Why Catholicism?

[Crysocyan]

Why should I into Catholicism?

 

[Beak Thing]

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.

What is this nonsense? There is no evidence Biblical or otherwise that James was assassinated, all credible sources make it clear he was killed by a Jewish extremist judge, no doubt due to the sheer and growing tension between Romans, Jews and Jesus' new belief system known as The Way in 60s AD Judea.

The Acts only cover a very short period of Church history, up until the end of the 1st century AD. What happened during the next few hundred years between this and Jerome's Vulgate or Nicaea? Do you know? If you have some textual sources describing what happened in the Church during this period it'd be the single biggest advance

The only sources we have are these traditions, period. There is no rational reason to believe these stories were made up or otherwise falsified, this was a religion that had been suppressed and persecuted the entire time these works were written.

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.

Sure, and there are plenty of Protestants believe in bullshit like "once saved always saved" and the "prosperity Gospel" along with a bunch of other goofy shit.

 

[Mothra1988]

What is this nonsense? There is no evidence Biblical or otherwise that James was assassinated, all credible sources make it clear he was killed by a Jewish extremist judge, no doubt due to the sheer and growing tension between Romans, Jews and Jesus' new belief system known as The Way in 60s AD Judea.

Is everyone in this thread a retarded incest baby or something?:

verb
past tense: assassinated; past participle: assassinated

1. murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.
   "the organization's leader had been assassinated four months before the coup"

Do you not know what the word means or something?

Do you know? If you have some textual sources describing what happened in the Church during this period it'd be the single biggest advance

You obviously don't. I was at least expecting some kind or reference to some Christian writer from you, but you seem uninformed of any, which means you acting like an authority on this subject laughable.

The only sources we have are these traditions, period. There is no rational reason to believe these stories were made up or otherwise falsified, this was a religion that had been suppressed and persecuted the entire time these works were written.

Tradition isn't enough. Gnosticism was also a huge tradition with a long history, and it's completely heretical. Your position is basically "trust me, we're right, you're wrong." The fact something is tradition doesn't prove its truth. Not to mention the Catholic traditions that are contradicted by the Bible itself. I at least need a source for the tradition. The idea you expect me to believe something like that was only passed down orally is farcical.

Hard mode, if Peter was running the church in Rome, why didn't Paul greet him in his epistle to the Romans?

 

[Chimplord1997]

Is everyone in this thread a retarded incest baby or something?:



Do you not know what the word means or something?



You obviously don't. I was at least expecting some kind or reference to some Christian writer from you, but you seem uninformed of any, which means you acting like an authority on this subject laughable.



Tradition isn't enough. Gnosticism was also a huge tradition with a long history, and it's completely heretical. Your position is basically "trust me, we're right, you're wrong." The fact something is tradition doesn't prove its truth. Not to mention the Catholic traditions that are contradicted by the Bible itself. I at least need a source for the tradition. The idea you expect me to believe something like that was only passed down orally is farcical.

Hard mode, if Peter was running the church in Rome, why didn't Paul greet him in his epistle to the Romans?

Tldr take your meds

 

[Mothra1988]

Tldr take your meds

If you don't take religion seriously, what are you even doing in this thread? Fuck off with your zero substance crying already.

 

[Crysocyan]

If you don't take religion seriously, what are you even doing in this thread? Fuck off with your zero substance crying already.

What are you doing in my thread?

 

[Mothra1988]

What are you doing in my thread?

You asked if you should be Catholic. Unlike some stupid people, I think the truth of Catholicism should be debated. Do you want to know the truth or not?

 

[Chimplord1997]

If you don't take religion seriously, what are you even doing in this thread? Fuck off with your zero substance crying already.

you arrived in a thread full of polite discussion acting like an unhinged, seething neckbeard

 

[Mothra1988]

you arrived in a thread full of polite discussion acting like an unhinged, seething neckbeard

All I did was ask you a question, and instead of trying to answer it you chimped out like a retarded ape and then said you didn't care about Catholocism anyways. If anyone fucked up the thread it was you, asshat.

 

[Crysocyan]

You asked if you should be Catholic. Unlike some stupid people, I think the truth of Catholicism should be debated. Do you want to know the truth or not?

You're being rude (although so were a few other people). And I don't like it much. However, I do agree that the Papacy is not spiritually authoritative.
Rather, it is the Bible that is authoritative.

However, as Western Christians, we are also debtors to the Church Fathers. And the Church Fathers were very good men, which formalized the Bible, translated the Bible
into the language of the commoners (Vulgar Latin), retained church polity, protected God's Church from many heresies, and created Christian theology.

Even Calvin had respect for the Church Fathers, as did Luther. My point with saying all this, is that you have to realize that Catholics still get most things right (as opposed to
many Protestants). And if you're going to fight headlong against Catholicism, you may be fighting God's Church (which is comprised of some Catholics, and some Protestants etc).

This isn't how we should be addressing eachother as Christians. Visit your local Mosque, or Mormon temple, if you want to hear apostasy worse than anything
a Trent-era Romanist could spout.

The worst part is, you don't even seem to care. Who cares if the Catholics believe that the Pope is the representative of Christ? What does that have to do with the Gospel?
Why couldn't you bring up something more important, like the discussion of Free Will or Justification?
Yes, I don't like the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. But, that doctrine is simply a means. Why not challenge doctrine?

 

[Mothra1988]

You're being rude (although so were a few other people). And I don't like it much. However, I do agree that the Papacy is not spiritually authoritative.
Rather, it is the Bible that is authoritative.

However, as Western Christians, we are also debtors to the Church Fathers. And the Church Fathers were very good men, which formalized the Bible, translated the Bible
into the language of the commoners (Vulgar Latin), retained church polity, protected God's Church from many heresies, and created Christian theology.

Even Calvin had respect for the Church Fathers, as did Luther. My point with saying all this, is that you have to realize that Catholics still get most things right (as opposed to
many Protestants). And if you're going to fight headlong against Catholicism, you may be fighting God's Church (which is comprised of some Catholics, and some Protestants etc).

This isn't how we should be addressing eachother as Christians. Visit your local Mosque, or Mormon temple, if you want to hear apostasy worse than anything
a Trent-era Romanist could spout.

The worst part is, you don't even seem to care. Who cares if the Catholics believe that the Pope is the representative of Christ? What does that have to do with the Gospel?
Why couldn't you bring up something more important, like the discussion of Free Will or Justification?
Yes, I don't like the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. But, that doctrine is simply a means. Why not challenge doctrine?

Nah, when a church goes astray it can be criticized. I'm sorry if I just speak in blunt terms, but this is Kiwi Farms and the Catholic church has fucked up so much over history I'm not going to give it complete reverence or sugar coat it. It's an important church, but no one has to respect it as a Christian if they disagree with its theology or actions. I don't think Catholics get most things right as opposed to Protestants. Protestantism splintered off because the Catholic church was acting in error.

I"m not against reading or trying to learn from "church fathers" but these people were not apostles and not prophets. They can be dead wrong about anything, and some of these same chruch fathers were censored in their own time by other church authorities. I don't think they should be deified. They are important historical figures and scholars, but are not more than that. If Origen or Iranaeus or whoever said something that was wrong, then it's wrong. I also don't think they would say they created church theology. That's the wrong way to look at it. They would say it was revealed to them from studying scripture, etc. because again these people are not prophets and do not have divinely inspired writings.

 

[Crysocyan]

I"m not against reading or trying to learn from "church fathers" but these people were not apostles and not prophets. They can be dead wrong about anything, and some of these same chruch fathers were censored in their own time by other church authorities. I don't think they should be deified. They are important historical figures and scholars, but are not more than that. If Origen or Iranaeus or whoever said something that was wrong, then it's wrong. I also don't think they would say they created church theology. That's the wrong way to look at it. They would say it was revealed to them from studying scripture, etc. because again these people are not prophets and do not have divinely inspired writings.

Yes, I agree that Church Fathers are fallible. And I meant that they created theology insomuch as they created basic theological terminology.

However, Catholics also teach that:
-Mary is the mother of Christ's two natures (many protestant churches don't even talk about Mary)
-That the Godhead is triune (denied by Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals)
-That pastors have the ability to forgive sins (denied by most Protestants)
-That Baptism saves (denied by Baptists)
-That Christ is in the Eucharist (denied by Baptists)
-That the Bible is Inspired Scripture (denied by mainline churches)
-That Christ died for the entirety of humanity (denied by Calvinists)
-We should worship using the Liturgy (denied by Pentecostals)
-That the gender hierarchy doesn't exist (Methodists, Mainline churches)

Which is all valid doctrine (I know more differences exist, that's just a few examples).

Ok here's a quick defense of the Theokotos by Luther.

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.

 

[Enoch Emery]

Well because it's true, obviously.

 

[Involuntary Celebrity]

i know i've mentioned this a couple of times although i don't like to bring it up because i just come here to relax and say nigger, but i'm the second coming of christ IRL and you guys all seem like fags to me

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

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!

Just don't try reviving the Skoptsy movement and you're probably fine.

 

[JethroTullamore]

i know i've mentioned this a couple of times although i don't like to bring it up because i just come here to relax and say nigger, but i'm the second coming of christ IRL and you guys all seem like fags to me

Even me? All I wanna do is give @Crysocyan a handy in my fursuit and than hold him and tell him everything is gonna be ok.

Nothing gay about that.

 

[Involuntary Celebrity]

Even me? All I wanna do is give @Crysocyan a handy in my fursuit and than hold him and tell him everything is gonna be ok.

Nothing gay about that.

well i sorta meant my fanclubs in general

and like figuratively gay. obviously being fucked in the ass by men is less homosexual than internet religion chat

 

[Mothra1988]

-Mary is the mother of Christ's two natures (many protestant churches don't even talk about Mary)

Jesus doesn't talk much about Mary either. She's an important figure, but she's over emphasized in the Roman Catholic Church because they converted from paganism and wanted some kind of female goddess figure. I mean I understand it, but all the Mariaology stuff was invented hundreds of years after Jesus died.

-That the Godhead is triune (denied by Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals)

No one takes Unitarians or Pentecostals seriously.

-That pastors have the ability to forgive sins (denied by most Protestants)

They don't. If this was true, we wouldn't have had child molesting priests and other scum claiming to be men of the cloth. Pray to god or jesus to forgive sins. You don't need a human middle man telegram sender or dead saint to do it for you. If a priest helps you pray, they should help direct your prayers to Jesus. The priest doesn't forgive sins. That's ludicrous.

-That Baptism saves (denied by Baptists)

I doesn't. Faith in christ does. Baptism is important, but Catholics thinking the ritual performed on babies is enough is ludicrous.

-That Christ is in the Eucharist (denied by Baptists)

I don't know why this is an important sticking point. It's a symbolic ritual like baptism. If someone who doesn't believe and hates Christ takes commuion, it's not going to do anything. Ritual without faith is meaningless in the context of god.

-That the Bible is Inspired Scripture (denied by mainline churches)

No one takes mainline churches seriously other than eastcoast wasps and politicians who just want to play-act.

-That Christ died for the entirety of humanity (denied by Calvinists)

But it's believed by most protestants.

-We should worship using the Liturgy (denied by Pentecostals)

It should be done but isn't required to be saved.

-That the gender hierarchy doesn't exist (Methodists, Mainline churches)

I don't know what you're referring to. IF you mean female clergy, I guess that's debatable among the congregation, and I genuinely don't care either way. But if you mean in general, I and no one else is going to be subservient to men in modern society. Tough rocks.

Ok here's a quick defense of the Theokotos by Luther.

Quoting Luther doesn't impress me. He agrees with a lot of Catholic stuff that is wrong and is even wrong on his own apart from Catholic doctrine. But the overall point is that Mary is important but she isn't supposed to be worshiped.

 

[Crysocyan]

Jesus doesn't talk much about Mary either. She's an important figure, but she's over emphasized in the Roman Catholic Church because they converted from paganism and wanted some kind of female goddess figure. I mean I understand it, but all the Mariaology stuff was invented hundreds of years after Jesus died.



No one takes Unitarians or Pentecostals seriously.



They don't. If this was true, we wouldn't have had child molesting priests and other scum claiming to be men of the cloth. Pray to god or jesus to forgive sins. You don't need a human middle man telegram sender or dead saint to do it for you. If a priest helps you pray, they should help direct your prayers to Jesus. The priest doesn't forgive sins. That's ludicrous.



I doesn't. Faith in christ does. Baptism is important, but Catholics thinking the ritual performed on babies is enough is ludicrous.



I don't know why this is an important sticking point. It's a symbolic ritual like baptism. If someone who doesn't believe and hates Christ takes commuion, it's not going to do anything. Ritual without faith is meaningless in the context of god.



No one takes mainline churches seriously other than eastcoast wasps and politicians who just want to play-act.



But it's believed by most protestants.



It should be done but isn't required to be saved.



I don't know what you're referring to. IF you mean female clergy, I guess that's debatable among the congregation, and I genuinely don't care either way. But if you mean in general, I and no one else is going to be subservient to men in modern society. Tough rocks.



Quoting Luther doesn't impress me. He agrees with a lot of Catholic stuff that is wrong and is even wrong on his own apart from Catholic doctrine. But the overall point is that Mary is important but she isn't supposed to be worshiped.

Ok you have breached out of clear orthodoxy, and that is no good.

I am excommunicating myself from this discussion.

Also Mary deserves to be venerated. She's the mother of God

 

[Mothra1988]

Ok you have breached out of clear orthodoxy, and that is no good.

I am excommunicating myself from this discussion.

Also Mary deserves to be venerated. She's the mother of God

Here's another one. Mary didn't die a virgin. She gave birth to James, Jude and Jesus's other sibilings in the normal way after Jesus's virgin birth.

Mary is a human being, maybe an extraordinary human being, but still she's a human being and worshiping her is heretical. She may be the mother of god the son in regards to his human component, but not the mother of god the father.

Also it's sad you can't debate your beliefs. You have extremely weak convictions it seems. There's a reason why Orthdoxy is unpopular. Internet orthodoxy is also a meme that attracts people beause of trad aeshtetics, which is really hollow honestly.

 

[Crysocyan]

Here's another one. Mary didn't die a virgin. She gave birth to James, Jude and Jesus's other sibilings in the normal way after Jesus's virgin birth.

Mary is a human being, maybe an extraordinary human being, but still she's a human being and worshiping her is heretical. She may be the mother of god the son in regards to his human component, but not the mother of god the father.

Also it's sad you can't debate your beliefs. You have extremely weak convictions it seems. There's a reason why Orthdoxy is unpopular. Internet orthodoxy is also a meme that attracts people beause of trad aeshtetics, which is really hollow honestly.

No stop it. I am not Orthodox heretic, I simply meant correct doctrine which has always been taught. I do not want to debate Nestorianism or Zwingli-Sacramentalism because it's very obvious that the Bible condemns them.

I have seen Mary, she's more than a saint. And she can intercede in our lives, unlike regular saints. She has touched me, and she is our mother.

As for if she remained perpetually a virgin, that doesn't matter. It is respectable that a woman should have children.

Read the Romans if you want proof of Baptismal Regeneration. Read the Gospel if you want to learn about Mary, and her son being bodily present in the Lord's Supper. And again, Matthew and John if you want to learn about Christ ordaining pastors with the ability to forgive sins.