[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ak / cutebois / fascist / radb / senran / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: ea88d8967895b1c⋯.png (161.91 KB, 300x350, 6:7, 19FEA4C6-58BB-4147-A459-2B….png)

c0c298 No.671733

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/john-wycliffe-and-the-dawn-of-the-reformation

>This constituted the third area of doctrine in which Wycliffe clashed with the traditional teaching of the Church. It is to be observed that, influenced as he was earlier in his career by the import of Scripture, it was not until the twilight of his career that he came to a fully developed position on the authority of the Scriptures. He declared the right of every Christian to know the Bible, and that the Bible emphasized the need of every Christian to see the importance of Christ alone as the sufficient way of salvation, without the aid of pilgrimages, works and the Mass.

8df890 No.671790

File: bfd93ed0e6aec2d⋯.jpg (116.95 KB, 750x554, 375:277, bfd93ed0e6aec2de2ac63e7573….jpg)

You've done it now lad


f05aef No.671799

>>671733

>He declared the right of every Christian to know the Bible

That is true.

>and that the Bible emphasized the need of every Christian to see the importance of Christ alone as the sufficient way of salvation, without the aid of pilgrimages, works and the Mass.

That is not true.


4d8924 No.671939

>>671799

>disagreeing with the second part

looks like without it the catholic church today would be empty!


f05aef No.671949

>>671939

Repeat that again, I'm not following your thought here.


31a829 No.671960

Wycliffe and Hus were heretics. He was condemned by statements such as:

>God ought to obey the devil.

>God does not approve that anyone be judged or condemned by civil law.

>God cannot annihilate anything, nor increase or diminish the world, but he can create souls up to a certain number, and not beyond it.

>Every person is God.

>Every creature is God.

>Every being is everywhere, since every being is God.

> There is no greater heretic or antichrist than the cleric who teaches that it is lawful for priests and levites of the law of grace to be endowed with temporal possessions. The clerics who teach this are heretics or blasphemers if ever there were any.

>It is against sacred scripture for ecclesiastics to have possessions.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm


8df890 No.671965

>>671960

> There is no greater heretic or antichrist than the cleric who teaches that it is lawful for priests and levites of the law of grace to be endowed with temporal possessions. The clerics who teach this are heretics or blasphemers if ever there were any.

No wonder the Church was upset with him.


31a829 No.671967

>>671965

Anyone sane should. Property Right is inherently part of Natural Law.


4d8924 No.671996

>>671949

>disagreeing with the second part

looks like without it the catholic church today would be empty!


f05aef No.671999

>>671996

That's not helping, why are you saying that like that.


f05aef No.672027

>>672025

How edgy of you.


8df890 No.672031

File: cd368760ebbcaed⋯.png (309.15 KB, 1276x717, 1276:717, cd368760ebbcaed017d643a173….png)

>>671967

>The Pope acting like a feudal lord accumulating territory in Wycliffe's time is just exercising his property rights as part of natural law.


f05aef No.672034

>>672031

He is right to own land if it benefits the people.


f05aef No.672037

>>672035

A bunch of ungrateful people.


f05aef No.672043

>>672040

>owning land is bad

Are we Indians from the west?


8df890 No.672047

File: 39ef374d5eb4e2d⋯.jpg (18.39 KB, 360x374, 180:187, 9764b17a1f10a249586b56c41c….jpg)

>>672034

>it benefits the people.

>>672043

Why would the Papacy ever need more land than Vatican City?


f05aef No.672052

>>672046

>This isn’t about owning land

Well you just said it was about property and land is property, you can't dispute this.

>>672047

Because it's Church land and not king land.


8df890 No.672056

>>672052

>Because it's Church land and not king land.

You mean when like Innocent III jumped at the chance to be the vassal overlord of England when King John offered it to him? Got to get that Peter's Pence!


f05aef No.672060

>>672056

Yeah. I'm not going to play the "oh well some of the stuff the Church did" was bad game because that's dumb. The Church did nothing wrong.


0fa0c6 No.672061

File: c58c1699374b8b3⋯.jpg (292.04 KB, 538x677, 538:677, PP Innocent III.jpg)

>>672056

>Innocent III

Daily reminder that based Pope Innocent III did literally nothing wrong.


8df890 No.672063

File: fb55fad04245943⋯.png (288.03 KB, 498x462, 83:77, daf75f6f4e4251bd5f36a3b07a….png)

>>672060

>>672061

>dindu nuffin


f05aef No.672064

>>672063

It's true.


c0c298 No.672069

>>672052

>Well you just said it was about property and land is property

AGAIN, if the Church lives in extravagance, but the poor is starving and suffering, that is injustice. I thought that was pretty clear.

YOU said that the Pope can own land if it benefits the people. Obviously it didn’t because the peasants wouldn’t have revolted. Why couldn’t the church provide alms and food to the peasants???


c0c298 No.672071

File: aca0efa2fd91651⋯.png (6.34 MB, 2048x1536, 4:3, B9752F55-F4D6-4F0C-8324-CA….png)

>>672061

>genocide is okay!

What the fu¢k


f05aef No.672072

>>672069

>can own land if it benefits the people

It benefits the people if he's alive.

>>672071

>killing Cathars is bad

Are you a baptist by chance?


0fa0c6 No.672075

>>672071

>Cathars are a race

>send missionaries to convert them, but they are murdered by heretics and gnostics


c0c298 No.672077

>>672072

>It benefits the people if he's alive.

???

>are you a Baptist?

Nah. I just have a heart. Heretic or not, it is wicked to exterminate women and children indiscriminately based on false accusations.

>>672075

>Cathars are a race

They don’t have to be a race to qualify for genocide, you retard tigger.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

<the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

>murdered by heretics and gnostics

Just listen to yourself. You’re accusing the cathars of killing the papal legate, while disregarding the fact that anticlericism was strong in the Languedoc region. Literally anyone could have killed the legate. Innocent the III simply used that as an excuse to kill the cathars indiscriminately.


f05aef No.672078

>>672077

>???

You heard me, if the Pope is safe then all is good, friend.

>based on false accusations

No. Anyone that was a Cathar is evil.


0fa0c6 No.672080

>>672077

><the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Except the Cathars were none of that lel. Try again.

Here's the term you should have used

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hereticide

>Just listen to yourself. You’re accusing the cathars of killing the papal legate, while disregarding the fact that anticlericism was strong in the Languedoc region. Literally anyone could have killed the legate.

Anticlericals are tarred with the same brush. They fall into the pit they dig for themselves.

>Innocent the III simply used that as an excuse to kill the cathars indiscriminately.

It's a good "excuse" though. Secular powers have went to war over less.


c0c298 No.672082

>>672080

>Here's the term you should have used

>arguing over semantics

Who the hell cares, anon? Indiscriminate killing of an entire group of people is insanely cruel. I bet you want to kill all Protestants, atheists, Jews, pagans, etc. I don’t care what you call it.

>>672078

>if the Pope is safe

THE POPE IS IN THE winnie the pooh VATICAN, FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Why does he need to own all of that land just to be “safe?”


f05aef No.672083

>>672082

>Why does he need to own all of that land just to be “safe?”

Because it wasn't like the nobles were going to use it right.


f05aef No.672088

>>672086

>People should own land

Yes, noblemen are people.


0fa0c6 No.672089

>>672082

>Indiscriminate killing of an entire group of people is insanely cruel.

Of course it's cruel. Do you think we relish the death of sinners? Do you think God does?

These weren't peaceful hippies that got the Medieval National Guard set on them, they were dangerous and clearly violent heretics whom reason and appeal failed to reach, and who responded with barbarism. Many repented when we spoke to them on their level and a good deal of souls were saved for it.


f05aef No.672091

>>672090

>Cathars kill people

>th-they aren't savages

Don't be dumb, please.


f05aef No.672093

>>672092

How about you stop getting upset over heretics that turned their backs against God. Are you a woman?


c0c298 No.672095

>>672093

How about you stop justifying the killing of women and children?

I’m upset over the act of genocide (or hereticide; whatever, call, it what you want). And that makes me a woman because I have compassion and an adversion to mass genocide??

I would rather be a woman than a monster like you.


0fa0c6 No.672096

>>672090

>what evidence do you have that they were dangerous and violent?

Because they literally murdered men who were sent to try to avoid what eventually befell them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Verona

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau

Holy men murdered by Cathars and their supporters.

>The Cathars were beloved by the Languedoc people; part of that was due to their pacificism.

Can you post a source for this? And please, not a pro-Cathar, secular, postmodern, non-Catholic source, please.

Frankly I am not interested if you believe me and the Church or not. They were sodomite murderers who hated God.


f05aef No.672097

>>672095

No because you act like a hysteric and I want to be your friend.


3f1d16 No.672098

>>672096

What is a cathar? Why does it matter if the person is one or not?


c0c298 No.672099

>>672096

>posting Wikipedia articles of Catholic friars

Retard tigger stop wasting my time.

>Can you post a source for this?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399533.The_Cathars


0fa0c6 No.672101

>>672098

There were adherents of a gnostic sect which took root in southern France, which believed in dualism, practised sodomy and called creation evil, and drew on popular anticlericalism for support, to the point that they even managed to hoodwink local notables to support them. They also like all gnostics believes that the Christian God is actually Satan, and that Satan is the good god.

>>672099

>Retard tigger stop wasting my time.

But you said a non-Catholic source lel. Still mad you're wrong?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399533.The_Cathars

Sorry, your source doesn't meet my stringent requirements. I think you need to post something else.


90e338 No.672115

>>672082

>Why does he need to own all of that land just to be “safe?”

One of the most interesting faucets of western culture (and I will make a Spenglarian distinction between Western and Classical culture is that Western culture has a separation between church and state. In Roman times the Emperor was the head of the Church. The Eastern Roman empire also maintained this, with the only councils recognized by them being presided over or sanctioned by the Emperor. In Chinese culture the emperor was the "Son of Heaven". Most Islamic Caliphs derived their authority from the territory they controlled. The only times when the Caliph was not a powerful ruler were when he was the client of a powerful ruler (e.g. Seljuk and Mameluke times) and today.

Western culture's separation was only possible because the Pope himself had his own territory from which he could defend his independence. He wasn't simply a courtier of a king who could force him to do his bidding. Though the Pope held little territory, it was enough to hold off against a King who would attack him long enough for other Kings (not wishing for the Pope to be dominated by a rival) to come to his defense. When this did happen, the Pope was no longer recognized as a spiritual father. The French kidnanpped the Pope and set him up in Avignon, but the Germans and the English no longer recognized him and the new Pope in Rome was instead recognized. Thus the Pope's temporal power ensured that all Western Christians could appeal to an outside authority for spiritual guidance.

This is demonstrated further by the Protestant reformation. What did states and rulers do when they became Protestant? They confiscated all of the monasteries and churches, and set up their own national church with themselves as the head. In the case of the Church of England, theology was bent to suit the needs of the ruler. And these days, the national "churches" of Scandinavia are removing crosses and electing lesbian bishops to please the state.

So when governments today demand that the separation of church and state requires the church to submit to state authority, you know that they are absolute bollocks. What they want is a cucked church that represents "modern" "values" and is useless at attracting new converts because it is both of this world and a part of it.


0f545d No.672135

>>672101

This is not true. The Cathars were Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and they were attacked by the papacy because they used the King James Bible.


c0c298 No.672139

>>672115

If we go by your logic, then the Papacy would have to own all of the land on the planet. For maximum security, the Pope would be the grand leader of all human societies. Didn’t Jesus himself say that his kingdom was not of this world?

If you don’t believe that the Pope should be the grand emperor of the world, then please tell me how much land is the Pope entitled to? Should he own one third of the land of England, a country that is far from the Papal seat??


8b4289 No.672148


f05aef No.672155

>>672139

No, he should own the five cities of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem.


ad10db No.672161

>>672139

>If we go by your logic, then the Papacy would have to own all of the land on the planet. For maximum security, the Pope would be the grand leader of all human societies. Didn’t Jesus himself say that his kingdom was not of this world?

Are you on drugs? I was speaking of a separation of Church and State, you cannot have that if the Church controls all temporal matters everywhere.

>If you don’t believe that the Pope should be the grand emperor of the world, then please tell me how much land is the Pope entitled to? Should he own one third of the land of England, a country that is far from the Papal seat??

The current arrangement is enough because the Italians cannot simply invade the Papal States and be respected as a nation. There would be a counterattack, probably a rebellion by the pious Italians and Italy may lose more land. There is a reason why Italy did not take control of the Papacy - they initially offered them more land, the Papacy would have all of Rome on one side of the Tiber River.

The land that the Pope had in the days of the Papal states was a gift from the Frankish Emperor. Prior to that the Pope was mostly confined to Rome. The Papal States were not large and were sufficient to maintain the independence of the Church. Can you please explain where this "one third of England" has come from? A review of wikipedia brings nothing. Given Wikipedia's known anti-traditional stance, they would likely have included this fact if it were credible.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ak / cutebois / fascist / radb / senran / vichan ]