The Victory of Protestantism

Any books on how Protestantism has fundamentally won? The slogan ‘ad fontes’ has really done a number on Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy when it comes to the nature of the early Church—they practically admitted the invisible church, the Protestant canon, aniconism, absence of a monarchical episcopate, charismaticism, etc. Someone has to have written about this somewhere.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the protagonist of The Idiot talking about Catholicism. I'm pretty sure it reflects Dostoevsky's actual opinion on the subject.

      >In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn't even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, ardent feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn't this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn't it clear that atheism had to come from them? And it did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself!

      Protestants tend to be far more conservative than Catholics.

      Absolute Prot and Ortho cope to distract from their own failures.

      Who REALLY keeps the teachings of Jesus? Didn't you guys allow divorce? Didn't you guys disobey the Didache by allowing abortion? Whose churches have been stripped of all imagery and symbolism found in the ancient cave churches of Cappadocia? Whose Churches have become mere tools of nation-states?

      It's all talk. You talk about the "early church" but you directly deviate from it in ways way more substantive than something like the Papal States or indulgences.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Whose churches have been stripped of all imagery and symbolism
        You mean idols?
        >Didn't you guys disobey the Didache by allowing abortion?
        No, and nowadays abortion is more popular with Catholics than Protestants.
        >Whose Churches have become mere tools of nation-states?
        The Pope spews the exact same Golbalist propaganda that European politicians spew. Furthermore the Catholic Church was most likely founded by the Roman Empire as a way to control Christians and keep them docile.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You mean idols?
          Prayer with aid of icon is not the same as believing icon = deity. Are you black or are you otherwise incapable of understanding what a representation is?

          >and nowadays abortion is more popular with Catholics than Protestants.
          Source: my ass

          >The Pope spews the exact same Golbalist propaganda that European politicians spew
          You read a couple news headlines and think it's actually the Pope's word.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >prays to a woman
            I think I'll just keep praying directly to God, anon.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            to a woman
            Once more an intentional failure of understanding.

            >I think I'll just keep praying directly to God, anon.
            Nobody's stopping you. I do the same.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How will you explain to Jesus the intentional lying and slander of His mother?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The meme catholic got pissed and had to resort to taunting lmao

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Within your post is contained no argument. It is more of a "taunt" than his.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >are you black or moronic
            lmao what an argument for catholicism
            >n-no you..

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >selective comprehension
            interdasting...

            You ignored the refutation of your claim prior to that sentence. You have no further argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah no matter how hard you larp your underage is showing.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Weak

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        this doesn t apply to orthodoxy at all
        who doesn t lent?
        who eats fish every day during lent?
        who allowed butter during lent?
        from whom did protestantism evolve?
        who gives one man the power, to decide what s right, what s wrong and rule over kings?
        of course if one studies history one might observe that the schism between east and west was indeed inevitable, just as much as which one will turn out the sinful one and lawful one

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Who REALLY keeps the teachings of Jesus? Didn't you guys allow divorce?
        Protestants who follow the Bible don’t allow for divorce.

        > Didn't you guys disobey the Didache by allowing abortion?
        Protestants who follow the Bible don’t allow for abortion.

        > Whose churches have been stripped of all imagery and symbolism found in the ancient cave churches of Cappadocia?
        Nicaea II is not justified by the Fathers or Scripture. Images are fine, veneration is idolatrous.

        > Whose Churches have become mere tools of nation-states?
        False churches, just like we see in the OT

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        When catholics want divorce you just call it annulment. I've seen even super "trad" latin mass gays do this.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the protagonist of The Idiot talking about Catholicism. I'm pretty sure it reflects Dostoevsky's actual opinion on the subject.

    >In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn't even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, ardent feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn't this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn't it clear that atheism had to come from them? And it did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I guess if you're just reaaally vague and talk about about rome and empire then it comes across as poignant? I suspect he was just a couple bottles deep into the 'ol cereal grain malt liquor. I don't glean a lot of meaning from this epithet.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >vague
        What part of "The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness" do you not understand?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >took up the sword

          This is absurd cope from an Ortho given that their Churches have been state Churches since the fall of Byzantium and they've ALWAYA gone along with whatever war or dispute their national governments go in for. You can see it even today, with how far Putin has his fist shoved up the Russian Orthodox Church's ass to support the war in Ukraine.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Say what you will about Orthos but they never genocided an entire continent the way Catholics did.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            why is Russian spoken five miles from North Korea?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which continent?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm pretty sure he means the South American continent

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          All I know is that once upon a time they said coffee was evil and then the Pope tasted some and said it was ok to drink. Thanks Pope Clement VIII !!

          There that is some substantial amount of facts and specifics for you to contend with. Too much for Dostoevsky to bear in his drunken stupor I suppose.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wasn’t there also at least 1 pope who frequently drank cocaine-infused soda water?

            Cocaine in moderation is probably fine but I doubt most people have the strength to take cocaine in moderation

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pope John XII had sex with his sisters, Pope Boniface VIII was a pedophile, and Pope Sergius III murdered not one but two Popes. Pretty strange behavior for God's Earthly representative, am I right?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Pope Boniface VIII was a pedophile
            >A process (judicial investigation) against the memory of Boniface was held by an ecclesiastical consistory at Priory Groseau, near Malaucène, which held preliminary examinations in August and September 1310.[72] and collected testimonies that alleged many heretical opinions of Boniface VIII. This included the offence of sodomy, although there is no substantive evidence for this, and it is likely that this was the standard accusation Philip made against enemies.[73] The same charge was brought against the Templars.
            Is this really the best you could come up with, just some king disgruntled with him on political grounds and accusing him of sodomy, that you then spin as pedophilia?

            That's less gay than King James of titular KJV fame.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So the Catholic Church investigated one of their own and declared him innocent? Where have I heard that one before?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            When in doubt, just make up some nonsense about how you know better than the historical sources. Luther taught you well

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was at the 15th Ecumenical Council, right? In other words Catholics investigating their own Pope? Hardly an unbiased query.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      how is this exclusive to the Catholic church, Ivan?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well said. Catholics are pagans.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Orthodox Church has had the opposite problem of deferring to each and every temporal power, whether it is the Emperor, the Sultan or the NKVD. I personally hate this sort of polemic, it devalues what is valuable in traditions both Catholic and Orthodox.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Orthodoxy is worse. Both give in to worldly power but in Orthodoxy the church used to sell literal "absolution certificates" to people where you could get your own or someone else's sins forgiven for a monetary fee without confession or repentance. The Catholic indulgence only pertained to purgatory, so you'd have to die in a state of grace yourself for it to be relevant, but the Orthodox literally sold absolution to people.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates

          >These certificates were real indulgences that anyone could obtain which absolved them from sin. These were often obtainable for a specified amounts of money. ... the absolution granted by these certificates had no connection with any participation by the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist.

          >Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641–1707) wrote: "It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον – synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do."

          >The practice of issuing indulgences ... received official confirmation at the Constantinople Council of 1727. ... "The Confession of Faith" from the Council, the text of which was compiled by Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem and was signed by Patriarchs Paisius II of Constantinople, Sylvester of Antioch, and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem ... said, "The power of the forgiveness of sins, which is termed by the Eastern Church of Christ Absolution Certificates when given in writing, but by the Latins Indulgences, is given to the Holy Church by Christ. These Absolution Certificates are issued in the whole Catholic Church by the four most holy Patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."

          >Indulgences as a means of enrichment were condemned at the Council of Constantinople in the year 1838.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing. Always the same corrupt shit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do."
            Bro it's our ancient tradition. It goes back to the early church because we say it does, okay? Christ guides the Church so if it wasn't an apostolic tradition we wouldn't do it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literally fricking what? Every accusation here is applicable tenfold to Lutheranism, and well beyond that to the further Schismatics.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You been living under a rock? Dostoevsky was Orthodox, not Protestant. He probably disapproved of Protestants just as much if not more so.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I know what Dostoevsky believed, the post I replied to implied it was a refutation of Catholicism in favor of Protestantism, which is absurd on its face, but also ignores both the rest of the context of the work and Dostoevsky's beliefs regarding Prots.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Protestantism is leftism. They deny authority and prefer individualism to hierarchy. The are a product of entropy, ie the tendency of systems to break down, of order to be reduced to chaos.

    Protestantism “won” the same way that “progress” won. They’re on “the right side of history.” The breakdown of stability.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Protestants tend to be far more conservative than Catholics.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        If by conservative you mean their religious and political beliefs are

        [...]
        [...]
        Absolute Prot and Ortho cope to distract from their own failures.

        Who REALLY keeps the teachings of Jesus? Didn't you guys allow divorce? Didn't you guys disobey the Didache by allowing abortion? Whose churches have been stripped of all imagery and symbolism found in the ancient cave churches of Cappadocia? Whose Churches have become mere tools of nation-states?

        It's all talk. You talk about the "early church" but you directly deviate from it in ways way more substantive than something like the Papal States or indulgences.

        Mj completely controlled by israelites and the GOP then yea. If you actually mean they hold right-wing beliefs, incorrect.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is the protagonist of The Idiot talking about Catholicism. I'm pretty sure it reflects Dostoevsky's actual opinion on the subject.

        >In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn't even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, ardent feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn't this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn't it clear that atheism had to come from them? And it did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself!

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestants deny authority.

      You know who else denied authority of the Earthly Church?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christ was/is the authority. He's literally the prophesied king of the israelites. He's God. There's absolutely nothing revolutionary about Him disobeying the priesthood that was supposed to be obeying Him in the first place

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's right, Christ is the authority, not the Pope or Peter or Mary or anyone else the Catholics worship.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Catholics worship Mary and the pope
            aaaand this is how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christians don't pray to Mary or Saints like God. This is made extremely explicit in the Catholic Catechism and I have seen it spelled out quite clearly in Orthodox texts as well.

            We pray WITH these saints TO GOD. Revelations shows the Saints around God's throne offering up the prayers of the faithful like incense. We are in communion with all the saints because we are one in Christ, as Christ prays to the Father in the Gospel of John, "let them be one in me as I am one in you."

            This is the "Communion of the Saints," just celebrated for All Saints Day last week. We are not separated by death because we are unified in He Who Conquers Death. Thus, we unify our prayers with those who have departed the world of flesh and come into the "fullness of God," who see "face to face," instead of "through a mirror darkly."

            Of course we pray to God. When we pray with others we still pray to God. When you are in a prayer group and pray with others, are you not praying to God?

            The Transfiguration on the Gospels shows us that the departed Saints are with God in this way, for Christ is shown talking to Moses and Elijah in the mountain before the Apostles.

            If you are part of a Reformed Church, then your church likely acknowledges this as doctrine, for the Apostles' Creed:

            "I believe in the Holy Spirit,
            the holy catholic church,
            the communion of saints,
            the forgiveness of sins,
            the resurrection of the body,
            and the life everlasting. Amen."

            That is, Protestants acknowledge the communion. They condemn veneration because, historically, lack of proper teaching and the general ignorance of the masses did lead them into error in thinking of such saints the wrong way. This is regrettable, and why we now have Catechumen attend classes and receive long periods of guidance, although those born to the faith sometimes neglect proper teachings. This is true in all churches. How many Reformed would accurately recite all of their churches doctrines. But such veneration is completely Biblical and seen in the Bible itself.

            You can call it whatever you want, but it's idolatry. You might as well worship a golden calf.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every. single. time. lmao.
            With Catholics it's always
            >giant imposing statue/painting of Mary portrayed like some kind of Goddess and oh yeah then there's a little Jesus put in the corner off to the side

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ye, true Christians hate beauty and Christ’s mother. They would rather sing guitar worship songs in a non-descript basement with pastor Jeb.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >n-nooooo you NEED IDOLS where's the giant mother goddess statues?????? Why aren't you addressing His MOM first you need HER permission to speak to him!!!!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Only LARPers think you NEED statues and images. When Prots killed priests in Ireland, people assembled at rock altars and worshiped there

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This post

            Ye, true Christians hate beauty and Christ’s mother. They would rather sing guitar worship songs in a non-descript basement with pastor Jeb.

            is quite literally implying something is missing or off in your worship if you don't have statues and depictions of Mary as a response to the previous post

            They actually had a community and shared their lives with one another in the praise of Christ. Do you do that? Or do you just call other christians heretics and stick to yourself?

            Who said I was calling people heretics? I am simply calling out idolatry and hypocrisy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its not saying you need beautiful art to pray. The point is that there is nothing wrong with a community of Christians coming together and building beautiful things in the service of God. Protestants scream and cry about this, and then create ugly and soulless things, or simply do nothing at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ugly and soulless things,
            Okay yeah I figured you were an underage trad kid and this confirms it.
            >dude... I need to pick a religion... being a atheist isn't cool anymore... this one is soulless... that one is not evropean enough.... hmmm yes... this one with the gold idols and cathedrals is perfect for my trad larp 🙂

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I just stayed with the religion of my ancestors like a normal person. I know its easy just to categorize everyone who dislikes the ugliness of protestantism into one category though.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ancestors
            VGHHHH
            I was thinking this earlier, if you were a pagan Roman in the 1st century you would likely mock Christians for worshiping in a heckin basement and not having epic basilicas and statues like you have for Pagan Gods

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And also how pagans were later mocked by Christian Romans as being rednecks like Billy-Bob and Hunter

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Having beauty and depictions of Mary and the saints is a long tradition in Christian devotion and piety. It’s not like you can’t celebrate mass without such things though. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, simple as that. The presence of such things, though, is not an evil, and is often a good.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This. But there will still be seething after this about how you are an idol worshiper.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No.. no.. They keep calling us idol worshippers for worshipping idols..

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you just intentionally misunderstand everything about Catholicism to feel better about yourself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tell yourself whatever you wish idol worshipper.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Mary
            >long tradition
            The cult of Mary did not begin until around the 12th century with people like St Francis really emphasizing it.
            Reminder Mary's words are recorded a grand total of four times in the Bible. It would make more sense if you guys asked Moses for intercession or even Peter than Mary 90% of the time. Why do you think a human woman holds some sort of power over Jesus that she could make your prayers to him more effective?Do you not realize how incredibly blasphemous that idea is?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not true. St Jerome (doctor of the church, translator of the Bible that Luther read) wrote an entire treatise defending the sanctity of Mary. He was probably an idol worshipper though, right?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Guess he didn't read the Bible verses he translated where it specifically mentions Jesus's brothers

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Why do you think a human woman holds some sort of power over Jesus that she could make your prayers to him more effective?
            Mary doesn’t hold ‘power’ over Jesus. Mary is the Mother of God, i.e. the incarnate God-man. Christ loves His mother, who was an absolutely unique woman and human being. Who else has had God dwell within their body? Who else has had God take of their flesh and become a human through them? Who else has raised Jesus as a son other than St. Joseph? This woman was pregnant with God, gave birth to God, held God in her arms, nursed God, raised God, and this woman was faithful to the end, can you imagine her sorrow at the foot of the cross seeing her child, the Christ, nailed to the cross. And then Christ says ‘Behold your Son’, and to John ‘behold your mother’. All of the others fled. Christ’s love and election of Mary is something astounding. She is alive today in Christ among the saints and prays for us. Christ created the Virgin to further His glory and to magnify the Lord even further.

            I do not understand how Protestants cannot honor the Mother of Jesus Christ. Our Lady gave us the rosary in order to deepen our love for Christ and to meditate on the mysteries of the Gospel. If you want to understand Mary and her place in Christianity, pray the rosary every day.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and the shroud of Turin held Jesus and the True Cross held him as he cleansed our sins and the Lance of Longinus was literally inside of him, that does not make these items divine or something that should be prayed to (despite many Catholics throughout history literally praying to these items among other things like fingers rumored to be from saints)
            I am not diminishing that Mary is a great woman, but she does not want you to pray to her. Nowhere in the Bible is that ever remotely implied as there is very little in the Bible even about her.
            >the rosary
            Literally
            >MARY MARY MARY MY LADY MARY god MARY MARY MARY also jesus MARY MARY MARY HAIL HER HAIL MARY HAIL THE VIRGIN HAIL HER FEMININE BEING CONTEMPLATE HER ESSENCE lord in heaven THEN MARY MARY MARY

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > MARY MARY MARY MY LADY MARY god MARY MARY MARY also jesus MARY MARY MARY HAIL HER HAIL MARY HAIL THE VIRGIN HAIL HER FEMININE BEING CONTEMPLATE HER ESSENCE lord in heaven THEN MARY MARY MARY
            In the Hail Mary you are repeating the Angelic Salutation of Gabriel to Mary, the words which commenced the incarnation, and then supplementing it with the words of St. Elizabeth, ‘blessed is the fruit of thy womb’—in every Hail Mary, we bless Jesus. We acknowledge her words in the Magnificat that she is blessed among women too. As we meditate upon the mysteries, we pray along with Mary and grow closer to Christ and the saints.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let me summarize your post
            >Hail Mary
            >repeat angels
            >Mary
            >saint
            >bless thy womb
            >Hail mary
            >also Jesus btw
            >her words
            >she is
            >mary
            >grow closer to christ AND THE SAINTS TOO THO
            Do you not see how this eschews the trinity to the side? It specifically says not to pray to angels in the Bible, so despite Mary being a very angelic person, she is not meant to be prayed to.
            Revelations 22:8-9
            I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, "Do not do that I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you ask your friends to pray for you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already know where you're going with this. Mary is alive in heaven therefore praying to her is somehow the same as asking your friend to pray for you in regular speech. I don't begin my prayers with "hello Joe (my friend) I hail you and hope that you pray for me so that I may reach God as I don't have faith that he is omnipresent and can hear me without asking you, Joe, my pious friend, speak to him and pray to him for me"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God allows the saints to continue to exercise charity in heaven and to pray for us and to intervene as God permits. We see the saints under the altar praying in the Book of Revelation. This view of Protestants necessitates that Satan and his angels are more active in our world than the saints. Your view is also reliant on an assumption of egalitarianism. Mary and the saints are not your buddy Joe. They are ruling in heaven with Christ. Merely saying nice things about a created being is not idolatry. The essence of idolatry is sacrifice. If you give an offering to Mary or St. Paul or St. Peter in the form of sacraments and rites, that is idolatry, not mere praise.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god allows
            Exactly, so why are you praying to the thing He allows rather than He Himself?
            I don't recall Jesus asking Moses for intercession in his prayers

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God is pleased to work through secondary causes, such as his saints. Why does God need angels when He can just do everything? Because He desires to, simple as that. Why does God ask us to pray for others when He already knows what they need and desire? Because God wants us to rely on each other, to grow in charity and interdependence as brothers and sisters in Christ. The Church exists not just here on earth, but also in heaven. This bond of charity is not severed by death. Christ had conquered that. God wants us to ask the saints for intercessions, because God is glorified in His saints

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is pleased to work through secondary causes, such as his saints.
            God literally killed Moses for not giving him (God) credit for a single miracle.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you really view God as some bean-counter who rejects prayer that praises the Saints? Why can’t we praise the beauty of God as exemplified by Mary?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have to keep in mind that many of the Catholic Church saints throughout history were either fabricated, pagans with name changes who existed before Jesus was born and had no concept of Him or God, or were horrible people that taught false doctrine and tortured and enslaved people and did pretty much the opposite of what the Bible says but they paid a lot of money to the church and were canonized by some mobster Italian banking family friend pope in the Middle Ages.
            I think it is an offense to God to pray to such people or do muh "intercession" with them instead of praying to the omnipotent omnipresent real God that wants a relationship with you.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is what individualism and schism does to a homie. Im sure you are much more holy then the men that performed miracles and assembled the very “scriptures” you claim to revere.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not not worship. It's fellowship of the saints, no different than you asking your friend to pray for you. Except these are better friends and the victorious Church of all ages. The main problem with Protestants is your minds are naturalistic and worldly. You have no concept of heaven or the totality of the Church. You think of it as just some early thing down here, but it is all the saints.
            You quote Revelation and twist it as it being worship, but what the prayer of the saints are right there in Revelation:
            >And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.-Rev 8:3-4
            You guys pride yourselves on "Sola Scriptura" - so live up to it. Listen to the above.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >saints pray to God
            >therefore we must pray to saints
            huh

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Scriptures tell us to ask others to pray for us, seems legit

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not not worship. It's fellowship of the saints, no different than you asking your friend to pray for you.
            Yeah, protestants don't get this. As I was telling my friend Jeff yesterday when I was asking him to pray for me, "Hail Jeff, blessed among men, blessed be the fruit of thy ballsack..."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Yes and the shroud of Turin held Jesus and the True Cross held him as he cleansed our sins and the Lance of Longinus was literally inside of him, that does not make these items divine or something that should be prayed to
            Those are relics, God can choose to work through them, as he did with cloths that had touched the body of Paul and brought healing to people. We can even find 2nd century examples of this.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you read that from a translated bible you krypto-protestant?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Tiberius doesn’t hold ‘power’ over Jesus. Tiberius is the Emperor of God, i.e. the incarnate God-man. Christ loves His Emperor, who was an absolutely unique man and human being. Who else has had God dwell within their Empire? Who else has had God take of their rule and become a human through it? Who else has raised Jesus as a citizen other than St. Joseph? This man was governing with God, gave rights to God, held God in his borders, educated God, raised God, and this man was faithful to the end, can you imagine his sorrow at the foot of the cross seeing his citizen, the Christ, nailed to the cross. And then Christ says ‘Behold your Citizen’, and to John ‘behold your Emperor’. All of the others fled. Christ’s love and election of Tiberius is something astounding. He is alive today in Christ among the saints and prays for us. Christ created the Caesar to further His glory and to magnify the Lord even further.

            >I do not understand how Protestants cannot honor the Emperor of Jesus Christ. Our Ruler gave us the pavement in order to deepen our love for Christ and to meditate on the mysteries of the Gospel. If you want to understand Tiberius and his place in Christianity, pray the pavement every day.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Daily reminder from St. Louis de Montfort:
            >The second truth is that those who love this Divine salutation bear the very special stamp of predestination.

            >The third is that those to whom God has given the signal grace of loving Our Lady and of serving her out of love must take very great care to continue to love and serve her until the time when she shall have had them placed in heaven by her divine Son in the degree of glory which they have earned. (Blessed Alan, chapter XI, paragraph 2)

            >The heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and clearly bear the sign of God’s reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father but never the Hail Mary; they would rather wear a poisonous snake around their necks than wear a scapular or carry a rosary.

            >Among Catholics those who bear the mark of God’s reprobation think but little of the rosary (whether that of five decades of fifteen). They either fail to say it or only say it very quickly and in a lukewarm manner.

            >Even if I did not believe that which has been revealed to Blessed Alan de la Roche, even then my own experience would be enough to convince me of this terrible but consoling truth. I do not know, nor do I see clearly, how it can be that a devotion which seems to be so small can be the infallible sign of eternal salvation and how its absence can be the sign of God’s eternal displeasure; nevertheless, nothing could possibly be more true.

            >In our own day we see that people who hold new doctrines that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church may have quite a bit of surface piety, but they scorn the Rosary, and often dissuade their acquaintances from saying it, by destroying their love of it and their faith in it. In doing this they make elaborate excuses which are plausible in the eyes of the world. They are very careful not to condemn the Rosary and the Scapular as the Calvinists do—but the way they set about attacking them is all the more deadly because it is the more cunning. I shall refer to it again later on.

            >My Hail Mary, my Rosary of fifteen or of five decades, is the prayer and the infallible touchstone by which I can tell those who are led by the Spirit of God from those who are deceived by the devil. I have known souls who seemed to soar like eagles to the heights by their sublime contemplation and who yet were pitifully led astray by the devil. I only found out how wrong they were when I learned that they scorned the Hail Mary and the Rosary which they considered as being far beneath them.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Reminder from the Gospels:

            Jesus never calls Mary "mother".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            ‘Behold your Son’

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean? He calls her "woman" in that very sentence if I recall.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s simple logic, if you identify yourself as a ‘son’ in relation to a woman who gave birth to you, then that woman is your mother. Your critique is on the level of ‘Where is the word ‘trinity’ in the Bible!’. Let’s not forget that even St. Elizabeth in Luke 1 identifies Mary as ‘The Mother of my Lord’.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really. "Son of man", among other examples, does not imply that "man" is Jesus' father...or mother.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Mother of My Lord
            What could this possibly mean when St. Elizabeth meets a pregnant Mary after an angel has announced that she will give birth to a son who is the Christ? Being a son in the *biological sense* necessitates a mother…this stuff has been condemned since Ephesus. It’s Nestorianism. Jesus Christ, who is God and man, is the flesh and blood son of Mary. This is a word concept fallacy to appeal to ‘Son of Man’

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what the hell Catholics mean, and don't want to. You should ask them. As far as your second point, it seems backwardly reasoned. The only reason why you are assuming that "son" refers to biology in your excerpt is to confirm the otherwise unfounded claim of biological motherhood. Consider another example, "your father the devil", do you suppose that this means that the devil has biologically generative, "creative", powers, contrary to Catholic dogma?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gabriel told Mary that Jesus will be her *son*, making her the mother of Jesus, who is God and man, making her Theotokos.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And? Someone calls Jesus a blasphemer in the Gospels. Does that mean it's true?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >being a Docetist in the Year of Our Lord 2023
            Might as well include the Gospel of Thomas and the Thunder 😉

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was sort of a joke. Thomas and the Thunder are Gnostic texts and the Gnostics generally denied that Christ could have a human mother in any real sense, or flesh.

            Docetism was an early Christian heretical belief that emerged in the 1st and 2nd centuries. It denied the full humanity of Jesus Christ and asserted that he only appeared to be human, but in reality, he was purely divine. This perspective rejected the idea that Jesus could experience physical suffering, have a biological mother, or have a genuine human nature. Docetism was considered a threat to orthodox Christian doctrine, as it challenged the central tenet of the Incarnation, which asserts that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. The term "Docetism" is derived from the Greek word "dokēsis," meaning "to seem" or "to appear," reflecting the belief that Jesus' human form was illusory. The early Christian church rejected Docetism as a heresy, emphasizing the importance of Jesus' true humanity and divinity in the development of Christian doctrine.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Docetism sounds pretty reasonable. If your God does in fact exist, Italian cops shouldn't be able to beat him up and kill him. That was only a display of his power that he could create such a display and convince people to understand it. Humans die when they are killed—everyone knows this. But Jesus "rose" from the dead by his own power as God, which no human can do. For him to be human and God is the church forcing you to agree with nonsense, like when your employer tells you to celebrate anal sex and penis removal month because it makes society more inclusive.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yet Jesus has to be fully human and fully divine so that the crucifixion would bring salvation

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All this tells me is that you consider the state akin to a mother's womb and love. Dire.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus told Christians to obey their parents and their government. If you are going to worship Mary you should worship your elected officials too. If you are American and don't worship Joe Biden you aren't a true Catholic, Biden was appointed by God, after all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not the reason the other guy gave for Marianism. I'm not even Christian but are all prots this dishonest?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Take a look through this thread and see how many times they willingly misunderstand basic Catholic/Ortho doctrines.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't necessarily being dishonest. Protestant churches I have gone to for a long time just don't do any church history, like at all. An American Evangelical can easily have no idea what other Christians think or do, nor that they are a very small minority. The very condensed history that is given in devotionals tends to boil things down into an extremely one sided and brief narrative about "corruption," and reform.

            This sort of comes from the doctrine. If only the Bible is valid as a source for our ideas, history doesn't matter. Thus, you will frequently hear the claim "and this is biblical." The implication is that other traditions don't use the Bible, but of course, very little is justified without any reference to Scripture, and it tends to be ancillary stuff.

            And this leads to problems with inter denominational cohesion for any sort of larger social project, because different denominations will find that they all claim to be following the one, true, and obvious "Biblical," interpretation. It's quite sad. I really think the sorted history of the Church should be a focus because it gives us many lessons on what NOT to do, and that is true for all denominations, as virtually every denomination strong enough to survive was at times strong enough to do fairly wretched things to other Christians due to disagreements in doctrine that, at face value, are complicated and easy to disagree on.

            When I first moved to Kentucky was when I first encountered people talking about so and so "converting to Christianity," from Catholicism. It wasn't meant as invective. They just really don't get the history, or even what about Orthodox or Coptic Christian is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I remember talking to a very devout friend about different churches and he had never heard of the Orthodox, he got confused and started calling them "Ortholic". When I asked him about differences in tradition between Protestants and Catholics he got quiet and sort of talked around the issue, he really didn't seem to understand the concept.

            This is not to defend Catholicism, if you ask the average lay Catholic about church history they're also shockingly ignorant but in a different way. Normally they assume everything the church believed when they were 18 goes right back to Jesus and the apostles (obviously it started going downhill once they became an adult lol).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not even Christian but are all prots this dishonest?
            Yes

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The "prayer of a righteous man avails much"-James 5:16. Much moreso when it's Christ's first and best disciple. More than you will ever be. Secondly, Christ gave her to the Church as Mother.-John 19:25-29. Not just the beloved disciple's mother, but mother of all the Church-Rev 12:17

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This simply means that if you are righteous your prayers may be more likely to be answered. This doesn't mean to pray to the righteous people or to assign them some sort of worth over God as a means to reach him when God wants a relationship with all of humanity, we are all his bride so to speak.

            > Yes and the shroud of Turin held Jesus and the True Cross held him as he cleansed our sins and the Lance of Longinus was literally inside of him, that does not make these items divine or something that should be prayed to
            Those are relics, God can choose to work through them, as he did with cloths that had touched the body of Paul and brought healing to people. We can even find 2nd century examples of this.

            Exactly like he chose to work through the burning bush, doesn't mean we are supposed to find that same bush thousands of years later and then pray before it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Classic Catholics can't understand their bible-moment. For a sect very much in love with the idea of not being able to read holy scripture you quote it a lot. Aren't translated bibles a protestant thing anyway?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prayers OF a righteous man, not prayers TO a righteous man.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can ask a righteous man for prayers. Your problem is you think death is final, because you're a little man with a little church. You have no conception of the universal Church that spans space and time.
            Another thing on this note, most of you who are Protestants are also liars. To yourselves and all men. Most Christians, including Protestats, profess the Apostle's Creed - which is the most baseline confession tracing to the earliest ages of the Church. And it says "I believe in the communion of saints". But you don't believe this. You're just liars going through the motions when you say this. Or you rely on cope and think the "saints" means just pastor Bob.
            I respect israelite larping Adventists more than you. They're consistent at least. They drop the entire history of the Church and rely on a meme "secret history" version.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're a little man with a little church
            Your church is on Earth, ours is in Heaven. It only seems small because you can't comprehend it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm loving your flailing attempts at psychoanalysis.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >psychoanalysis
            Eh? I'm just calling you liars. Especially to yourselves. No need to overthink it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do realize 1st century Christians quite literally prayed and worshipped in basements with no-name leaders who went by names like Jebius without idol statues or golden material decorations?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They actually had a community and shared their lives with one another in the praise of Christ. Do you do that? Or do you just call other christians heretics and stick to yourself?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            molested hands of a catholic child wrote this post

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christians don't pray to Mary or Saints like God. This is made extremely explicit in the Catholic Catechism and I have seen it spelled out quite clearly in Orthodox texts as well.

            We pray WITH these saints TO GOD. Revelations shows the Saints around God's throne offering up the prayers of the faithful like incense. We are in communion with all the saints because we are one in Christ, as Christ prays to the Father in the Gospel of John, "let them be one in me as I am one in you."

            This is the "Communion of the Saints," just celebrated for All Saints Day last week. We are not separated by death because we are unified in He Who Conquers Death. Thus, we unify our prayers with those who have departed the world of flesh and come into the "fullness of God," who see "face to face," instead of "through a mirror darkly."

            Of course we pray to God. When we pray with others we still pray to God. When you are in a prayer group and pray with others, are you not praying to God?

            The Transfiguration on the Gospels shows us that the departed Saints are with God in this way, for Christ is shown talking to Moses and Elijah in the mountain before the Apostles.

            If you are part of a Reformed Church, then your church likely acknowledges this as doctrine, for the Apostles' Creed:

            "I believe in the Holy Spirit,
            the holy catholic church,
            the communion of saints,
            the forgiveness of sins,
            the resurrection of the body,
            and the life everlasting. Amen."

            That is, Protestants acknowledge the communion. They condemn veneration because, historically, lack of proper teaching and the general ignorance of the masses did lead them into error in thinking of such saints the wrong way. This is regrettable, and why we now have Catechumen attend classes and receive long periods of guidance, although those born to the faith sometimes neglect proper teachings. This is true in all churches. How many Reformed would accurately recite all of their churches doctrines. But such veneration is completely Biblical and seen in the Bible itself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Weak

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are you unironically comparing Luther to Christ rn

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thats what it always comes back to doesn’t it…

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thats what it always comes back to doesn’t it…

          Jesus and Luther both stood up to corrupt religious institutions. Thry have much more in common than Jesus and the Pope, who sits on a golden throne and says whatever people want him to say.

          How will you explain to Jesus the intentional lying and slander of His mother?

          Jesus' mom was a human woman, not a diety. Praying to her is a sin.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So is idolizing a German pervert / revolutionary

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hilarious that you would blaspheme Christ by comparing him too an overly scrupulous neurotic like Luther—Christ never schismed from the authentic authorities. His family went to the Temple, he was frequently in the Temple, he told the lepers to show themselves to the priests, and read the first verses of Matthew 23. Jesus said to obey those who sat in Moses’ seat, but not to do what they do. Luther did the exact opposite. Luther had no divine mandate nor a mandate from the Church.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yep. Jesus also specifically prevented his disciples from attempting a violent revolution against the church authorities

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus stood up to religious rulers and their state.

            Luther attacked religious leaders to elevate the state.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Protestantism is just an application of what we see in the Old Testament. The hierarchy becomes decadent, the population falls into paganism and idolatry, and a small remnant is preserved by God that holds to true worship. We even see a magisterial reform in the OT. Things got so bad that the Scriptures were lost and people were ignorant of them, until a copy was found in the Temple. Josiah had them them read, tore his clothes, and immediately started destroying the idols of the kingdom, putting the law into effect, killing idolatrous priests, etc.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestantism “won” the same way that “progress” won. They’re on “the right side of history.” The breakdown of stability.
      Fundamentally this. As a Catholic, people forget the end times. People don’t realize that things are going to be bad, almost everyone will apostatize, and that sin will spread like never before.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most Catholics I personally know don’t even believe in an end of the world anymore. While nearly every prot I interact with believes in at least 1 kind of eschatology

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why is Cthulhu like this bros?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thermodynamics

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The demiurge is imperfect and he created a imperfect world that leaks divine matter back into the monad. Gnosis, in the form of scientific advancement for example, is what enables the acceleration of entropy, the separation of divine sparks from the material. Accelerate until the great virus is no more.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >demiurge
          My demiurge is the sweetest thing. They're the nanny divine being, really.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >leftism
      >individualism

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Stop thinking communism is the epitome of leftism. They weren’t woke.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Leftism hasn't been individualism since the French Revolution, i.e. the birth of leftism proper.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Protestantism simply sees Scripture as the highest authority, just like Scripture itself presents and the church historically believed as the well.
      Eastern Orthodox never acknowledged a sole authority of a pope.
      No early fathers interpreted Jesus giving keys to Peter as establishing a papacy.
      Literally cope and seethe about this.
      Papacy is fake and gay.
      I dare anyone here to link to a historical record of Apostolic Succession btw. Our oldest records are from the Church of Sweden which is now Lutheran.
      Sorry that you got tricked by Papist ECelebs on YouTube!

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        So you're saying to convert to Orthodoxy.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where are the 1000s of protestant denominations
        mentioned in the scripture ?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          And Jesus said to His disciples: everyone who isn’t part of the Missouri Baptist sect will go straight to Hell!

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related is quite good.

    Also, "ad fontes," was the slogan of humanists within the Catholic Church generations before the Reformation began. The greatest embodiment of that sort of humanism was Erasmus, who stayed loyal to the Roman Church. It's a mistake to blend humanism with Protestantism, the "new learning," with the Renaissance. They are different but related phenomena.

    Second, Luther is a terrible example of "to the sources." His Bible translation adds words where he needs them for his doctrines or removed passages that would seem to contradict sola fide. He was extremely comfortable with editing the Bible to suit his needs because he increasingly saw himself as a prophet (as others did). Luther himself considered booting our James and Revelations, and his letters show a sort of "canon within the canon," based on which books best support "the core teaching," (according to Luther anyhow). Luther is more the turn towards self motivated pietism and emotional religion. He was fond of paradox in a way the Origen-inspired, noetic humanists like Erasmus couldn't concious.

    IMO, Luther has some good points, but the response to the Peasants War and subordination of the church to the princes was a huge misstep for Protestantism.

    As for conquering the world, there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, but 8 billion people. 1.4 billion of those are Roman Catholics. Another 260 million are Eastern Orthodox. There are another 60 million Oriental Christians and 30 million Coptics. Protestantism remains a minority in most of the world, and is the main faith in the places where religion is declining the fastest (Northern Europe and the USA, although Catholic is now a plurality in the US). But "Protestant," is as wide and so useless a label as "Gnostic." What has a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, an Anglican, a Unitarian, the Amish, and a Baptist in common that unites them vis-á-vis the rest of Christianity?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What has a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, an Anglican, a Unitarian, the Amish, and a Baptist in common that unites them vis-á-vis the rest of Christianity?
      The first two aren't Christian. Unitarians arguably aren't. The rest believe in sola fide and sola scriptura which other Christians don't. It's easy to see what uniyes Protestants.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Denuding Christianity of mysticism, making it a religion entirely about "how to avoid punishment," ignoring the central role the Church and Baptism play in the NT, importing Cartesian dualism such that God's grace must come in the form of "magic," because otherwise somehow God's sovereignty is violated, making God not transcendent and without limit, but a really powerful entity who sits beside the world (and is thus defined by it), having God work evil (Calvin) for his "own good pleasure," secularization, putting the church below the state, separating reason from faith and thus turning science into an enemy of religion and collapsing faith, etc. such wonderful changes.

    >Canon
    Canon hasn't changed. Only Protestants decided the medieval israelites were the authority on the Canon
    >Charismata
    Orthodox and Catholics always had this. See the lives of the Saints. Forcing yourself into glossolalia like ancient Greek Pagans isn't charisma, Paul specifically calls it out in I Corinthians.
    >Invisible Church
    An idea coined by Clement of Alexandria and expanded by Augustine. Guess what Church they belonged to? They were always taken seriously.
    >Aniconism
    Icons are still around because they are what they always were, aids to the senses, nothing more. The icon does nothing of its own, and this is explained in depth in the reacts against idols in the Wisdom of Solomon and Baruch, parts Protestants removed from the Bible after 1500 years of inclusion based on the manuscripts of much more recent medieval israelites.
    >But Jerome
    Jerome prayed and received guidance that he should follow the authority of the Church.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Denuding Christianity of mysticism
      We removed the paganism, not the mysticism. The paganism the Catholics added.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There was a legitimacy to certain pagan elements that rightfully continued on in Roman Catholicism.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What pagan elements?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Try reading Josephus, Origen, Eusebius, or Jerome some time. Their Old Tesament canons are far closer to the Protestant one than the post-Trent Catholic one.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Great points Luther! We, faithful peasants, would like to have more control over our religion and worship. We will be happy to take a more active role in the love of Christ. We shall tackle corruption and barbarity. But where we see it most is actually with the secular princes you dine with, for you have grown fat by the food they take from our children's mouths for their own aggrandizement.
    >"Smite, strangle, and stab the peasants, secretly or openly, for nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you and a whole land with you. Do not hesitate to cut, knock down, and kill."

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kek. This makes it pretty obvious that he was just a puppet of the German princes seething at the power of the Church.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is the end result of anything other than papal absolutism. That includes Eastern Orthodoxy, Gallicanism, etc

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Papal absolutism certainly helped resist the conquest of the Church by secular powers, although it didn't always work (Pope's running away from Emperors with bigger armies, Antipope's being set up, etc.)

          That said, in both tradition and the modern world there is a large role to be played by councils. And indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has tended to allow authority to the councils. Did some Pope overstep? Sure. Some Popes were not holy men, same as the kings of Israel or some of the high priests.

          But the modern system strikes a balance between unified authority for normal management and the use of council authority for major shifts in doctrine.

          IMO, we can be held back too much by tradition though. Priests being unallowed to marry is a tradition. It played a VERY important role in keeping bishoprics from becoming hereditary fiefdoms, and was warranted at the time because of what the nobility was doing to the Church. However, we have come past the time were it is merited. The early church had no such prohibition on marriage, and even when it first appeared it was only for bishops and monks.

          I would also say the role for women, prescriptions against women who are holy, are tradition that cannot be supported by the weight of Biblical testimony and even older traditions. Paul names female deacons and apostles. The Bible names several female prophetesses, Deborah is the only righteous Judge to rule over Israel in Judges.

          This is not to overturn the Church's and the Bible's teachings on woman's authority to man within a family, but rather to embrace its teaching that Christ is the head of the Church, a body of one flesh, and that women were among Jesus' closest followers. Thus, the role for nuns and women in the Church is unduly curtailed by the traditions of man, which deny that all become "one in Christ, and under Christ."

          But that all said, we are also to be obedient to authorities. We ourselves might be in error. The solution to disagreement is polite advocacy, not schism and bloodshed, which lead to heresy.

          Point being: The Church had reformers during the Reformation. They sought reform though, not destruction or the elevation of secular princes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Papal absolutism certainly helped resist the conquest of the Church by secular powers
            The Catholic Church in China is subordinate to the CCP in the matter election of Bishops while the underground Protestant churches commune in the darkness of their homes and preach the gospel to their fellow chinese despite the risk of arrest and torture.

            Although, I do admire the small but growing underground Catholic Church

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Paul names female deacons and apostles.
            It is anachronistic to call these women Deacons, and gives dangerous ideas about the role of women within the Church.
            While women were important in the early Church, no-one disputes this, they are not given leadership over the Church. Scripture expressly forbids this.
            Women as patrons of various Churches and "helpers" (what were effectively nuns) under the Church is what the Catholic Church has taught and operated for 2000 years.
            Bringing women into positions of open leadership is contry to both scripture and natural law, and has proved to have disastrous consequences.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s definitely good to point out that words such as apostolos, diakonos are read anachronistically. An apostolos, after all, is ‘one who is sent out’, and a diakonos, a ‘servant’—same with presbyteros and episkopos (which were two terms for the same thing), which refer to elders and overseers. Reading the Scriptures according to later ecclesial terminology is dangerous and allows Romanism and other ideas to creep in. This is why the Papists freaked out over Tyndale’s translation, and because he translated ‘Ekklesia’ not as the loaded term ‘church’, but as the ‘assembly’

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, but also consider that our current words gained the significance they hold specifically because of their frequent inclusion in the NT. Not only that, but assembly in particular uses a term also used in the Septuagint OT, where it very much references a religious assembly/organization, not a loose "assemblage," of people. The context of the pastoral epistles shows us that the Church was a thing from the beginning in at least some form

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            True but it wasn't quite *that* loose. 1 Timothy makes it clear there was a two-tier hierarchy already with diakonos as an office below presbyteros/episkopos, which is supported by the letters of Ignatius. The three-tier deacon, priest, bishop developed pretty quickly as well in the mid to late second century, so it depends how important you think early developments are.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If anything, I think we can be confident in saying that the monarchical episcopate is a tradition of men, even if it is an early one. This is not to say it is evil, but it is not divine law. The Didache, Clement, Hermas, Jerome and the NT bear witness to this, as did Alexandria, which created bishops from choosing among the presbyters, who elevated one among themselves. Ignatius records a practice that was not universal, but undoubtedly it existed early on too. Even Roman Catholic scholars will admit this

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Great point. This will only generate seethe from the schismatics who have taken up politics as their primary goal.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just look at what has happened to Anglicanism. I hope Henry VIII is happy now

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Savonarola is much better than Luther. Savonarola never held unorthodox beliefs, and he (like Luther) called the pope an antichrist and Rome Babylon. He too was excommunicated by the pope, and was burnt at the stake. And yet he was revered by many Dominicans and counter-Reformers as a saint.

    Savonarola, if you are in heaven, pray for us and for the present corruption in the Church

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Savanorola has been totally forgotten by history. It really highlights how futile it feels to be a traditional Christian.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Modern Catholicism is incredibly myopic. If the era before Trent is almost forgotten, the era before the 19th century is almost more obscure. Everything that trads are obsessed with is mostly a product of 19th century Catholicism. Sacred Heart, hyperpapalism, Marian apparitions as Lourdes, Fatima, etc. Being a traditional Christian is possible, one just has to have a broad perspective and not get caught up in the accidents of the faith over its substance.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well, modern Catholicism is steered by the CIA and Rockefeller foundation so…

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Traditional Catholicism is a totally untenable position. You don’t have a choice but to submit to the pope, even when he’s a progressive heretic. I don’t suppose you imagine traditional Protestantism is a possibility? They have no church.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            We are called to submit to the pope and respect him with submission of mind and intellect even when he is not giving definitive teachings, this is true. That doesn’t mean the pope can’t be a bad pope, or even a disaster to the Church. Pope Francis is a lot of things, but not a heretic. He’s causing lots of confusion and problems, no doubt. Many faithful priests and bishops still exist, not to mention laity.

            Pope Francis upholds traditional marriage, upholds the prohibition on contraception, divorce, abortion, opposes gender ideology, etc. He’s not perfect though. Pope Francis is a bad pope. The Jesuits need to be suppressed again. Being a traditional Catholic remains possible. An African will be made pope eventually and will clean up the chaos

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            based pachamama appreciator

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That was Our Lady of the Amazon.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            long live our riparian piranha priestess, that's my favorite part of the Bible, when the Israelites go to Egypt and decide that Amon, Seth, Osiris, and whoever else are just emanations of the One Godhead of Yahweh and it's all cool

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            My favorite part of the Bible is when they reveal that the Spartans were descendants of the tribe of Dan

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He upholds…for now. Meanwhile, the liturgy is mocked or outright destroyed and the church has been stripped of all sacred elements. But hey, women can’t be priests yet so it must be the true church. Sound reasoning.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > An African will be made pope eventually and will clean up the chaos.
            It’s funny to me that The future of the Roman Catholic Church lies in the colonies of its colonies. God truly is Just

            Are there any real candidates for the next papacy besides Sarah and Tagle?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well, modern Catholicism is steered by the CIA and Rockefeller foundation so…

          one thing ive noticed in observing Oyish's now-endemic tardlarpers is they idolize/idealize a period of church history when the institution was run by the surplus second sons of the nobility, a situation so deeply contingent on a rare convergence of factors that to mistake it for the true essence of Christianity is to out oneself as a complete fool
          any ambitious and educated person of means today is not going to enter a seminary or a monastery, there is absolutely no reason for him to be there, there is no status nor prestige to be found in running a bigoted and antiquated non-government network of charities, hospitals and refugee resettlement programs, and his father cannot deny him his share because he only has two or three children to split amongst anyway and that wealth is no longer concentrated in soil but in something far dirtier

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > midwit spew without substance

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            keep crying that everyone who runs the church isn't doing real Christianity while you refuse to get ordained because you like the thought of potentially having sex with a woman, or having personal property to dispose of, more than you care about your performative idpol costume

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unironic midwit reply

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            so nobody "based" has to become a member of the clergy, it will just unfrick itself over time because...?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one said this. You are just making up fake straw men in your head to “defeat”. Not everyone who believes needs to be a priest…

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            but if Christianity was "better" when "better" people led the church where are you going with your tradlarp? nowhere? you can't even be bothered to outnumber a dwindling body of geriatrics and take their institution from them? who will be the custodian of this religious tradition in the future? who will administer sacraments and oversee parishes? nobody?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Things aren’t happening immediately like my fried ADD brain is used to!

            History is a long story my friend, you just lack any imagination or optimism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh right, you people believe anything without evidence, and evidence to the contrary is proof of the opposite being true, almost forgot

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Non-sequiter

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you talking about?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you tell me tradlarper, are you happy with the state of the Vatican II church or do you prefer the medieval one when the bishops all had warlords for grandfathers?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Hail Mary is literally a prayer on the Annunciation of the Incarnation, it is all about Christ.

            We recall the Annunciation:
            >Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
            We then ask Mary to "pray for us," not offering prayer to Mary but with her.
            >Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, both now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

            Note, that the repetition of this prayer is combined with each of the mysteries recited, the Our Father, a prayer to the Father, and

            >Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is, and ever shall be, world without end.

            How does that miss the Trinity? Look at a set of rosary beads. Each bead set apart, and so special, is the Glory Be and the Oh My Jesus prayers. The Hail Mary is special, but also more common. They are the continual prayers of the Saints, God's covenant people, together in communion. But the special independent higher prayer is to the Trinity, particularly Christ through the Oh My Jesus, particularly the Father through the Our Father, and particularly the Spirit through recounting the divine mysteries. We begin with the Apostles Creed, specifying the Trinity, making the sign of Christ's cross at begining and end.

            The Fatima Prayer (Oh My Jesus)
            My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy. Amen.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            “My immaculate heart will triumph”

            Jesus taught us to pray, and I shall pray as he taught

            Luke 11 One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”

            2 He said to them, “When you pray, say:

            “‘Father,[a]
            hallowed be your name,
            your kingdom come.[b]
            3 Give us each day our daily bread.
            4 Forgive us our sins,
            for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
            And lead us not into temptation.

            Absolutely zero mention of Mary, saints, or intercession btw.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is communal prayer throughout the OT and the Book of Acts. Jesus tell us to pray in private, yes. As Saint Augustine suggests, I take this to be a retreat from the world; this is an important part of prayer. We see Jesus do this in the desert before his ministry begins and in the garden, as it approaches its climax.

            Yet Christ also calls on us to engage in communal prayer (Mathew 18:20, "When two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them")

            See also:
            Nehemiah 4
            Daniel 2:17–18 (prayer for mercy with friends)
            2 Sam. 1:11–27 (communal mourning prayer)
            Acts 13:1–3
            Acts 4:24–30
            Acts 12:12
            Acts 16:25

            This includes praying for others: Ephesians 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people."

            Colossians 1:9 "For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you."

            James 5:16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

            1 Timothy 2:1 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people" (note INTERCESSION)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's nice and all but doesn't refute the literal way of prayer that Jesus himself told us to use that has no mention of these nice add ons.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sola scriptura is an add-on to the faith

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You shouldn't quote the bible to Catholics. Their whole thing is not being able to read it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Savonarola and Jan Hus are examples of what happens when reformers let church "justice" get ahold of them. Luther rightly didn't trust the church to treat him fairly after seeing the rabid response to his theses. If you actually read the theses, I would guess the vast majority of Catholics today would agree with them, one of the arguments is that the practice of indulgences makes the Pope look bad which might cause people to doubt the church! Luther later wrote that he had thought the Pope didn't know about the scale of abuse in the church and expected him to agree about indulgences. There literally wouldn't have been a reformation if the church had clamped down on the corruption.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spengler said that John Calvin played the same role in the West that Muhammad played in Arabian civilization. In other words, Calvinism is the mainstream religious worldview of nature Western civilization, even though some would never admit it.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you get divorced, it was part of God's divine plan. It is not desirable, but it doesn't condemn you to eternal death, it is a sin, same as many others. Catholics don't know their Bible, and are mostly from countries whose people do not meet the standard of sentience. Protestantism is the true church.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
      Adulterers will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        really the correct approach is to make a sexually female clone of yourself grown from your own tissues and take her as your wife, as Yahweh had done for Adam

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There will be adulterers in Heaven, just as there will be thieves, and murderers. You can not resist the grace of God, he is all powerful.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Protestantism definitely won, for a time, but it seems nowadays that sort of non-Christian or even anti-Christian new age and neopagan sentiments have won. I hear Protestants and Catholics alike endorse really nonsensical eastern ideas and scientifically reconstructed notions about paganism and earth worship. And then of course you have the historical supplantation of all Christian religion with sort of basic liberalism or liberal-progressivism. You know? People justify what they want on a Christian basis but they’re not really Christian ethics. I recently learned that my cousin was an Odinist. I tried to reason with him regarding why he chose but it was no use. People will accept these sort of things just like they accepted Protestantism, and then Atheism, and then New Age. I think it’s pretty obvious that this wannabe atheist period is coming to an end, but I worry a lot that these sort neopagan and new age delusions becoming the popular, mainstream sentiment.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be violently opposed to abortion
    >flip out over the idea that the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, savior of Israel and master of the universe is worthy of veneration
    make up your mind christer

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Traditional Christianity is worshipping in a barn, with a fellow brother in Christ bringing the message, and bringing a joyful noise before the Lord. Think Sergeant York, not The Godfather

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Won what? It got instantly eclipsed by liberalism and godlessness, which pushed and promised all individualism and revolution more than Luther did. He only opened the doors.
    But there are over a billion Catholics alone. It takes every Protestant denomination to get close to their numbers.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's what they wanted anon, they won

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can't 'win' by being the lowest barrier to entry option, that's inherently a race to the bottom.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    “My immaculate heart will triumph”

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants deferred to medieval israelites in censoring books of the Bible that both ancient israelites and early Christians knew were canonical. There is not a single Church Father who denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    Protestantism is not "recreating the early Christianity"; it's Frankenstein-ed nonsense born of political divisions that presents itself as an "early Christianity" that never existed.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw it’s obvious Protestants are an ahistorical deviation from the historic faith
    >tfw you support venerating saints
    >tfw it’s obvious that medieval Christian popular religion is barely distinguishable from rank Hinduism
    I always get in these hyper-nuanced positions that make no one happy

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >medieval Christian popular religion is barely distinguishable from rank Hinduism
      Medieval Christians didn't believe in reincarnation or cow-piss magic.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        They had it even worse. People propitiated various saints to free them from diseases, to assist them in childbirth, etc. They visited (fake) relics in order to obtain blessings, donated money to Church officials to remit the punishments due to their sin in purgatory, flooded into Rome for indulgence bonanzas (jubilee years), and venerated many fake saints, obsessed over holy water, holy salt, magical words, amulets, the mass (the term ‘hocus pocus’ comes from ‘hoc est enim corpus meum’—it was a degenerate form of Christianity by all accounts

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon you do realize that a lot of that is still in practice in large parts of the Catholic world, right? And the Orthos do it too, to some extent. There's still very much a "folk quality" to a lot of Catholic and Orthodox religion, and it's fine as long as there's nothing explicitly heretical going on.

          Hell, every now and then God throws us a for-real miracle or apparition, so He seems to approve of the practice.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's fine as long as there's nothing explicitly heretical going on
            The Pope is explicitly heretical.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The pope is a bishop. Bishops are biblical. After the apostles, they were the highest office.
            The bishop of Rome holds the seat of Peter, who was given authority to shepherd the Church ("Feed my sheep"-John 21:15-17) and the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and loose.-Matthew 16:18-19. The authority of apostolic office is given from the laying on hands from one's predecessors-1 Timothy 4:14. You do not have any authority based on your whims.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where in the Bible does it say Bishops/Elders can absolve you of your sins?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They absolve in the name of Christ. Not their own power. And it's mortal sin that the Church can withhold someone's standing in the Church with. You can come to God with your everyday faults and sins. If you were under the impression Catholics (or Orthodox) can't ask God for forgiveness themselves, you're wrong. Every prayer from time immemorial cries for God's mercy. But you can not be a murderer or rapist and just assume you're all good with God. And you can enjoy the fellowship of the Church or the sacraments this darkness on your soul. This can only be demonstrated with confession and true repentance.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can NOT enjoy the fellowship of the Church and sacraments with that on your soul*

            Again, you guys claim to be Sola Scriptura. Then live up to it. I want you to. There's plenty about church discipline and withholding someone's standing. For example, Paul chastised the Corinthian church for keeping a guy in their ranks who was sleeping with his stepmother.-1 Cor 5

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God gave authority to his Church. Just as I just pointed out here with bishops and Peter specifically [...]
            The authority to bind and loose, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This is not a democracy.
            If you were truly Sola Scriptura as you guys love to claim, you would adjust to this. But you bend to pride and your libertine ideals instead.

            Where in the Bible does Peter live in a palace and demand people confess their sins to him in order to have them heard by God?

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why don’t any of you ever discuss what Jesus says, and what it means, rather than obsessing over the aesthetics of traditions which came long after Christ? I feel that most of you don’t genuinely believe in any of this, and, given a thousand more years, or so, this would just turn into a different flavored version of rabbinical judaism—based on the book of commentary/analysis (Talmud or catechism, etc), and claimed to “come down from” Moses/Jesus.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      None of us are Protestants. That’s why. The Bible is a liturgical document.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just read it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cringe. Read your Bible everyday

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          How is it cringe? That's how the Church operated for over a thousand years. And Judaism before that. Not everyone was literate, just to point out the blatantly obvious. But people still heard the Word of God and learned. And they were largely better than (You). Not different. Better. While literacy itself didn't turn out to be all that it was cracked up to be in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just because access to the Scriptures was harder to come by back in the day, doesn’t mean we should neglect the Scriptures now. Much superstition and ignorance is the result of merely hearing snippets of Scripture at mass

            Non-sequiter

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >we live in a Godless. deracinated dystopia without beauty or merit, where brainwashed slaves do whatever the control voice tells them
    Yes, the rabbinical psyop of protestantism certainly achieved its aims, all hail Luther, all hail pissrael and the true chosen people of God

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Luther hated israelites, to claim that contemporary philosemitism and Christian Zionism are somehow inherent to Protestantism is moronic

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Luther said israelites lie sometimes and one of his C-list books has a funny meme title about it
        >so that abdicates him from his insistence on ditching the Septuagint canon that was accepted for centuries to make his Bible match Rabbinical Judaism
        Protestants literally circumcised the Bible lol

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Masoretic is better than LXX, cope. The quickest way to spot a pseud is LXX supremacy

          Tell yourself whatever you wish idol worshipper.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this shit from medieval Talmudic Babylonian israelites is better than the authoritative canon used during the lifetime of Jesus
            ok

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do the Apostles quote from the Septuagint for the entire New Testament?

            And what part of "x translation might be better preserved," supports "so we should dump hundreds of pages from the Bible."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the verses aren't in the older translations but are in the newer ones it is reasonable to assume they were added later, and are therefore illegitimate.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If a verse contradicts my meme religion from the 18th century, its definitely fake

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Masoretic Text was compiled by israeli scholars around 700 AD. The oldest surviving version is from around 1000 AD.

            The Septuagint was finished in 246 BC, around 1,000 years earlier. It is the Masoretic Text that is far more recent. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also no more recent than the Septuagint.

            There are plenty of fragments from before the Septuagint for certain books, but not full Bibles. The Septuagint was created by israelites for israelites and was in wide use around Jesus time, which is why the Apostles use it in the NT.

            After Christianity spread, the Septuagint became associated with it and the israelites stopped using it, which is how they ended up dropping some of the later books.

            The arguments for removing them is weak, since they were pretty much always included by Christians (there was some debate, but there was also debate about other OT books and using the OT at all, see Marcion), and there is no hard evidence of the israelites having a closed canon by the the time of Christ. Josephus mentions a number of books that fits neither the Septuagint or Masoretic text, but gives us no catalog in any event. israeli sources do pull from the Septuagint though; the holiday of Hanukkah is from the books of Maccabees that were removed later.

            Nor does it make sense to claim that any inspired text "must have been written in Hebrew," given the NT is written in Greek. Clearly, there are Greek inspired texts. Plus, Hebrew versions of some dueterocanonical books have since been found.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    All heretics will burn in hell.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Translation issues aside, one of the worst things about Protestant bibles is that very few of them are directed by actual church authorities. They're either directed by governments (like the King James version) or owned by publishers. Some by publishers who don't even care about the bible necessarily (for example, HarperCollins owns the rights to the NKJV, the US printing rights for NIV, among some others. But HarperCollins also prints Anton Lavey's Satanic bible or does what any publisher does: prints all kinds of genres under different imprints.
    It says a lot about the Protestant mindset though. A mindset that's been with them from the very start: they love ceding power to anyone except the Church. For whatever reason, they've crearted a mythology in their minds where the Church is the antichrist, but everything else is copasetic. Be it the individual, the Academy, the King, the Corporation, the israelite. Anyone but the Church.
    It's the opposite story with the Catholic Church. Anything outside the Church is treated with a bit of caution. Even an Encyclopedia isn't encouraged unless it's got an Imprimatur. Bibles are translated from Bishop's Conferences (and the international Catholic Biblical Federation). If you have any attraction to cohesive systems, you'll be a happier here. If you want madness and are never quite sure if the people printing your bible also make Gay Pride Parade photobooks, you can become Protestant. Also, remember to support Israel.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >very few of them are directed by actual church authorities
      "Church authorities" is an oxymoron. The only authority is God.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        God gave authority to his Church. Just as I just pointed out here with bishops and Peter specifically

        The pope is a bishop. Bishops are biblical. After the apostles, they were the highest office.
        The bishop of Rome holds the seat of Peter, who was given authority to shepherd the Church ("Feed my sheep"-John 21:15-17) and the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and loose.-Matthew 16:18-19. The authority of apostolic office is given from the laying on hands from one's predecessors-1 Timothy 4:14. You do not have any authority based on your whims.

        The authority to bind and loose, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This is not a democracy.
        If you were truly Sola Scriptura as you guys love to claim, you would adjust to this. But you bend to pride and your libertine ideals instead.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics worship a human man who lives in a palace and literally sits on a throbe of gold. That is the epitome of antichrist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He also happens to be the successor to the prince of the apostles

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics built an Earthly Kingdom because they have no faith in the existence of the Heavenly Kingdom. They worship the Pope because they have no faith in the omnipresence of God. It is an entire religion founded on their weakness of faith and their desire for Earthly power and authority.

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would any Catholics like to explain why the Catholic Church tried so hard to keep the Bible from being translated to English, to the point of killing people for possessing English-language copies of the Bible?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Have you ever considered you were memed? This is just Protestant hagiography that you got propagandized with. The Church wasn't against translating, but the people undergoing it were contentious. Wycliffe was a Lollard, and Tyndale followed suit with many of the same teachings. And even then, Tyndale wasn't killed for translating. This is more fake news. He was killed for speaking out against the king's false marriage. Same thing as St. Thomas More was killed for. A Protestant and Catholic killed for the same thing.
      There were already vernacular translations in Europe before Wycliffe though. But England got off to a bad start. There was a German version well before Luther (the Mentelin bible), Spanish and French versions, and in the East, the entire Slavic world. St. Cyril did the earliest versions and where they got their script to this day (Cyrillic lettering).

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spengler dabbed the frick all over Protestants in Decline of the West

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This lone verse single-handedly refutes all of Catholicism.

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can lie to yourself about protestantism "winning" - but the numbers say otherwise.

    And, the saints that are produced say otherwise, too.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not a popularity contest, once again you are thinking from an earthly mindset instead of a Heavenly one.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        My dude, there is Orthodoxy. All offshoots are cope.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Catholicism is an offshoot of Christianity. Peter is not the Pope, he was just a discipline of Jesus. Worshipping him and the other Popes goes against what the Bible teaches.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. Orthodoxy is the only way forward.

            Prots are an offshoot of an offshoot. Obvious cope.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Explain to me how Catholicism doesn't contradict the verse I just posted. One Mediator, Jesus Christ. Not Peter or Mary, or anyone else.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Catholicism does contradict that statement, therefore you have to go Ortho if you want the Truth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ortho is under Putin's thumb. They've been corrupted too.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe the Russian sect, but there are various others, including OCA.

            > Orthodoxy is the only way forward.
            Delusional. The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is a clusterfrick, divorced from the first millennium ecclesiology given that it is plagued with nationalism due to the idea of autocephaly. The ‘Great and Holy Council’ in Crete was a failure, Constantinople and Moscow have different ecclesiologies, Moscow sees itself as a ‘Third Rome’, Moscow and Constantinople are in schism, Ukraine has a schism going on within itself due to this, indirectly fueling the war, and Moscow has even put itself in schism with Alexandria through the African exarchate, stealing priests from Alexandria’s territory. Not even to mention the uncanonical chaos in America and other Western countries where multiple bishops can be found in the same cities and ethnic enclave parishes are a dime a dozen.

            This is not even to get into doctrinal problems. Many prominent Orthodox quite literally deny the Gospel due to the malignant influence of Romanides (a pelagian heretic).

            Orthodoxy is not one, not holy, not catholic and not apostolic.

            Orthodoxy is the original Church. Filioque clause was the beginning of the end for Catholicism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Orthodoxy is the only way forward.
            Delusional. The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is a clusterfrick, divorced from the first millennium ecclesiology given that it is plagued with nationalism due to the idea of autocephaly. The ‘Great and Holy Council’ in Crete was a failure, Constantinople and Moscow have different ecclesiologies, Moscow sees itself as a ‘Third Rome’, Moscow and Constantinople are in schism, Ukraine has a schism going on within itself due to this, indirectly fueling the war, and Moscow has even put itself in schism with Alexandria through the African exarchate, stealing priests from Alexandria’s territory. Not even to mention the uncanonical chaos in America and other Western countries where multiple bishops can be found in the same cities and ethnic enclave parishes are a dime a dozen.

            This is not even to get into doctrinal problems. Many prominent Orthodox quite literally deny the Gospel due to the malignant influence of Romanides (a pelagian heretic).

            Orthodoxy is not one, not holy, not catholic and not apostolic.

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Someone has to have written about this somewhere.

    It’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a chronically online zoomer tradcath who’s never even interacted with a Protestant before. I had no idea catholicism was still a thing till I got online. All the Catholics I know irl barely admit to being Christians, are vaxxed, and vote Democrat

    Clearly catholicism is beyond dead, and Protestantism isn’t too far behind

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      My best friend is Catholic and he genuinely doesn't know even the basic aspects of Christianity. I doubt he could name ten books of the Bible if you asked him.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wish there was a church that had the structure and unity of Catholicism, the Scripture-centredness of Reformed Christians, a sense of actual tradition and a balance between sacerdotalism and charismaticism. I’ve been drifting around for years and Protestant churches so often seem soulless and myopic, while Catholics and Orthodox always focus on adiaphora and historical minutiae, ignoring the fundamentals and believing that things like Mary’s virginity or kissing pictures is essential to the faith. It’s blackpilling. I tried to be ACNA Anglican for a while but even then some of them ordain women

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe it's not about finding the church with the perfect doctrine but simply coming to love those who are in error. How will the Church ever be healed with we simply migrate from place to place, looking for what best fits our current interpretation and desires.

      I go to a Protestant Evangelical church some Sundays and do a Tuesday prayer group there, a home church with people who lean towards Reformed ideas other Sundays, and attend a Catholic mass and Bible study every Wednesday. I have met loving Christians in each. And I can only correct their error, where there may be error, because I have taken the time to get to know them an understand how they come to their opinions.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You give me something to think about, anon. Thanks

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    beep boop

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Careful, you’ll trigger an idolator. Btw, Gavin Ortlund has never been refuted

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's pretty funny. Catholics go on and on about how anyone who researches the history of Christianity will wind up Catholic, but if you actually do it, it leads somewhere very different. Did you know the early Christians condemned clergy wearing special clothing or Christians wearing special clothes for ascetic purposes? Ah but bro look at the cool wizard robes in the icons man, so heckin basederino...!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’ve heard about the vestments thing, I really need to dig into that, as I’m sure it’s fascinating. One thing I learned recently is that the imperial church’s structure (dioceses) etc. was basically mirrored in the civil administration of the empire. It made sense but I had never thought of that before.

          If you have the time, I highly recommend you (and everyone) read Socrates Scholasticus on diversity in the church. Read chapter 22 of book 5. It will blow up the ancient ‘unanimity of the fathers’ myth even more.
          https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Basically clerical vestments were secular Roman government clothing that clergy gained access to after Christianity was made the official religion of Rome, and they simply kept wearing them even after clothing changed for everyone else. Will check out your link.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Weak

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He also cut off his own nuts and was condemned by the evil Catholics for that too! Protestants, your move. Time to castrate yourself to own the idolators.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's no proof that he did this. He denied that he castrated himself, his biblical commentaries do not interpret the relevant passages literally, and it's probable that this was a malicious rumor created by his enemies.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also unless you know for sure that he did this thing, you are bearing false witness against a confessor who endured extensive torture for this faith.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I have no idea, and I also never said it was a sin. I said you should go do it if you want to be a true Protestant.

          He also cut off his own nuts and was condemned by the evil Catholics for that too! Protestants, your move. Time to castrate yourself to own the idolators.

          Exhibit 50 in this thread of someone just denying historical sources

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
        Inb4 Jesus didn’t really mean it

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          So do it then

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’ve considered it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please don’t, to drop the troll mask. Isn’t it more Christian to just try and overcome the urges than to mutilate yourself anyway?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re right, obviously. It’s like Paul in Romans 7, though he internally delights in God’s law, his members wage war against him. Every occasion of sin is avoidable, that is my takeaway from contemplating when I fall—we always make a deliberate choice at some particular moment to spurn God and choose death over life. I need to be like Paul and discipline myself through more fasting and prayer, and not despair. Thank you, anon, please pray for me.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Origen already did that bro.

          And some guy at my ex's hospital did it with his eyes while high on meth and having "become Jesus," to keep from looking at dirty videos.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >did it with his eyes
            Did he have laser vision?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, just mental illness. This happens without drugs too. During the Reformation there were a few people who thought they were Jesus. One married a peasant who he proclaimed was the Virgin Mary (so... marrying his mom). But then she got convinced that he was sinful and that she was pregnant with the Antichrist. She demanded to be burnt at the stake and the Protestant authorities obliged here.

            The largest witch trials occured in this period and they are truly something. Like 1,000 people, including many Catholic priests who refused to convert and multiple children who were claimed to be the progeny of women's sexual relations with demons were burnt at the stake.

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm curious why Catholics got so het up about contraception compared to Protestants.

    It's extreme enough to make me think that, somewhere in the past, some group of Catholics was subject to forced abortion or sterilization, and that complaint made it up to the Vatican and was thus baked into global policy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics are functional Talmudists. They follow the letter of the law while finding legalistic ways to work around it. So you can't use a condom but you can plan sex around your wife's menstrual cycle so that she won't get pregnant. You can't get a divorce but you can get an annulment form the Church which means you were never married at all so it's not divorce.

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    > charismaticism
    Proof?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paul talks of people speaking mysteries in the Spirit and in the tongues of angels. This is glossolalia / ecstatic utterances. Pentecostals are unironically correct here, and are corroborated by the Testament of Job from the same era which has Job’s daughters singing and speaking charismatically in the tongues of angels.

      The Didache records wandering prophets who can come and administer the Eucharist apart from the bishops and deacons, showing that there is a charismatic ministry alongside the formal church structure of later centuries.

      The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus says that confessors who have suffered or have been placed in chains don’t even need hands laid on them to become presbyters, because through his confession he has the honor of a presbyter. Similar examples are seen in Cyprians time with confessors acting on their own authority and merits to readmit people into the church who become traditores.

      Early Christianity had wandering prophets, apostles, speaking in tongues, charismatic confessors and would be foreign to the later imperial church. To claim it would be the same as Pentecostalism or any Protestants is also an overstep. It was much more rigorist too.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It was much more rigorist too.
        The only Christians who will still excommunicate and shun people over living in sin are some Protestant groups

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It does seem like Catholic and Orthodox excommunication is toothless nowadays

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just read any Catholic scholar who isn’t a trad LARPer. Raymond Brown, Francis J. Sullivan, etc. RCism and EO are just distorted versions of the Gospel with a bunch of cultural and historical baggage and man-made dogmas. I was told by them to read the Church Fathers, but reading the Church Fathers made me realize that (1) they’re not always right, and (2) they aren’t Catholic or EO beyond a superficial level. The final debunk for these Latin and Byzantine synagogues is just talking with the average church-going Protestant and comparing it with the church-going Catholic or EO. Protestants are much more on fire for the Lord, care about studying Scripture, standing up for the truth, etc. while EOs and Catholics may be outwardly dedicated, but don’t have any of the Holy Spirit. They are wooden, the things they obsess over are rote prayers, rosary, sacred heart devotions and not praying in the Holy Spirit and studying God’s Word.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed on the early Church. There is a lot in Saint Augustine, Origen, or Saint Gregory of Nysa that is in modern Catholicism, but also a lot that isn't there, or might even be more prominent in some Protestant or Orthodox churches. With Augustine, it seems that Catholics draw more in his work against the Manicheans (focus on choice and human response to grace) and the Donatists (role of the Church and authority), while Reformed focus on his anti-Pelagian screeds (need for grace, original sin, and predestination). Augustine seems to have gotten so caught up in fighting battles that he contradicts himself, and it is a contradiction that, at least in the surface level, appears to exist between Paul and the Christ of the Gospels as well. Resolving this contradiction requires a nuanced view of compatibalist free will, which most people do not understand. Nor do they understand the incoherence of strictly libertarian free will, how it makes choice arbitrary and random, determined by nothing, and thus not "choice," in any sense.

      But my experience has been the opposite. In Evangelical churches, I have tended to find a theology that has elevated the Great Commission into the entire Gospel. The message is:
      >God is angry with us because we cannot help but be sinners.
      >Thus, all are headed to Hell, eternal punishment.
      >But believe and you will be saved forever.
      >Thus, the Christian religion is all about people having a lone moment of belief, rasing their hands at an altar call, and being saved from punishment.
      >So we must got get as many people as possible to believe through emotional appeal, and there is nothing really important.

      This seems to totally ignore the promise of mystical union with God, our ability to live "in Christ," and be "one in Christ as Christ is one with the Father" (John 17). Indeed, at times I have had pastors explain the Church as essentially a multilevel marketing campaign, a business jargon with a focus on "returns," becomes part of the story.

      The question: "how will people spread the Good News if all they know of it is that the Good News must be spread?" Seems ignored. Further, it turns Christianity into a story of simply avoiding punishment and getting reward, not the story of freedom we see enunciated in Romans 7, and of mystical union. It also makes God appear to be almost vicious, an aloof creator who makes us ill, then commands us to be well. We need only believe, and yet belief is not something we have particularly strong control over (I cannot force myself to believe the Celtics won last year's championship for example).

      Catholics I have been around have a much greater dedication to devotional life and the "drawing near to God."

      Knowledge of Scripture has been a very mixed bag everywhere I've been. And where there is knowledge, sometimes it is quite deep around lines memorized to support doctrine (e.g. TULIP) but then sparse everywhere else. Catholics do tend to have a better knowledge of church history.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then, outside the churches, more in the Reformed tradition, I meet people who think almost all the churches of all denominations are simply pagan temples. There is an almost Gnostic purity seeking, where correct knowledge of the legitimacy of TULIP is proof of salvation. Rejection of TULIP shows you do not worship God, but actually worship the idol of your own ideas of God.

        Interestingly, this idea comes up in apophatic theology, but never in this sort of condescending, elitist way.

        I personally find the Scriptural evidence for TULIP weak, undermined by simply reading all of Genesis 6 instead of just the sentence of man's (then current) wickedness, and all of Psalm 14 (in Romans 5) instead of just the lines about "no one seek[ing] God," because both of these mention righteous individuals in the lines directly after this.

        In any event, these are the hardest folks to reach because they refuse to interact with churches, and turn inwards. If the problem of churches is being too scared to have hard conversations, their problem is thinking that offending people is always evidence of their own righteousness, and ignoring all the copious evidence that the Church was never fully unified in mind/understanding (we see disagreement between Apostles even), but instead is unified in Spirit and love.

        But I also tend to go to the Catholic church I visit often mid-week, so my perception is skewed because these are the more committed people, and so it is unsurprising that they know the Bible well. The same is true everywhere. There, I find the mystical more elevated, the supernatural less so. Focus on works really varies wildly. Some Baptist churches I frequented for a bit were almost Pelagian, despite their tradition as a group.

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    St. Augustine did not invoke angels.

  35. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  36. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: Protestant butthurt americans who believe their midwit interpretation of the text (by the way compiled by the Catholic Church) is an excuse to throw around hell fire and heresy claims around. For doing the things the church was doing 500 years ago and spoiling the message of love of the Gospel might as well convert to Islam

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Catholicism falls apart historically, regardless of biblical interpretation.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The sole quote of a nation divided against itself cannot survive already discredits Protestants in their claims, worship the Lord and love your neighbor and mind your business

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your usage of it here is nonsensical because Catholicism itself acknowledges Orthodoxy and to a lesser extent Protestant churches to be legitimate.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        its the only thing in this world that goes far back enough with a living and a written record

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The various Orthodox churches have similar age. Also the historical record shows that it does not align with early Christian practices.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Pope is clearly an innovation, but this doesn't therefore mean the office is not valid as far as Catholicism is concerned.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Iconodulia, monasticism, bishops, clerical vestments, private confession, the Marian dogmas, etc. are all innovations.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was there meant to be point here?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know, Catholics don't care that a substantial amount of their practices are made-up. It is worth saying however, because they have a legion of lying apologists who will tell you that these things are apostolic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think maybe you misunderstood my first post. I'm saying that just because its an innovation does not therefore mean it isn't valid.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know what you mean. Your god is the physical institution of the church and you just do whatever it says. Nothing else actually matters.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As one poster said earlier, all Protestants are indeed dishonest.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except the very councils which defined iconodulia (Nicea II) and the Marian dogmas (Vatican I) claimed they're ancient beliefs always practiced by the faithful. As a Catholic, you're supposed to believe that councils are infallible like scripture, but they're blatantly wrong about innovation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same anon, sorry, Vatican I was for Papal Infallibility, not Marian dogmas which are defined in Papal bulls or legislation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible is "wrong" about some historical bullshit facts as well, no one cares.
            Also, ancient Christianity had a plurality of beliefs. There probably were a few people practicing whatever. None of this compromises the legitimacy of the Catholic viewpoint.
            This obsession Christians have with "uh trust me bro my denomination does it exactly how the first Christians did it, just trust me" is so cringe its unreal.

  37. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: cucktianisty word salads

    not even once.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *