh so when you say you're interested in history, you mean you can't even properly caricaturize historians for your knee jerk polemic. So when you say nobody who cares about history is protestant, you mean you are just repeating a catholic talking point you heard once and assumed you are now an historical expert

Great stuff

[Anonymous No.19412185]

>>19412165
>The first ecumenical council (council of Nicea) even uses the Bishop of Rome as an example of Bishops who shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other Bishops
Where do I read about this specific aspect?

[Anonymous No.19412188]

>>19412180
Refute what I said coward. Prove your theology isn't historically novel. You can't because you're dishonest and value your own judgment over historical truth

[Anonymous No.19412195]

Any of you chaps can actually explain each denomination for me? Quite in depth, if possible.

[Anonymous No.19412201]

>>19412185
They are available in a few different compilations, but they're also available online for free. Just search "Canons of Nicea". Here is a link of one I found just now https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

[Anonymous No.19412204]

>>19412188
Stop citing history when you haven't even read one text on it. Stop replying to me. Your posts can stand as they are. A monument to outrageous catholic ignorance. I am fine with letting you have the last word because you are a truly pathetic philistine.

[Anonymous No.19412205]

>>19412171
>The problem is finding a church that consistently and prominently teaches the above positions that we can identify as patristic. Neither the RC nor Orthodox nor any prot cheetah that I know does. Compromises and humility are in order, and respect for those who make a different choice.
AMEN

M

E

N

[Anonymous No.19412206]

>>19412201
Canon 6 is the primary Canon I'm citing, but check them all out

[Anonymous No.19412210]

>>19412204
Lmao, you're a pathetic retard. Also, I'm still not a Catholic

[Anonymous No.19412211]

>And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Have you slap-fighting fellows ever read Matthew? Why fight if you could have a reasonable discussion?

[Anonymous No.19412212]

>>19412195
Wikipedia dot org is your friend. Look up Lutherans, Presbyterians, congregationalists, Baptists, methodists, Anglicans, those are the main ones.

[Anonymous No.19412219]

>>19407797
MEROWITZ, BEROWITZ, HANDELMAN, SCHANDELMAN
SPERBER AND GERBER AND STEINER AND STONE
BOSKOWITZ, LUBOWITZ, AARONSON, BARONSON
KLEINMAN AND FEINMAN AND FREIDMAN AND COHEN

SMALLOWITZ, WALLOWITZ, TIDELBAUM, MANDELBAUM
LEVIN, LEVINSKY, LEVINE AND LEVI
BRUMBURGER, SCHLUMBURGER, MINKUS AND PINKUS
AND STEIN WITH AN "E-I" AND STYNE WITH A "Y"

[Anonymous No.19412220]

>that one narcissist who inserts himself into every thread and defends catholicism before saying he isn't catholic as some sort of gotcha
Please range ban him. Pretty sure its Savanarola without the trip.

[Anonymous No.19412228]

>>19412212
I was hoping to not go through all that. Just a nice little line on Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and subdivisions thereof, just for some standing.
I do realize this makes me sound lazy.

[Anonymous No.19412258]

>>19412171
>Mysticism but not weird hesychasm/Palamism.
Agree. I think of Palamas as the EO version of Luther, in that, like Luther, P's novel theology arose from his attempt to transform a religious experience - in P's case, seeing the hesychast monks at prayer; in Luther's, his 'tower experience' - into a total theological system. Which leads to all sorts of problems.


>Real presence but not transubstantiation.
As I often say in these discussions, Jesus was the first one to articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation, with the words "This is my body." It's simply a question of taking those words literally, which, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch did.

The young theologian interviewed here on the subject of transubstantiation has a lamentably goofy haircut, but he really knows his stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY1f2C5vI0 The dissertation he mentions is available online: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43427/1/Salkeld_Brett_D_201311_PhD_thesis.pdf He's very good. The dissertation was adapted into a book published by a Protestant house, Baker, which is rather astonishing, imho, and surely speaks to the work's special quality.

[Anonymous No.19412266]

>>19412228
Oh, okay.

Catholics: the pope, bishops, a fucking lot of Mary, molestation (everywhere), transubstantiation.

Orthodox: no pope, bishops, a good deal of Mary, molestation (in monasteries), real presence. Icons.

Historic protestants: definitely no pope, sometimes bishops and sometimes not, little to no Mary, normal levels of molestation, magisterial founders taught some form of real presence but people generally don't believe in it. Church architecture ranges from Catholic lite (Anglicans) to aggressively plain (congregationalists).

Evangelicals: Pastor Steve says I'm saved! Fucking scum.

[Anonymous No.19412298]

>>19412266
Now that puts me in a tight spot. I abhor a pope and the conception of saints, all around am not a fan of catholicism, and had the best experience with evangelicals, although the churches I've seen around here are not the awful kinds you describe, although I've heard of others like so. (not in the land of the free btw).
Where does that fit best?

[Anonymous No.19412308]

>>19412298
Not the kinds you describe as in, our preacher has an idea of what they're talking about. Not quite sure evangelical is the right term, that's the worst part of discussing it in english.

[Anonymous No.19412312]

>>19412298
Idk. The crux of it is, the more historic churches ceteris paribus tend to be more liberal and the more conservative churches tend to be less historic. So... Find the equilibrium that works best for your needs right now? Sorry I know that's not very helpful.

[Anonymous No.19412328]

>>19412312
Oh, no problem. That already helped me cross some off the list, and have a better all-around idea. I'll probably keep going where i go, they're very good, and do not go into any of those pitfalls.

[Anonymous No.19412336]

is there a better feeling than having the perfect quote for an occasion/discussion come into your mind?

[Anonymous No.19412351]

>>19412171
>At the same time, the fathers teach salvation by faith rather than works (so point for the protestants)
Why do Protestants always seem to get this point wrong? Catholics do not believe in salvation by works. We believe that Christians are saved by grace through faith. As the Catechism puts it:

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:

Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature... For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life [...]

Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1987-1997)

[Anonymous No.19412352]

>>19412258
Not gonna argue this at length, but transubstantiation is an explanation for real presence and not a synonym for it. This is why the Orthodox generally do not believe in transubstantiation - with positions ranging from "we're don't use those words" to "this is heresy" - but emphatically believe in real presence.

RC rhetoric seeks always and everywhere to collapse this distinction, but it is a trick.

[Anonymous No.19412365]

>>19412351
> Why do people assume the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works
Idk, if people keep assuming something about me, repeatedly and in different contexts, I sooner or later think that maybe I fucked up at least a little.

[Anonymous No.19412381]

I am baptized, but only now truly went into faith.
I'm in doubt; I truly believe now, but on the other hand i've already done it, with atleast reasonable belief as well, mind you.

[Anonymous No.19412412]

>>19412365
I mean, it is really only Protestants who make that error, and usually out of a combination of misunderstanding and animosity towards Catholics. Catholicism clearly condemns Pelagianism and all forms of "works salvation", and I clearly outlined what we actually believe, as is taught in our definitive major Catechism. Read the excerpt I posted and show me where it says we believe in works salvation. It is honestly one of the most midwit takes from Protestants, perhaps second only to "you worship Mary/the saints".

[Anonymous No.19412469]

>>19412336
Might be the most pseud thing I’ve ever read here. Congrats.

[Anonymous No.19412492]

>>19412412
Look, you get baptized. Your soul is in a state of grace. You sin. You are no longer in a state of grace. You have to go to confession and perform at least a token penance to get back in a state of grace. You sin again. Repeat. Forever.

Pardon me if that doesn't look like legalism/works-salvation. Go ahead and quote some more catechism but my point stands.

[Anonymous No.19412515]

>>19412412
>you don't worship Mary/the saints

[Anonymous No.19412719]

>>19412352
>transubstantiation is an explanation for real presence and not a synonym for it.

True.

>This is why the Orthodox generally do not believe in transubstantiation - with positions ranging from "we're don't use those words" to "this is heresy" - but emphatically believe in real presence.
Orthodox and Catholics agree that the consecrated bread and wine are now the body and blood of our Lord. If a heretic like Berengarius had arisen in the Orthodox world rather than in the Latin West, then perhaps the Orthodox, too, would have had to reckon with adopting further, technical language to address the matter, such as they had to adopt to overcome the various Trinitarian and Christological heresies (e.g., 'homoousios' at Nicea I).

>RC rhetoric seeks always and everywhere to collapse this distinction, but it is a trick.
I'm not sure what trick you're talking about.

"Real presence" is a term from Catholic theology. It means that the consecrated elements are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As noted above, I agree that the distinction you draw - transubstantiation is an *explanation* for real presence - is correct.

With that said, for the average Catholic, not trained as a theologian, and not intending to speak with the precision of a theologian, it is natural enough that the terms are virtually interchangeable, given that transubstantiation implies real presence, and vice versa. Thus, the distinction may be collapsed, but simply from a lack of precision and not with the intent to trick anyone. I suppose there could be some contexts online where deliberate obfuscation occurs. Although it seems to me the more commonplace confusion arises from the Protestant use the term "real presence," in which case it's never entirely clear what the person means, unless they explain it. As a result, use of the term, standing alone, on a discussion board is never entirely clear, unless one specifies something like "the Catholic meaning of real presence." Because of this, I often simply say "transubstantiation" where I mean "the Catholic meaning of real presence, as in my above comment about the words of institution. Not with the intent to trick anyone, collapse a distinction, or "pull a fast one," but simply as a kind of theological shorthand. If I had written: "Jesus was the first one to articulate the doctrine of real presence, with the words 'This is my body,'" the reader would have been left to puzzle out what I meant by "real presence" -- i.e., the precise Catholic meaning, Calvinism, or something in-between?

[Anonymous No.19412769]

>>19412492
I definitely see how you could come away with that idea, but let me provide some nuance and charity to our position, as a Catholic who rejects works salvation in accordance with Church teaching.

First and foremost, we are ONLY saved by the grace of God. We can never do anything of our own power to be saved - we are utterly helpless to do this by our own works.

Second, we are offered a free gift (grace) of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. This is absolutely unearned and unmerited, and the way we receive this gift is through faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and saviour of all mankind, faith that His sacrifice has once-and-for-all conquered death and sin.

Now here is the nuance - all ancient Christian churches, and many Protestant denominations, believe that we accept that free gift of salvation by faith THROUGH the sacrament of baptism - that baptism is a visible sign that an invisible grace is being conveyed, namely remission of sins through being baptized into the death of Christ. If we love and accept Jesus Christ, we will do what He tells us to do - for "He that has [Jesus'] commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me", and Jesus clearly commands all believers to be baptized, when He says "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". Note that He is saying that to make disciples of the nations, the apostles are to baptize them in the Trinitarian formula. Thus, Peter says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". And later he says, "In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge off a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Now, just as the Protestants who accept baptismal regeneration will affirm that baptism is NOT a work of ones own power which saves them, we ancient Christians believe that being forgiven of our mortal sins occurring after our initial justification is NOT a work of our own which saves us, but is rather the grace of God, as is baptism. We believe this because the ancient teaching of the Church is that one can lose their salvation - they can be "cut off", as the Jews were cut off. Paul says: "[The Jews] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off". Paul is clear - IF you do not continue in God's kindness, THEN you will be cut off from salvation, even as the Jews were.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.19412785]

>>19412492
>>19412769

So, imagine if one FAILS to continue in God's kindness. Say that one loses their faith in the Holy Spirit's commands in a moment of weakness, and commits the sin of adulter, even when the apostle Paul clearly teaches that "Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [...] will inherit the kingdom of God.".
That one has REMOVED himself from cooperating with God's grace, because he has rejected God and His commands, and has chosen to sin against the Lord. He has left the fold of Christ, choosing instead to join the flock of Satan.
But is such a man destined to forever be outside the kingdom of heaven, with no recourse to come back into the fold? God forbid. Instead, God, in His mercy, provides His church with a mechanism to return to God like the prodigal son. That is confession.
The Lord alone holds the right to forgive sins - but in His mercy, He shared that power with His disciples: "Whoever's sins ye forgive, their sins have been forgiven them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained".
Therefore Jesus Christ conveys His divine power for forgiveness of sins to mere humans. Now, a point that many Protestants get wrong is that "Well, Catholics say you have to confess to a priest, when James clearly says for us to "confess your sins to each other [...] so that you may be healed"".
Catholics do NOT believe that the only way for a sinner to be forgiven is to confess to a successor of the apostles. We DO believe that confession to a priest is, however, a way to be absolutely SURE that your sins are forgiven, by virtue of the power given specifically to the apostles.
For example, Catholics believe that a person can be saved (assuming they are within the Church created by Jesus Christ) through an act of perfect contrition, even if they cannot confess their sins to anybody. But how can one ever be sure that their private contrition is perfect, and is not just being said to appease their conscience?
That is why Catholics confess to a priest - because we believe that just as if Jesus said "You are forgiven", we would be forgiven - and that by virtue of His promise to the apostles, if they said "You are forgiven", we would be forgiven - that just so, if a successor of the apostles said "You are forgiven", we are SURE that we are forgiven, by virtue of Christ's promise.
So it is a way to be ASSURED of one's forgiveness, by virtue of the promise of Christ and through His grace ALONE, and not by any works of the man Himself. It is a definitive way to return to friendship with God, as long as one exposes ALL of their sins, and does not withold any out of shame or pride.
Hopefully, this might show you a bit of how we Catholics and Orthodox perceive these things, and help to dispel a bit of common misinformation. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.19412791]

>>19412769
>(1/2)

I cannot imagine how unlovable the incel typing this is

[Anonymous No.19412803]

>>19412791
Perhaps unlovable to you, but not to the One who died for Me. As my Lord and God Jesus Christ said, "If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world". So I am proud to be hated by you and by the world, and I wear it like a badge of honour.

[Anonymous No.19412817]

>>19412769
>>19412785
I'm not in the conversation but this has really turned some lights on.

[Anonymous No.19412825]

>>19412791
Wow, you should read that back to yourself. Christ loves you even though you are this much of a prick. You should let Him in and be transformed. Let all of that pride go and He will forgive you for it. Repent.

[Anonymous No.19412864]

>>19412785
Hey catholic anon, what's the deal with saints?

[Anonymous No.19412904]

>>19412785
This is all nice, but basically you've just repeated back to me, in more eloquent language, the rinse/repeat cycle I complained about before.

This is how you end up with poor souls like Alphonsus Liguori, the alleged master of moral theology who was himself tormented by crippling scruples to the extent that he's been posthumously diagnosed with OCD.

I won't pick at the details of your admittedly beautiful and attractive argument. It still smells like legalism to me.

[Anonymous No.19412914]

>>19412785
Different anon. Do you have any thoughts about the Reformers' doctrine of forensic righteousness, or forensic justification vs. the Catholic view?

And/or infused (Catholic) vs. imputed (classic Protestant) justification.

Are we made just (Catholic view), or merely declared just (Protestant view)?

And what difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.19412917]

>>19412515
I thought Christians were only supposed to worship and pray to god? Isn’t it a monotheistic religion?

[Anonymous No.19412963]

>>19412817
I'm glad that I could help to shed some light on the situation. All love and blessings to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

>>19412515
>>19412864
I'm happy you asked, because this is another huge misconception that a lot of Protestants have. I have some things to do first, and then I am going to type out a similar response, and hopefully this thread will still be up for me to post it.

>>19412904
The rinse and repeat cycle, as you call it, is simply a recognition that man fails to live up to the perfect holiness we are commanded to strive for by Christ - "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" - and that most men, after being spiritually born again in baptism, can never be free from committing grave sins. That is why every single early Christian agrees that repentance is a necessary part of the Christian life whenever we fall, which is why we are to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling", through seeking out forgiveness from the Lord, which is of a surety able to be granted through apostles and their successors, as per Jesus Himself. I'm glad you found the explanation somewhat helpful, though, and hopefully you continue to think on it. Please do your own research into what I am saying, look into the writings of the earliest Christians, and allow the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth", no matter where it leads. I truly want nothing more than for you to spend eternity in heaven.

>>19412914
I'm going to write for that other anon on the Catholic perspective on saints, and then I will address this. It is a bit of a complex discussion, but hopefully my answer will be helpful.

>>19412917
The short answer is that we only worship God, and we pray directly to God as any Protestant does, but we also "pray [to God] for each other", because "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). The main distinction between apostolic Christians (Catholic/Orthodox) and Protestants is that Protestants believe the saints cannot hear our prayers, whereas apostolic Christians do. I will outline the Catholic position supporting that belief in my next response regarding the veneration of Saints/the charge of idol worship.

[Anonymous No.19412993]

>>19412904
>he's been posthumously diagnosed with OCD

If we accept that at face value, then he was a high achieving person with a mental illness -- a thorn in the flesh that, according to the ex post facto diagnosis, Christ evidently did not remove. Does that equate to a any kind of legitimate critique of Catholic belief or practice? If so, will you accept a similar analysis of, say, Martin Luther, who some have posthumously diagnosed as bipolar. Was Luther's 'tower experience', the basis for his sudden revelatory "insight" into the meaning of Paul, actually a bipolar hallucination during a manic phase? Is "the doctrine on which the church stands or falls," which btw was never taught or believed in the first 1500 years of Christianity, the product of a mental episode?

[Anonymous No.19413001]

>>19412963
>Some things to do
Is that gonna take long? I gotta go sleep at some point anon

[Anonymous No.19413017]

This spammer is bullshit. Thread is now unreadable. Fucking catholics did it again.

[Anonymous No.19413024]

>>19412993
Alphonsus was supposed to be an example as a saint, and he was miserable his whole life through the very system he invented. It sounds like hell what he went though. That's no kind of sane example. If there was mental illness, it was in canonizing him and making him a doctor.

I do buy Luther being bipolar though.

[Anonymous No.19413046]

>>19413017
If you were really paying attention you would get some blessings out of it even as a non Catholic.

[Anonymous No.19413047]

Hey Janny do you want to do something about the fucking catholic catechism spammer coming into the Protestant thread and blasting walls of text just to make the thread difficult to read??

[Anonymous No.19413064]

>>19413001
Should be done in 30 minutes max

[Anonymous No.19413071]

>>19413047
For real, Catholics ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.19413079]

>>19413047
They are engaging us, responding to specific points. This can also result in higher effort refutations from Protestants. This is a far above average thread thanks to all of that.

[Anonymous No.19413081]

>>19407690
Clarel is anti-protestanism but had a good argument in favor of it from Derwent.

[Anonymous No.19413088]

>>19413064
oof. gonna catch up to it tomorrow then.

[Anonymous No.19413096]

>>19407690
Alister McGrath’s books on Protestantism/Reformation are superb.

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?isbn=9781119756583&st=xl&ac=qr

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?isbn=9780061436864&st=xl&ac=qr

[Anonymous No.19413138]

>>19412963
>>imputed vs. infused justification
>and then I will address this. It is a bit of a complex discussion, but hopefully my answer will be helpful.

I appreciate it, but don't mean to load a burdn on you with the question. I note that I am asking you the question as a Catholic because I like the way you have articulated the Catholic view of salvation. I also think that the imputed/infused issue goes to the heart of the "legalism" question. By their own admission, Protestants are *legalistic* in their understanding of justification -- for they see it as a legal declaration. Hence the "snow-covered dunghill" image, which Luther may or may not have actually used.

The Catholic understanding is utterly opposed to this. First off, the Protestant understanding is contrary to the belief of all Christians in the first 1500 years of the church. Secondly, it does not comport well with scripture. A few verses seem to fit, but it requires shoehorning to make it fit with many others, and it hardly harmonizes with the message of Christ in the gospels; it is a teaching that could only have arisen from obsessive study of Paul.

In any event, here is the Catholic position in a nutshell:

In the Catholic view, "justification is an announcement or fiat of Almighty God, which breaks upon the gloom of our natural state as the Creative Word upon Chaos; that it declares the soul righteous, and in that declaration, on the one hand, conveys pardon for its past sins, and on the other makes it actually righteous."

What God imparts in the gift of grace is Himself, nothing less, and this life-giving divine gift is a metaphysical, ontological communication of Christ's sonship.

The internal renovation is essential. For individuals are both imputed with Adam's guilt *and* infused with his fallen nature; they are declared sinful, and at the same time, they really ARE sinful.

Hence, in saving us, justified persons are both imputed with Christ's righteousness *and* infused with His life; they are declared righteous because, in virtue of Christ's indwelling life and holiness, they really *are* righteous.

>If the sinner is to be freed from God's disfavor, it will not at all suffice for God to cover up the sinful deed with the cloak of forgetfulness, and simply remit the guilt in response to the sinner's repentance. To forgive the sin fully, God must again confer on man that favor and grace which He had bestowed on him before he sinned. God must again draw man up to His bosom as His child, regenerate him to new divine life, and again clothe him with the garment of His children, the splendor of His own nature and glory.

The remission of sins is possible because the grace of Christ is infused into the person, making him a child of God.

Source: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a134.htm

[Anonymous No.19413210]

>>19413079
Yeah thanks for turning this into your book club circle jerk you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.19413227]

>>19413024
OCD is a mental illness -- a thorn in the flesh, yes?

>and he was miserable his whole life through the very system he invented.
You do not know this; it is an inference that obviously arises from your Protestant beliefs.

Are you saying that Catholicism leads to OCD? If so, what evidence do you have of this, other than a dubious diagnosis of one Catholic saint? There are currently over a billion Catholics on the planet. I am not aware that OCD has a higher incidence in that population that in the population of Protestants, or Muslims, or atheists. Do you know of research that indicates such? If so, your claim would be at least colorable. As it is, it is not.

Nor, in the absence of evidence, do I believe that a Protestant theology would cure OCD, as you seem, I think somewhat ludicrously, to suggest.

> If there was mental illness, it was in canonizing him and making him a doctor.

The defect, rather, lies in your analysis, based on your biases, rather than on facts.

Nor would it be proper to de facto exclude as eligible for canonization any person who suffered from any form of mental illness such as OCD or depression. God's grace can and does work in such person, who, by God's will, have a particularly heavy cross to bear. It is often indeed such souls who become our greatest saints.

[Anonymous No.19413233]

>>19413210
>needing Christ this bad

[Anonymous No.19413273]

>>19413233
>you need to pray to my magical dead Jew for forgiveness because he killed himself in a blood ritual within a system of sin that began with a fairy tale featuring a talking snake tricking a woman into eating an apple

[Anonymous No.19413311]

>>19408763
https://www.openbible.info/topics/heaven_and_hell
Why say something so blatantly untrue?

[Anonymous No.19413341]

>>19413273
UN

IRONICALLY

[Anonymous No.19413430]

>>19412515
>>19412864
>>19413001

I want to start off by saying that I am absolutely sympathetic to Protestants who think we worship saints, because a Catholic (or Orthodox) church is extremely shocking to somebody who grew up with a typical Protestant church.
I can just imagine them thinking "Why are there pictures of regular humans in a place that is supposed to be for the worship of God alone?". Without having the proper context, I absolutely see how one could think it is idolatry.

The main root of the misunderstanding, as I see it, is twofold: the first is the distinction between honour/veneration and worship, and the second is whether or not the saints can hear our prayers.

First, then is the distinction between worship and veneration/honour. Honour is a type of respect due to all mankind, as well as to God.
The Greek word for this concept (timé), is multi-faceted, such as when one is commanded to honour their father and mother, or where Peter says "Honour [timesate] all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour [timate] the king."
Paul says in 1 Timothy to "Honor [tima] the widows", yet we are also called to "honor [timosi] the Son, even as they honor [timosi] the Father".
So we have a clear precedent in Scripture for there being a respect or honour paid not only to the Holy Trinity, but to our parents, widows, the king, and "all men".
Thus, having established this distinction, the simplest form of the argument for honouring/veneration of the saints would be an "a fortiori" argument:
We are called by the apostles to honour all men, and we are also called to honour God. Now, it is clear that we are to honour God more than the average man.
So if there are gradations in the amount of honour which is to be paid, it logically follows that we should give more honour to the blessed Virgin Mary, than to a child rapist. For Mary bore God the Son in her very womb, and all generations shall call her blessed, how much more should we honour her than a child rapist?
Now, the idea is clear - we honour God at the top of the hierarchy in a unique way, and infinitely below him are the saints and angels in heaven who have earned their crown and robe, and below them are our brothers and sisters here on earth.

We do NOT, under any circumstances, worship saints. Worship, also called latria, is due to God alone. You can see this in such passages as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve [latreuseis]." (Luke 4:8)
Latria is a kind of exclusive worship - it is "service", in the sense of being exclusively yoked to a master. If you give latria to anybody but God, you are committing idolatry. Catholics will never, ever, give latria to any saint, even the blessed Virgin Mary. We respect and venerate the saints very highly, but NEVER worship them.

So, hopefully you now see the distinction between honour and worship, and how that plays into the Catholic perspective on saints.

(1/3?)

[Anonymous No.19413440]

>>19412515
>>19412864
>>19413001

Assuming that makes sense, the segway to the next point is something like - "okay, I see that one can honour the saints in heaven in a similar way to how we honour those who are alive, and I see how it is reasonable that some particularly holy saints could be more honoured than your average person. That's all fine.
But why do you pray to the saints? Isn't prayer supposed to be directed to God alone, because " there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"?".

First and foremost, the word pray just means "ask". If I ask you to pray for me, I am asking you to ask [God] for something on my behalf, even though I can also pray directly to God. This is a very common Christian practice, and I will assume you already do it.
The basis for the belief of prayer to the saints is threefold: first, we are called to pray for one another to God, and asking somebody to pray for you is not wrong - second, those in heaven are aware of what is going on on earth, in a supernatural way - and third, the saints in heaven are closer to God than we are.
With regards to the first point, I'm sure you already know the verse: "pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much".
I'm sure that one would agree that IF the saints in heaven could hear our prayers, because they have already proven their righteousness, their prayers to God would be very effective.
Another a fortiori argument - if the prayer of a righteous man on earth availeth much, how much moreso would the prayer of St. John the Baptist be, seeing as Jesus Himself said of him "among those born of women there is no one greater than John", but as if that was not enough, Jesus even says "yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he".
So IF the people in the kingdom of God COULD hear our requests for them to pray for us, and if hearing our request they would pray to God for us, it would surely be a profitable practice, because their righteousness is proven, and even the Lord calls the lowest person in heaven greater than even John the Baptist.

[Anonymous No.19413449]

>>19413440

So, the question is, CAN the saints in heaven see what is going on on Earth? The scripture is as follows:
"when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld. And they cried out in a loud voice, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You avenge our blood and judge those who dwell upon the earth?” (Revelation 6:9-10)
So the souls of the saints are under the altar in heaven, and they are clearly aware that God has not yet avenged their blood and judged the Earth. For this to be the case, they must know what has or has not happened on Earth.
Thus, at the very least, the saints in heaven know what is going on on the Earth. We also know that our guardian angels know what is going on on Earth in a direct, play-by-play way, with regards to each soul:
"See that you do not look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in heaven."

So, we know that angels and saints in heaven can actually see what is going on on Earth, and that we have at least one guardian angel who both sees everything going on in our lives, and simultaneously always see the face of the Father in heaven.
Now, the next question might be, could the saints possibly hear the prayers of so many people at once? If there are over 1 billion Catholics + Orthodox, and so many of them pray to the virgin Mary, how could she possibly pray to God for all of those who are asking her to pray for them?"
The scripture is as follows:
"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing, “To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)
So, John the Apostle, a mere mortal who was still alive and in his physical body, was granted the ability to simultaneously hear every single living thing in the entire universe - and not only that, he was able to coherently understand them all, human and inhuman, in his own language.
The four living creatures also heard every creature in the universe simultaneously, and it is implied that the elders did too.
Thus, it is clear from scripture that there is absolutely no logistical problem with the saints and angels in heaven hearing the prayers of the faithful. God is omnipotent, and He has clearly granted this grace to at least the angels, the elders, and John the Apostle.
Therefore, there is no reason why the saints could not hear our prayers in heaven. They are aware of what is going on on the Earth, and many (if not all) of them can simultaneously hear and understand every creature in the entire universe. It would even be a small thing for God to allow His saints to hear only those prayers directed to them across the world in their own language.

[Anonymous No.19413456]

>>19413430
>(1/3?)

Dude get some friends or something holy shit. What happened in your life where you obsess over dogma and need to rant at strangers on 4chan about it.

[Anonymous No.19413460]

>>19413449

The four living creatures also heard every creature in the universe simultaneously, and it is implied that the elders did too.
Thus, it is clear from scripture that there is absolutely no logistical problem with the saints and angels in heaven hearing the prayers of the faithful. God is omnipotent, and He has clearly granted this grace to at least the angels, the elders, and John the Apostle.
Therefore, there is no reason why the saints could not hear our prayers in heaven. They are aware of what is going on on the Earth, and many (if not all) of them can simultaneously hear and understand every creature in the entire universe. It would even be a small thing for God to allow His saints to hear only those prayers directed to them across the world in their own language.

Finally, now that we know the saints in heaven are aware of what happens on Earth, and that many have supernatural graces that allow them to have the ability to hear prayers, the only question is whether it is worth it to ask the saints/angels to pray for us, rather than doing it ourselves.
This should already be obvious based on the previous verses, but here is a final verseL
"And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." (Revelation 5:8)
So the prayers of the saints are offered like incense DIRECTLY to Jesus Christ, in His heavenly liturgy. Now, I don't know about you, but I am not a saint. But the saints in heaven are saints, and if they can hear my requests for prayers, and will pray to God for me, that means a prayer from a lowly sinner like me can be offered directly to the throne of Jesus Christ in heaven, in a way that is special and distinct from the prayers of non-saints.

Altogether, this was, to me, a solid cumulative case to show me that asking the saints to pray for us is, at best, extremely profitable and worth doing (which is probably why the early Christians did it) - and at worst, contradicts nothing within scripture, and is effectively a net neutral, because we also pray to God directly.

I hope at least somebody learned something new from this. Bless you all.

(4/4)

[Anonymous No.19413535]

Does the spammer actually think even one person read that shit? Fucking embarrassing how are catholics this autistic? The self satisfaction and narcissism is truly unreal. I like the samefagging he did too.

[Anonymous No.19413574]

>>19413460
Bless (You), verily.
>>19413456
>>19413535
He who exalts himself shall be abased, he who humbles himself shall be exalted.

[Anonymous No.19413640]

>>19413574
Dilate, you samefagging tranny clownpie

[Anonymous No.19413653]

>>19413640
If only you knew how wrong (You) really are.

[Anonymous No.19413661]

>>19407720
based luther poster

[Anonymous No.19413710]

>>19413640
I do get the feeling that most of these catholic posters are the same guy, seemingly pretending to be other people asking him questions. If so, how pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19413724]

>>19407754
Butterfly? I thought it was named “eunuch” and the symbol was a gaping wound were its penis once was.

[Anonymous No.19413727]

>>19413710
Its not even a question. It is beyond the bounds of any reasonable universe that the script this autist presented ITT, that he started spamming catechism quotes and YouTube transcripts and that several different protestants began asking questions and reading all his autism thoroughly and pleading with him to write more, has any correlation with reality. It is pure schizoid-narcissistic fantasy. And that is precisely the type attracted to internet larp catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19413754]

>>19413727
Holy shit. Nailed him.

[Anonymous No.19413797]

>>19413727
>It is pure schizoid-narcissistic fantasy
I know that I am at least one separate person who benefited from what they shared. I think (You) might be the schizoid narcissist with these fantasies of the posters all being the samefag.

[Anonymous No.19413987]

>>19410640
>>19410659

[Anonymous No.19414352]

>>19410696
Why do Catholic anons think this insufferable kind of speech projects holiness and not childish pettiness?
Luther yelling at Catholics? A genuine man-to-man mode of communication. This disingenuous shit? A mockery of Christian sanctity.

[Anonymous No.19414422]

The worst failing of Protestantism is that it was unable to eliminate Catholicism from existence.

[Anonymous No.19414496]

>>19414352
Underage plus incel plus narcissism means speaking in sanctimony makes you like God. Catholics literally read e-pologists and are automatically convinced that there is no possible rebuttal to what they say. Hence the link spamming. They read people who aren't priests and have zero secular qualifications and assume they're experts in fields that they've studied via Google. Dunning Kruger doesn't even begin to cover it.

[Anonymous No.19414533]

>>19411133
>You want everything to fit within the theological categories of the "federal headship" doctrine
No, I am addressing the matter as Scripture addresses it. Scripture names the head of man as Adam, and that death comes through him. There is no language of a "cooperator." There is no "cooperator" to the federal head, neither to Adam nor to Christ. I am allowing Scripture to define how this is handled and to define its own typology.
>which, in respect to the issue at hand, does not really act as a clarifying lens.
It clarifies that the made-up typology of Mary as second Eve is without merit.
>>19411156
>And let me add, but nor is the doctrine of Mary as Second Eve in opposition to the doctrine of "federal headship," as such.
It is and I have explained why.
>Jerome well understands what you are saying about Mary vs. Adam's role wrt sin, and would agree with that.
Don't even pretend you've read Jerome lol.

[Anonymous No.19414580]

>>19411293
>protestantism should be fixed
The reformation needs a reformation

You religious Americans are sad. Over-anaylzing everything, thinking you can pick and choose your religion based on whatever soothes your own ego. Basically, I am Catholic because my father is Catholic, and his father was Catholic, and so on. You cannot just decide one day to stop being a Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox and to start being something else.

[Anonymous No.19414598]

>>19414580
>Basically, I am Catholic because my father is Catholic, and his father was Catholic, and so on.
An understandable position from a Catholic, as Catholicism has historically conflated being a Christian with citizenship in the state.
>You cannot just decide one day to stop being a Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox and to start being something else.
At this point you are frankly not even a Christian. If no one can convert then Christ is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.19414639]

>>19414580
>Basically, I am Catholic because my father is Catholic, and his father was Catholic, and so on. You cannot just decide one day to stop being a Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox and to start being something else.
This was typed unironically. Enjoy having your faggy need for an identity used by a pedophile cult of Clintonite globalists for a cheap source of funds and a headcount. I'm sure Christ is all about that.
>just wanted to come into the thread to say i don't give any thought to things unlike you stupid americans
wow very based my man, go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.19414655]

>>19407690
Imagine being cucked by confessions , rituals, and idolitry. Your post should be about "are Catholics even Christians?"

[Anonymous No.19414664]

>Catholic: I am a Catholic because my father was Catholic. All good Polish/Democrats/etc. are Catholic.
>Orthodox: I am an Orthodox because my babushka was Orthodox. All good Greeks/Russians/etc. are Orthodox.
The true "old country" attitude.

[Anonymous No.19414692]

>Catholic: I am a Catholic because my father was Catholic. All good Polish/Irish/Democrats are Catholic.
>Orthodox: I am an Orthodox because my babushka was Orthodox. All good Greeks/Russians/peasants are Orthodox.
The true "old country" attitude.

[Anonymous No.19414743]

>>19414598
>If no one can convert then Christ is a fraud.

Well Jesus never said anything about converting from one form of believing in Him to another. So long as you genuinely believe in His message, and act in such a manner, there should be no need to convert from your father's Christianity to another form. Converting from another (false) belief is encouraged though.

>>19414639
Enjoy having your faggy need for an identity used by a pedophile cult of Clintonite globalists for a cheap source of funds and a headcount. I'm sure Christ is all about that.

Recommend me a Church that has not been corrupted by the greed of man over time, and I will take back everything and convert. Should I abandon my faith, and the faith of my ancestors, just because greedy and sinful people have hiacked it for their own gain?

[Anonymous No.19414748]

>>19412308
I think the word you're looking for is charismatics.

[Anonymous No.19414778]

>>19414743
>Recommend me a Church that has not been corrupted by the greed of man over time, and I will take back everything and convert.
The Presbyterian Church in America, and dozens of other denominations in the NAPARC.

>Should I abandon my faith, and the faith of my ancestors, just because greedy and sinful people have hiacked it for their own gain?
Uh yes? Anyway how is it your faith if you don't believe it for any reason other than "muh daddy?"

>>19414748
>I think the word you're looking for is charismatics.
Probably correct. Evangelical properly refers to belief in (1) the 5 Sola's of the Reformation, (2) biblical inerrancy, and (3) often subscription to a confessional standard. With that said, the broad division in Evangelicalism is between Reformed and/or confessional orthodox churches on one end, and Pentecostal/Charismatic/Revivalists on the other end. There is a wide variance, but the latter tend to be associated with colleges and universities and publishing and stuff, the latter is more of what is associated with megachurches. With that said, very large churches can be classically orthodox or Reformed as well, so it depends.

[Anonymous No.19414785]

>>19414778
>There is a wide variance, but the latter tend to be associated with colleges and universities and publishing and stuff, the latter is more of what is associated with megachurches.
oops, meant that confessional and Reformed churches tend to be the intellectual class, producing bible translations, running universities, etc.

[Anonymous No.19414786]

>>19414743
>Well Jesus never said anything about converting from one form of believing in Him to another. So long as you genuinely believe in His message, and act in such a manner there should be no need to convert from your father's Christianity to another form.

2 TIm. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Pet. 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

[Anonymous No.19414792]

>>19414778
Charismatics are also a big thing in Catholicism now (lol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_charismatic_renewal

[Anonymous No.19414798]

Protestants are the niggers of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19414806]

>>19414792
cringe. it's hilarious how they latch onto protestant trends like 30 years too late trying to seem cool, and then claim that they're superior despite following protestant around like a little brother trying to act tough.

and pic related is how that's working out for them

[Anonymous No.19414808]

>>19414798
t. crypto-atheist teenage trad larper

[Anonymous No.19414810]

>>19414806
and pic related is how that's working out for them.

[Anonymous No.19414814]

>>19414810
and pic related is also how that's working out for them.

[Anonymous No.19414816]

>>19414580
>Basically, I am Catholic because my father is Catholic, and his father was Catholic, and so on
Oh fuck you can't just say this anon, you are going to make every American on /lit/ seethe hard

[Anonymous No.19414823]

>>19414816
well it won't be an issue when your religion is completely dead in another couple decades (see three prior posts), so it's a moot point. i'm glad your feeling of superiority has spiritually satisfied you. when no one remembers who or what you are and you're burning in hell i'm sure that will be of some comfort to you.

[Anonymous No.19414824]

>>19414792
>>19414778
I wish a rundown of all the various types of Christians existed where you get a 10 or 15 second summary of what they're like. As an example, from those unpleasant TikTok videos I have learned what Methodists are like. I wish I had something in this fashion for every subsect of Christianity, until I get to the one where a man dressed like a wizard is kneeling among human skulls while chanting in Latin.

[Anonymous No.19414826]

>>19414816
Oy back in the old country me matushka babadook she say 'russian person is orthodox, he work field, he pray to saint vlad the impaler, he go to gulag, he die, amen'. You go to church your father go to, you don't eat the fish on the day they say don't eat the fish, all good. This what Jesus want.

[Anonymous No.19414827]

>>19414798
saying this in the context of any catholic church setting would lead to excommunication and your fellow catholics seeking to ruin your life or dox you.

so, will you admit you're a larper?

[Anonymous No.19414837]

>>19414580
Jokes aside I think both parties in this discourse are right. What you say is true, but it's also true that passively accepting things that you know to be wrong is indolent. The Reformation happened because people were extremely unhappy with how the Roman Church was behaving. I don't like the idea of shopping for faith as I call it, but in today's context where religion is often polluted by politics, especially in certain contexts, it's difficult to see things so simply.

[Anonymous No.19414840]

>>19414748
>>19414778
possibly so. The only difference from your description is not having confession.

[Anonymous No.19414846]

>>19413017
>>19412791
>>19413047
>>19413071
>>19413456
>>19413535
>>19413640
>>19413727
>>19414352
>>19414496

>INCEL INCEL TRANNY TRADCATH LARPER INCEL WHY ARE YOU POSTING SO MANY WORDS >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
What the fuck, is this thread being false flagged, or did the some of the Protestants really just meltdown like this?

[Anonymous No.19414850]

>>19414840
>possibly so. The only difference from your description is not having confession.
maybe Restorationist? many independent churches and general nondenominational or megachurches are functionally either Baptist or Restorationist. I don't know much about them, but they're kinda like "vanilla" christianity.

[Anonymous No.19414853]

>>19414846
pro tip if you want to pretend you're not having a meltdown you don't mass reply you dumb faggot lol

[Anonymous No.19414857]

>>19414823
To be honest I am just going to agree with this guy
>>19412803

[Anonymous No.19414858]

Hello good sirs.

[Anonymous No.19414874]

>>19414857
what? dilate. i don't know what your post means and i don't care. don't ever quote me again, tranny. you post like you were raised by a single mom.

[Anonymous No.19414885]

Bros I fapped to tranny porn again and am currently not in a state of grace. My priest is busy dispensing condoms from our float in the gay pride parade and can't take my confession. What the fuck do I do????

[Anonymous No.19414894]

>>19414858
Good morning good sir!
>>19414853
I'm going to keep quoting you, because your post is the perfect example of how American Protestants act identical to American Atheists

[Anonymous No.19414915]

>>19414858
why is he doing the dubs check it thing?

[Anonymous No.19414919]

>>19414915
He's directing your attention to God, heathen.

[Anonymous No.19414938]

>>19414919
i was predestined to get these 4's

[Anonymous No.19414947]

>>19414827
the pope is a nigger too and a satanist and I don't know which is worse. He's worshiping fertility idols from South America. Excommunicate me, you geriatric Italiano faggot.

[Anonymous No.19414965]

>>19407754
>it's remarkably simple
>here are all the sacraments protestants are missing
What part of "no greater burden" do you not understand? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[Anonymous No.19414972]

>>19414947
NOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT HIS HOLINESS EL PAPA!! HE'S THE HECKIN VICARINO DE CRISTO!! IF HE ISN'T THERE THEN I CAN'T KNOW WHAT ANY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS SO STOP IT!!!

[Anonymous No.19415053]

>>19414850
huh. can you go a little deeper into what would be a restorationist church?

[Anonymous No.19415437]

>>19414938
This. Here tho.

[Anonymous No.19415620]

>>19413574
I'm glad you benefitted from it. God bless you, fren. Although, according to >>19413727, you are actually me, so I guess I'm thanking myself.

[Anonymous No.19415640]

>>19407690
I just found out the King James bible was originally printed with the apocrypha. What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.19415675]

Bumpa locuta est.

[Anonymous No.19415719]

>>19415640
Not much. That it became unfashionable to include the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles. They were never held to be canonical, just included by custom as human texts worth reading.

[Anonymous No.19415847]

>>19414894
>AMERICAAMERICAAMERICAAMERICAAMERICA
Rent fucking free. Grow up, Euroid.

[Anonymous No.19415927]

>>19415640
Reading the Apocrypha has been considered a good endeavor since ancient times. They're set in the section "Apocrypha" in the KJV to note that they are not canonical. Confer Athanasius on the canon
>But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

[Anonymous No.19415957]

More Athanasius
>Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray ...
In less formal language, he's stating that at the time of his writing of this festal epistle in 367 AD, there were people attempting to mix the apocryphal books into the canon, and that the canon which he sets forth in the epistle (which is equivalent to the Protestant canon) is the one which was handed down by the Apostles.
>These are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.

[Anonymous No.19415990]

>>19415957
The interesting thing about this letter is that it doesn't fit either the Catholic or Orthodox position. The Orthodox as far as I've been able to tell don't really have a strong position on the OT canon as Catholics do (the Orthodox "canon" being is even broader), and once you get into the Oriental Orthodox churches their OT becomes rather strange and varies by region. Catholics have a similar standpoint to Athanasius, in wanting to specifically define the canon, but they do so by adding the books he says must not be added and thus fall under his condemnation. And they didn't actually rule on these books being part of the canon until the council of Trent in the 1500s, in response to the Reformation.

[Anonymous No.19415995]

Why did it take 1000 years to invent salvation by faith alone?

Paul isn't saying Sola Fide. He's saying salvation by faith. Not by faith alone.

[Anonymous No.19415998]

>>19415995
>Why did it take 1000 years to invent salvation by faith alone?
It is present in the New Testament so it did not take 1,000+ years. Hope that answers your question.

[Anonymous No.19416015]

>>19415995
Allow me to make a technical clarification. Protestants (I'll speak from the Reformed position) believe that we are *justified* by faith alone. By faith alone are we declared just before God. Faith will necessarily produce good works, however. So we would say that in the broader sense, works do factor into our salvation. But they do not render us just before God. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through faith, and that is what renders us just.

[Anonymous No.19416269]

>>19415995
Why did it take several hundred years for the church to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity? Men revered formally as saints like Justin Martyr were plainly subordinationists. There is a historical development to doctrine and this cannot reasonably be denied by anyone, from any tradition. We do not hold men of the past accountable for their imperfect understandings, as the proper conversations had not taken place. But Catholics today live after the time of the Reformation. Their errors have been explained to them in excruciating detail. But still they refuse to repent. This is conscious rejection of the Truth, something which could not be charged of medievals.

But of course, the entire Protestant thesis can be constructed from material present in the broad Augustinian tradition. Luther clarified what was already present in Scripture and tradition.

[Anonymous No.19416292]

>>19407690
I have never heard a single good argument for Protestantism in my entire life, and i am sure that no such argument exists anywhere

[Anonymous No.19416310]

>>19414806
>>19414810
>>19414814
>nooooo people don't want to stay in our pedophile cult!!!!

[Anonymous No.19416334]

[Anonymous No.19416339]

>>19414947
At this point getting excommunicated by that fuck and his Satanic church would be an honor.

[Anonymous No.19416349]

>>19410064
>look up who jay dyer is
Honestly? Is this the argument you have against Orthodoxy? Some random American clown?
The best way to compare Churches is by the miracles performed by their Saints. Catholic and Orthos have lots of Saints who by the Grace of God were able to perform miracles.
Are there any prot Saints?

[Anonymous No.19416357]

>>19416349
Nonsense for gullible peasants.

[Anonymous No.19416360]

>>19416292
You wont find one because no exist. Its plain to see that protestantism is a religion of hatred by what the prot anons itt are posting.
Its a political religion that mixed with american liberalism and flourished under the greed of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19416364]

>>19416357
>denying miracles
Nothing short of blasphemy desu.

[Anonymous No.19416365]

>>19416339
Never heard of St. Peter?

[Anonymous No.19416380]

>>19416364
Cleave to Scripture, not to signs or earthly authorities. This kind of unbiblical superstition has historically been used to prop up a colossal vampiric ecclesiastic superstructure.

[Anonymous No.19416390]

>>19416360
>political religion that mixed with american liberalism
>Protestantism began centuries before the United States was founded

[Anonymous No.19416401]

>>19416365
Yeah.
>But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

[Anonymous No.19416405]

>>19416380
>Cleave to Scripture
Yes, thats how I know miracles can be performed and they will continue to be performed by men blessed with the Holy Spirit even after the time of Christ and his Apostles.

[Anonymous No.19416472]

>>19416390
>Protestantism began centuries before the United States was founded
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19416617]

>>19414533
"For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

If Jerome intended to contradict what is stated in Romans 5:17, by his remark, "Death by Eve, life by Mary," I would repudiate Jerome as plainly mistaken -- indeed a heretic. But I don't think he so intended that meaning. Rather, his meaning is made clear by the second half of the analogy: "life by Mary." In the context of the letter where Jerome makes this remark (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001022.htm)), his immediate subject is the Virgin Birth, not salvation as such. By the logic of analogy, if Jerome intended "Death by Eve" in a sense that contradicted Romans 5:17, then he would be imposing a similar sense on the second half of the comparison. That is, he would have intended "life by Mary" in a sense that contradicted Romans 5:18's "life to all mankind" through Christ's "one act of righteousness."

But from the context of the letter, it's clear that he does not intend to invest the words "life by Mary" with that sense. Rather, it is quite clear that in saying "life by Mary," Jerome is referring to the Virgin Birth. From which it follows, by the logic of his analogy, that Jerome did not mean to suggest Eve brought death to mankind in the sense that Romans 5:17 teaches Adam, and Adam exclusively, brought death to mankind.

>>19411051
>The Fall is not the same thing as the sin. The Fall is the sin being imputed to all mankind and death entering the world, which occurs due to Adam, and solely Adam, sinning, because Adam is the federal representative of humanity. Eve is not part of this.

Although I would not myself use the exact same language to make this point, you draw a nice distinction here, and I agree with the substance of your remark. Essentially, your point follows on the plain meaning of Romans 5:17. We agree that that meaning controls: the imputation of the Fall to all mankind occurs due to Adam, and solely Adam.

1/3

[Anonymous No.19416641]

Karl Barth was the last hope for christianity but christcucks couldn't be bothered to develop a consistent system.
Now the religion is dead.

[Anonymous No.19416673]

>>19414806
>it's hilarious how they latch onto protestant trends
The trend they latch on is secularization. They don't really follow Protestantism, they are just "modernizing" which looks very much like it. In reality religion is dying. This includes Islam etc. although nominally it's growing, it will become cucked by liberal politics. True religion is just going to die, it's pointless to bicker. Actually I've thought about >>19414692 which is from another thread, this is probably the most sane thing to do, or at least one should consider a church he can actually attend unless he wants to become a priest. It makes very little sense to fight at this point.

[Anonymous No.19416674]

>>19416349
1) Lrn2read. "TradCath" LARPers got a huge forum closed down due to their toxic behaviors towards everyone. I said that the Orth equivalent is Jay Dyer fans, which tend to go into other people's YouTube comments in packs and "defend" whatever it is that has offended them to the point where the comments have been shut down.

2) When I was a child there was another kid in my church which had a full blown indisputably authentic miracle happen. There was no huge deal made of it, it happened, we all knew, that was that.

I myself have since served as a vessel of the Lord having performed two full blown indisputably authentic miracles on others. One was witnessed by one other, and the second was witnessed by two others.

You will never hear about any of these because no one contacted the news or made any public announcements whatsoever. Everyone involved experienced what happened, knew what it was, and that was that. It seems that most people who make a huge deal out of miracles do not already have authentic faith so a miracle is a big surprise that was not expected. If you already know for a fact that the Lord is real then miracles are to be expected and are normal, if not overtly frequent. Through these visible miracles we are simply affirmed that the Lord is always there behind the scenes in ways that we do not obviously see, but we know that we can always trust in Him. This is what true saints do, humbly believe on and trust in Him, not broadcast how saintly they are.

[Anonymous No.19416686]

>>19416674
>When I was a child there was another kid in my church which had a full blown indisputably authentic miracle happen. There was no huge deal made of it, it happened, we all knew, that was that.

Elaborate you liar

[Anonymous No.19416708]

>>19416349
BTW, if you are Orthodox it would be great if you could swing by Jay's channel every now and then and inform him that he is a clown.

[Anonymous No.19416713]

>>19416686
No, it is of no concern to anyone outside of our church.

[Anonymous No.19416730]

>>19416708
>>19416349
Seriously Dyer needs to be taken down a peg.

[Anonymous No.19416732]

>>19415990
>And they didn't actually rule on these books being part of the canon until the council of Trent in the 1500s, in response to the Reformation.
Ever heard of the Council of Rome 382?

[Anonymous No.19416738]

>>19416713
>>19416674
This is so funny.

>all these 100% authentic miracles happened with many witnesses
>can't talk about them

Classic "church secrets"

[Anonymous No.19416744]

>>19416617

>Eve is not part of this.

She is necessarily a part of the story, albeit *not* in a fashion that transgresses the doctrine and principles laid down in Romans 5. As explained by John Henry Newman (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/newman-mary.asp):
>The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us.
>**It was in Adam that we fell**
>Though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural priveleges which were bestowed upon him as our first father.
>Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom it was divinely committed the naming of all things, named her "the mother of all the living," a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity;
>but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again she had her own special place, as regards its trial and its fall in Adam.

>In those primeval events, Eve had an integral share.
>"The woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tm 2:14. She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband, and he ate of it.
>She co-operated. not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin: she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a sine qua non, a positive, active cause of it.
>AND she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognised as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly.

This brings us to Genesis 3:15, the Protoevevangelium: "And I will set enmity between you and between the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Here, then, already, Mary is brought into the picture, in deliberate juxtaposition with Eve.

Newman has no difficulty in showing that this parallelism between Mary and Eve goes is seen by the Fathers as early as the second century. It is found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (written circa A.D. 155), and on several occasions in the great treatise of St Irenaeus, Against the Heresies (written probably in the last quarter of the second century):
>As Eve by the speech of an angel was seduced, so as to flee God, transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel's speech, so as to bear God within her, being obedient to his word. And, though the one has disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey God; that of the virgin Eve the Virgin Mary might become the advocate. And, as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin's disobedience by a virgin's obedience" (5, 19, 1).

2/3

[Anonymous No.19416755]

>>19416744
>2/3
Holy shit dude shut up

[Anonymous No.19416782]

>>19416744

3/3

And again in Ireneaus:
>"And so the knot of Eve's disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith"

As Archpriest George Florovsky notes (https://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/maria_florovsky_e.htm): "This conception was traditional, especially in the catechetical teaching, both in the East and in the West. "It is a great sacrament [magnum sacramentum] that, whereas through woman death became our portion, so life was born to us by woman," says St. Augustine (De Agone Christ., 24, in another place he is simply quoting Irenaeus). "Death by Eve, life by Mary," declares St. Jerome."

To conclude. Scripture plainly establishes a parallelism between Eve and Mary, albeit one that is not in conflict with Romans 5. The parallelism was recognized by the early Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Ireneaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephrem Syrus, St. Epiphanius, Jerome and Augustine. Newman's letter on the subject, from which many of the above remarks have been taken, may be found here: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section3.html

[Anonymous No.19416819]

>>19416738
No, not "church secrets" but rather people's personal business between them, us, and the Lord. Jesus often told those that he healed to go and tell no one, BTW.

[Anonymous No.19416855]

>>19412803
>>19416782

[Anonymous No.19416861]

>>19416819
>personal business between them, us, and the Lord

Is that how your priest framed it when he diddled you?

[Anonymous No.19416866]

>>19416819
Also this was not a "church decision" that was discussed and sworn not to tell, it was just our natural way. We experienced it, knew it, and kept living. There was no apparent impulse to go around broadcasting it. I am sure that his parents told some personal people in their own lives outside the church, but most of us in that church were each other's personal people for the most part. That all is sadly decaying as the generations pass.

Most of Christ's miracles were given to those who already had faith, they weren't provided in order to give faith that wasn't there.

[Anonymous No.19416871]

>>19416861
We don't have "priests". Also see >>19416861.

[Anonymous No.19416890]

>>19408480
>Apparently the catholic larpers larped so hard they got the biggest catholic forum on the internet shut down last year.

You're referring to the forums at catholic.com, right? Now closed, of course. Do you know the story behind that? Do you have a link to something that discusses it?

[Anonymous No.19416895]

>>19416866
>no apparent impulse to go around broadcasting it
If you can convince people that a miracle took place they might become Christians.

[Anonymous No.19416919]

>>19416871
>doesn't deny getting diddled, only corrects that it wasn't by a "priest"

Sorry to hear that, anon.

[Anonymous No.19416929]

>>19416855
Your meme is well-taken (although I'm not entirely sure how it was intended to be taken). I might note that (i) I'm not >>19412803, and (ii) 'To conclude' is a rather antique phrase that I suppose I'm fond of because it is antique.

[Anonymous No.19416961]

>>19416871
>We don't have "priests".

No priests? 'Priests' are just what were called in the NT 'Presbuteros'. The word 'priest' comes straight from 'presbyter' which comes from 'presbuteros'. You could look it up.

[Anonymous No.19417013]

>>19416895
They shouldn't "become Christians" over a miracle but rather because they are HELLBOUND SINNERS in need of the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY to save them through Christ Jesus in mercy despite their pathetic HELLBOUND SINNER SELVES.
>>19416919
Yeah, didn't get "diddled" and there has never been a single case of that in my church as far as I know, and am reasonably sure at all.

[Anonymous No.19417490]

>>19416961
>sunday school infographics

anon...

[Anonymous No.19417530]

>>19417490
The message is the massage (pace, McLuhan).

[Anonymous No.19417604]

>>19417530

[Anonymous No.19417873]

ITT heretic midwits who think they're smarter than 2000 years of unbroken wisdom.
Cease and repent, Ave Maria +

[Anonymous No.19417909]

>>19417873
>I cannot believe people are questioning my ancient incel cult