Proof that Catholicism is true

[Bleachedanoos]

Judaism is defined by Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy. Belief in "right doctrine" is something unique to Christianity and Islam. The Hasidic sects adopted it later in the 18th centuries, but for the vast majority of Jews, the idea you can be condemned for not all sharing the same scholarly opinion is totally alien.

Perhaps this is helped by a more cohesive social identity alongside racial unity.



Uh. Did we read the same Talmud? I know they accused Jesus of being a fraud who was hanged but the first mention "Baphomet" gets is by Catholics in reference to the Knights Templars in the 11th century. Baphomet has no link to Judaism at all.



The core difference being Jews claim to be a light unto the nations and the most beloved of their deity in their own land, for most of history they have not been the largest corporation the Earth has ever known claiming absolute divine authority from God to rule the entire world spiritually who can and will consign you to eternal damnation for even looking at his avatar on earth funny.

Jews have done some strange things, but they've never had the global cover ups as Catholics have orchestrated.

The very earliest exposes on Catholicism such as that by the Boston papers weren't done by Jews, they were done by Catholics. As Catholics were the victims, and Catholics who continue to come forward.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the talmud explicitly mentions demons like moloch. It merely provides a framework for Jews to act with objectively evil intentions by excusing all their sins with but it was for much Jewish race. Judaism is a race, the evolutionary strategy is that of a parasite, usury on the host nation to build wealth to distribute among your own kind.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I wish I never started on these. Now I feel like I have to answer.

The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.

The Bishops have approved the bible. Your opinions are irrelevant. Catholicism is not a buffet, it's all or nothing.

Obedience to the Successor of the Apostles in both the Pope and his fellow Bishops is not optional. You are in heresy and have incurred Latae sententiae excommunication and should not take communion, otherwise, you would be committing the additional mortal sin of sacrilege for receiving Christ in a state of mortal sin.

I don't make the rules or follow them, but I do know them as should you.

The Catholic Church accepted the New American Bible after Vatican II. It goes against the Council of Trent which declared that only the Latin Vulgate could be used as a bible. And speaking of the Latin Vulgate, an incident in 1592 regarding the translation of the Latin Vulgate proves that Catholicism is true because it proves the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pope Sixtus V died before he could teach error.

We were not talking about Sixtus. We were talking about the sanction from the American Bishops to use a bible that you do not approve of. You are not a successor of the apostles. The Vulgate is still in use by the Catholic Church, so is the NAB, so is the Douay-Rheims and many others.

Also, please cite your sources rather than Plagerise Jacob. http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

Maybe if you actually did do some reading yourself, you'd actually know why the Vulgate is only used by the Pontifical college and not Biblical studies, Even by the Catholic Church itself!

Wikipedia explains why The Remnant is called the remnant.

The Remnant can claim to be the Pope, it is not an approved apostolate neither does it hold an Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur. The Remnant supports sects not in full communion with the Pope and teaches that the Church has somehow been corrupted; that the gates of hell have prevailed. This is heresy, and anyone who contributes and belives in it is in a state of mortal sin.

As I said, while many in the church have said that animals don't have souls, the church has never made it an infallible doctrine for the entire church, meaning that Catholics are allowed to believe that animals live eternally.

Only animals made in Gods image have immortal souls. To say God has given an immortal soul to a cow, or a pig, or a cockroach is heresy and blasphemy against God.

You're saying other animals are as important as humans, this is heresy and you should refrain from communion as only humans were created to be lord over all animals and the stewards of creation. You contradict Genesis, let alone the piles of material that come later.

The highest virtue behind holiness for a Catholic, and a requirement for holiness is obedience to Jesus in the form of his successors. You seem to be struggling with this.

If you are actually doing your own work for a degree in the sciences, you might be reasonably intelligent (not necessarily, I've met plenty of morons with degrees too). But as arrogant, pig-headed and as large as your inquisitorial rage boner might be; you do not know as much about religion as the American Bishops or someone who actually has qualified in Theology, Religious Anthropology or the like.

From your copypastes and what you've said, you knowing basically nothing about your faith at all. Which hardly suprises me, nothing cures Catholic faith faster than actually reading the bible, Papal decrees like Dum Diversias and Syllabum Errorum or the history of the Catholic Church.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the talmud explicitly mentions demons like moloch. It merely provides a framework for Jews to act with objectively evil intentions by excusing all their sins with but it was for much Jewish race. Judaism is a race, the evolutionary strategy is that of a parasite, usury on the host nation to build wealth to distribute among your own kind.

So does all flavors of Abrahamism.

If your Orthodox or Catholic, you can do whatever you want and provided you fear hell enough (imperfect contrition), you can go to heaven. If you believe in Jesus as a Protestant, you're "Saved" and still can do whatever you want.

If you're a Muslim, so long as you do it to Kufir not paying or elidgeable for Jizya it's fine and you can rape and kill as much as you like.

One aspect of religion is to remove guilt, even when you really should feel guilty for being an asshole. All of them do it, this isn't something unique to Jews.

Are you seriously going to tell me me Polish Catholics, Pakistani Muslims, Evangelical Africans etc don't all stick together and buy/trade within their community. Hell, we're not even a race and gays do it. It's human to work with those you share features or beliefs with over others.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

@Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir.

There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs. If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling.

Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

@Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir.

>Ursury was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Black and illegitimate priests was a sin until it wasn't a sin
>Burning heretics was a holy virtue until it was a sin.
>Marrying a protestant was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Taking communion in the hand was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Eating meat during Lent or on Fridays was a sin, until it wasn't a sin, until Benedict XIV decided it was a sin again.
>Beliving slavery should be abolished was a sin until shortly decided before Vatican II that Slavery was a sin instead.

Some absolute moral code given by God there yeah.

There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling.

So you're not gonna include Annias & Saphira, attacking the merchants in the temple, the herd of pigs, God hates figs etc?

Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.

You just have to fear Hell and confess your sins before death, google "Imperfect Contrition". That's all that is required.

 

[Jan_Hus]

HAHAHAHA ID RATHER BE BURNED AT THE STAKE THAN BE CATHOLIC....

...wait a minute...

 

[ProgKing of the North]

@Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong

So which side of that line does being a Nazi incel fall on?

 

[Bleachedanoos]

@Fagatron objective, not absolute .When the pope invokes the grand magisterium his words are those of Simon Peter's himself . He is given divine right.

I googled the attrition thing you were talking about and it's a bit unrealistic to begin with. In what case will a man be able to predict his own death? Are you just going to go to confession daily until you die? You really simplified it and made it seem so easy.

@ProgKing of the North shhh adults are talking go play Minecraft on your iPad sweetie

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

objective, not absolute .When the pope invokes the grand magisterium his words are those of Simon Peter's himself . He is given divine right.

They're hardly objective. Slavery isn't a sin while we make money off it, but then it is a sin when the modern world starts to call us out on it. The sinfulness of eating meat on a Friday literally depends on what part of the world you eat it. If you do it in America or the UK, you're going to hell. Do it in Germany? It's fine because the bishops can set "disciplines"; literally their own rules they make up for whatever reason that don't necessarily have a basis in faith or morals, but you still have to obey or you sin.

After all, this is why it's still a sin today to join a union in Catholicism; the serfs should bow to their betters.

I googled the attrition thing you were talking about and it's a bit unrealistic, to begin with. In what case will a man be able to predict his own death? Are you just going to go to confession daily until you die? You really simplified it and made it seem so easy.[/USER]

You don't actually have to go to confession either, or rely upon a cleric being near you at death. You can also die fearing hell without confessing if you fully intend to go to confession straight away if you survive. That's also acceptable for avoiding hell, it's called making an "Act of Contrition".

This is why serial killers are in heaven. The Catholic approach isn't to not steal a bike; it's to steal a bike and then feel guilty afterwards.

Another more controversial option is to use sacramentals like that of St Carmel and praying the Divine Mercy prayer. In those cases, Mary and Jesus separately have supposedly appeared to saints in "Private revelations" and taught that either wearing the Brown Scapular or praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy at the time of death likewise saves you from hell.

These claims have not been condemned by the Church, but they haven't been supported fully either. The only "safe and guranteed" route is via dying in a state of grace after confession, or with the full intent to go as soon as possible by performing an "Act of Contrition".

 

[Nekromantik]

This thread is a honey pot, and it worked.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

They're hardly objective. Slavery is a sin while we make money off it, but then it isn't a sin when the modern world starts to call us out on it. The sinfulness of eating meat on a Friday literally depends on what part of the world you eat it. If you do it in America or the UK, you're going to hell. Do it in Germany? It's fine because the bishops can set "disciplines"; literally their own rules they make up for whatever reason that don't necessarily have a basis in faith or morals, but you still have to obey or you sin.

After all, this is why it's still a sin today to join a union in Catholicism; the serfs should bow to their betters.



You don't actually have to go to confession either, or rely upon a cleric being near you at death. You can also die fearing hell without confessing if you fully intend to go to confession straight away if you survive. That's also acceptable for avoiding hell, it's called making an "Act of Contrition".

This is why serial killers are in heaven. The Catholic approach isn't to not steal a bike; it's to steal a bike and then feel guilty afterwards.

Another more controversial option is to use sacramentals like that of St Carmel and praying the Divine Mercy prayer. In those cases, Mary and Jesus separately have supposedly appeared to saints in "Private revelations" and taught that either wearing the Brown Scapular or praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy at the time of death likewise saves you from hell.

These claims have not been condemned by the Church, but they haven't been supported fully either. The only "safe and guranteed" route is via dying in a state of grace after confession, or with the full intent to go as soon as possible by performing an "Act of Contrition".

Objectivity doesn't imply a lack of caveats. What is meant by objective morality is that it is the one truth. Take for example this apple *clibms tree to grab apple* we can say that it is objectively red, but then let's say a cataclysmic event occurs and we start humanity over without Jews. The English word red and brown have switched, it is now objectively a brown apple when we look back on it. The problem with protestantism is the lack of an objective morality, one pastor could say it's wrong to fuck children but being ethnically Jewish I interpret it as ok, both of us are right. An objective morality is not absolute in that it doesn't shift or evolve, it is simply the codified moral arbiter . Now as a smelly yid I want to fuck a kid but I see that it's wrong, it is objectively a horrible thing. I don't fuck the kid and go back to scrounging up change under vending machines and trying to put hair in my food at restaurants to get a free meal.

NO. Not realistic. In what situation does someone have the luxury of time when they are dying. Assuming they aren't incapacitated or physically lame there is still the manner of all sorts of Earthly desires and connections in the forefront of the mind .You make it sound so easy.

Also serial killers are not in heaven to say that are is simply incorrect because you don't know nor does that catechism offer any such information. It would be something you assumed based off your understanding of attrition not something spoken of invoking the grand magisterium.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

@Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir.

There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs. If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling.

Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.

You realise that, objectively speaking, Catholicism is also fake and gay, right?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

@Jacob Harrison You literally lack the basic understanding of your own faith to have a discussion with you about it. I seriously suspect a divine vision could strike you showing all you believe is heretical and you would reject the vision. You are a stubborn ass, a zealot, and a heretic, and I will not waste any more of my time with you.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

You realise that, objectively speaking, Catholicism is also fake and gay, right?

Explain the arrow of time and the problem of causality if there is no God you edgy little fedora totting atheist. You faggots think science is on your side, but science and education in general came from theologians, the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later. You atheists are dumb children not even capable of arguing this but you've got your head so far up your dyel ass that you don't realize you're being mogged by a crusader like me

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

True, but it shows that it is a debated subject. I believe that animals go to heaven because I may have seen the ghost of my dead cat out of the corner of my eye indicating that he came from heaven to visit.

Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible. Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?

Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.

Original sin was committed when Satan, in the form of a talking snake (with legs) convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She did so. However, before eating from the tree, she didn't have knowledge of good and evil! How is it her fault? God's the one who made Satan, why didn't he do something to prevent this sequence of events? And how does an all knowing god get fooled by a mischievous angel he created?

So then, to punish the humans for listening to the evil snake that he created, a bunch of other evil shit was created, pretty much everything bad is because of this (except satan?).

Sorry man, in that story, God is lying about being all knowing, or he's lying about being completely benevolent. Otherwise, he should have known exactly what was going to happen from the first moment he willed himself into existence.

That suggests God is more of an experimenter with incomplete knowledge. In which case, why would we listen to a lying alien scientist who has shown he's willing to murder us?

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible. Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?

Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.

Original sin was committed when Satan, in the form of a talking snake (with legs) convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She did so. However, before eating from the tree, she didn't have knowledge of good and evil! How is it her fault? God's the one who made Satan, why didn't he do something to prevent this sequence of events? And how does an all knowing god get fooled by a mischievous angel he created?

So then, to punish the humans for listening to the evil snake that he created, a bunch of other evil shit was created, pretty much everything bad is because of this (except satan?).

Sorry man, in that story, God is lying about being all knowing, or he's lying about being completely benevolent. Otherwise, he should have known exactly what was going to happen from the first moment he willed himself into existence.

That suggests God is more of an experimenter with incomplete knowledge. In which case, why would we listen to a lying alien scientist who has shown he's willing to murder us?

Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.

Genesis is Jewish.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Genesis is Jewish.

Look at this brainlet he legitimately is a monkey wearing a suit, he's a child with a fake wheel pretending to drive the car in the passenger seat. Sweetie go make yourself some juicey juice ok I'll let you stay up an hour later if you leave daddy and the adults to discuss.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Look at this brainlet he legitimately is a monkey wearing a suit, he's a child with a fake wheel pretending to drive the car in the passenger seat. Sweetie go make yourself some juicey juice ok I'll let you stay up an hour later if you leave daddy and the adults to discuss.

The only reason you engage in these childish tantrums is because you legitimately cannot counterargue the fact that Genesis is a Jewish text and Christianity, the religion you uphold as great, is founded on Judaism, the religion you hold as the font of earthly evil.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later.

Apologists of numerous religions make arguments along these lines, but notice that these 'revelations' are only ever announced after scientists have made the discovery. You never see theologians beating scientists to the punch, despite the fact that their entire job is to study the texts that apparently had this stuff figured out all along. Why is that?

Have you ever thought that perhaps these passages are not as revelatory as they're being made out to be, and that people are just reading stuff into them after the fact?

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Apologists of numerous religions make arguments along these lines, but notice that these 'revelations' are only ever announced after scientists have made the discovery. You never see theologians beating scientists to the punch, despite the fact that their entire job is to study the texts that apparently had this stuff figured out all along. Why is that?

Have you ever thought that perhaps these passages are not as revelatory as they're being made out to be, and that people are just reading stuff into them after the fact?

No there are over 100 predictions that came true in the Bible including the idea of crucifixion which at the time of the old testament was not a thing.

As for what you said it's wrong on it's face it isn't the duty of theologians to understand physical properties of objects. It's to study and interpret the word of God not pontificate on physics . The fact that scientists can corroborate ideas spelled out in the Bible just further proves it's validity.

You edgelords need to stop thinking science is on your side University was created to further the pursuits of theologians.