Why Catholicism?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Sort by date Sort by votes
To get appointed to the (((Supreme Court)))
supreme.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chimplord1997 said:
So the scriptural basis for the Catholic church is Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Peter was the first pontiff of the Church, the pontiff being the vicar of Christ. And, at least allegedly, the Catholic church and its pontiffs are descended from an unbroken line going back directly to peter. Therefore, the Catholic church is the "true" Church.

Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic, still call myself Catholic, and have many criticisms of the Catholic Church. I have some takes on my faith that would have gotten me executed 1000 years ago for heresy even if I do love Christ.

That said, I'm sure you can think of many reasons you wouldn't like the Church, but keep in mind the Church is also not intended to be without flaw. The Church is run by humans, so there's gonna be imperfection. The argument I would make is that yeah, you might not like the current guy running it or the last few guys running it (I don't either), but despite how gay it is to wash muslims feet, there's also good things those disliked pontiffs have done. Francis, for example, has codified that women cannot enter the Priesthood. There's that black cardinal who might be next in line who is basically a 1488 black guy. It's a mixed bag, and if you're looking for something to match your politics de jure you're gonna be disappointed no matter what fork of Christendom you choose. The Church, at least, by its own record, is the "main fork" of Christianity, with Orthodoxy and Protestantism being later forks. I'm not gonna be one of those fags that tells you that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven, because that in and of itself is probably a mortal sin (making Christendom look bad is a mortal sin), and I'm not sure to what extent a Priest is needed as a conduit for the administering of reconciliation and communion. Just do works, confess your sins, remain in a state of grace if possible, and I would posit that the big man upstairs is not going to fault you over the choice of what type of robe the preacher you see on sunday is wearing.

Just don't be a Methodist or Episcopalian. Those guys are actual fucking heretics and should be burned to death at the stake. They worship homosexuality and LGBTQ+ identity over God.
Click to expand...

Peter being the first Roman bishop is retcon. Prove I'm wrong. It's all fanfiction put in place to the give the Roman church a sense of superiority to others.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Scolopendra Dramatica said:
Bloody hell, I came here hoping to figure out which version of Christianity I wanted to look into after hearing out a couple of spergs... now I'm even more conflicted than ever!
Click to expand...
St. Augustine said:
For it is only sins that separate men from God; and in this life purification from sins is not effected by our merit, but by the grace of God.
Through his indulgence, not through our power; for even that poor little virtue which we call ours has itself been granted to us by his bounty.
Click to expand...
Read the Church Fathers.
@Mothra1988
You too.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
Peter being the first Roman bishop is retcon. Prove I'm wrong. It's all fanfiction put in place to the give the Roman church a sense of superiority to others.
Click to expand...
I'm just giving the Catholic justification for why to be Catholic. You're free to believe whatever you'd like
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chimplord1997 said:
I'm just giving the Catholic justification for why to be Catholic. You're free to believe whatever you'd like
Click to expand...
It's wrong though. There were many other churches other than the church in Rome. Rome, of course, was the power that executed a lot of Christians. If you want to asset Rome somehow has supremancy here other than it being back-written as such by Roman emperors, provide your evidence. I want sources. Give me something.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
It's wrong though. There were many other churches other than the church in Rome. Rome, of course, was the power that executed a lot of Christians. If you want to asset Rome somehow has supremancy here other than it being back-written as such by Roman emperors, provide your evidence. I want sources. Give me something.
Click to expand...
Most of the Church Fathers, which formalized Christian doctrine (eg; Trinity, Theokotos, Incarnation), presided in the Latin Church. Rome doesn't have any authority currently, but the church of Antiquity was an extremely different organization without papal supremacy, or even Scholasticism.
It was men like Athanasius, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome and Ambrose that defended the church from infighting (eg; Donatism, absolute heresy (eg; Lucifierianism, Arianism), and Pelagianism (a heresy which the
Latin Church accepted in the middle ages).

Even if you're a Protestant, it's important to study the Church Fathers and read th Creeds which they formalized. It's extremely important to realize the significance they had upon Christendom
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
It's wrong though. There were many other churches other than the church in Rome. Rome, of course, was the power that executed a lot of Christians. If you want to asset Rome somehow has supremancy here other than it being back-written as such by Roman emperors, provide your evidence. I want sources. Give me something.
Click to expand...
OK. Maybe you have aspergers so let me explain again. I was laying out the argument Catholicism makes for why you should be Catholic. Note my use of the word allegedly. I'm not necessarily making the assertion that it is 100% correct, and I even qualified that I think it probably doesn't matter. It's like how explaining why people think Korn is good doesn't necessarily mean you like the band Korn whole-heartedly. Please take your Ritalin and stop seething.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chimplord1997 said:
OK. Maybe you have aspergers so let me explain again. I was laying out the argument Catholicism makes for why you should be Catholic. Note my use of the word allegedly. I'm not necessarily making the assertion that it is 100% correct, and I even qualified that I think it probably doesn't matter. It's like how explaining why people think Korn is good doesn't necessarily mean you like the band Korn whole-heartedly. Please take your Ritalin and stop seething.
Click to expand...

You seem to be the one talking out of your ass if you can't even answer that question. You referenced the primarcy of Peter as evidence of the surpemacy fo the Catholic Church. My question is where is the eveidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome? It's not in the Bible. lol So far no one hasn't cited anything, even the usual verse that's cited. Peter is a historical figure. He isn't made up, so I don't see why you think it doesn't matter even if you were the one that brought it up.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
You seem to be the one talking out of your ass if you can't even answer that question. You referenced the primarcy of Peter as evidence of the surpemacy fo the Catholic Church. My question is where is the eveidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome? It's not in the Bible. lol So far no one hasn't cited anything, even the usual verse that's cited. Peter is a historical figure. He isn't made up, so I don't see why you think it doesn't matter even if you were the one that brought it up.
Click to expand...
Holy shit can you do some square breathing exercises, calm down, and read my post? For the third time. I'm not saying that it IS the case, I am saying that is the argument used. I used the word "allegedly", which means that it is the case being alleged. I am explaining a viewpoint, not arguing for or against it.

If I lay out a quick rundown of why people think building 7 was blown up by thermite, I don't need to go and do research to prove that it WAS blown up by thermite, because I am simply explaining why people think that is the case. I'm not arguing that it IS the case. I hope you can relax, stop getting upset over doctrinal differences on a forum, and understand the difference between an explanatory statement and a declarative one.
Quit trying to strongarm an argument where there is none.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Beak Thing said:
Where in the Bible is sola scriptura mentioned? For that matter, do you know when the Biblical canon was actually finalized?
Click to expand...
We're not debating sola scriptura, I'm debating that there's no real evidence for Peter starting the Roman Catholic Church. You guys are batting like 5-0 at this point. You keep replying but never answer the question.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chimplord1997 said:
Holy shit. You're either mentally handicapped or trolling.
Click to expand...
6-0, you total midwit that can't even debate religion. Yeah, Catholicism is a scam invented by Constantine to combine Roman paganism with the Christian religion. The only reason you worship as a Catholic is because the other major churches were sacked or other wise destroyed.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
We're not debating sola scriptura, I'm debating that there's no real evidence for Peter starting the Roman Catholic Church. You guys are batting like 5-0 at this point. You keep replying but never answer the question.
Click to expand...
Because your premise is based upon sola scriptura, otherwise you wouldn't use that line of reasoning arguing it "isn't in the Bible". The Bible is completely irrelevant when it comes to discussing apostolic tradition, which is based upon verbal and written history from the centuries before the Biblical canon was finalized.

St. Peter was crucified in Rome and was a leading figure in the church there, which naturally became one of the five primary apostolic sees in the Pentarchy. Remember that back then there were no doctrinal divisions, these were all part of the same catholic Church. These divisions happened centuries later, first with Chalecedon in 451 and then the Great Schism in 1054.

So it's not hard to conclude he's the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, just like St. Andrew in Constantinople for the Orthodox, St. Mark for the Copts in Alexandria, incidentally St. Peter again for the Maronites and Orthodox in Antioch, and St. James for the Orthodox in Jerusalem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mothra1988 said:
6-0, you total midwit that can't even debate religion. Yeah, Catholicism is a scam invented by Constantine to combine Roman paganism with the Christian religion. The only reason you worship as a Catholic is because the other major churches were sacked or other wise destroyed.
Click to expand...
I have not debated religion at any point in our little exchange. That was not my intent in posting in this thread. I see very little reason in debating between the different sects of Christianity
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Beak Thing said:
Because your premise is based upon sola scriptura, otherwise you wouldn't use that line of reasoning arguing it "isn't in the Bible". The Bible is completely irrelevant when it comes to discussing apostolic tradition, which is based upon verbal and written history from the centuries before the Biblical canon was finalized.

St. Peter was crucified in Rome and was a leading figure in the church there, which naturally became one of the five primary apostolic sees in the Pentarchy. Remember that back then there were no doctrinal divisions, these were all part of the same catholic Church. These divisions happened centuries later, first with Chalecedon in 451 and then the Great Schism in 1054.

So it's not hard to conclude he's the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, just like St. Andrew in Constantinople for the Orthodox, St. Mark for the Copts in Alexandria, incidentally St. Peter again for the Maronites and Orthodox in Antioch, and St. James for the Orthodox in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

That's BS. The Bible does cover at least a good portion of the apostolic age via Acts and the epistles in the new Testament. What is there actually seems to contradict Catholicism, in that it was James, the brother of the lord, that appeared to have higher rank than Peter. If not, he was at lest and equal to Peter in the hierarchy. I have found evidence that after James was assassinated, Jude took over the Jerusalem church, but where is the evidence or source or anything that Peter was running the church in Rome? Every time I ask this Catholics just cite "tradition" and nothing else. Give me something substantive.

And there's plenty of fanfiction in CAtholic tradition. THere's a few saints that never probaly existed, and stuff like the Assumption of Mary and Veronica I seriously doubt happened either. But either way, give me a textual basis.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom