/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Feels like they add nothing to my faith and my motivation to do good. All they do is occupying my mind with doubt and pointless confusion

If that's the case, then you not only can but should and imho you absolutely have to.

>Am I just ignorant or just too much of a brainlet to handle politics and dogma?

No and most people aren't. The only reason why you even know about all of this is because media feeds on scandal and half-truths. It's an unnatural state for the common folk to be involved in politics.

>>696986

Just ignore, we can't do anything.

The gates of hell literally cannot prevail over the Church, theres no need to really bother with its politics as far as your salvation is concerned.

>>696986

What it "feels like" doesn't really matter in terms of Catholic morality. What is your conscience telling you?

Let me ask you this: do you truly believe that all this is a matter of mere politicking, or are there larger implications to what you have become aware of?

>>697032

>It's an unnatural state for the common folk to be involved in politics.

This simply is not true. There is nothing in Catholic social teaching to corroborate it. Especially under a republican form of government, the natural law places serious obligations of conscience upon common men's political life.

>>697045

>we can't do anything

We certainly can, and it starts with understanding the history of the Church in the last century. These scandals did not just come out of nowhere. Realize that anyone who participates in filth like this is an enemy of God. A Catholic has a duty to oppose them loudly and vigorously. This is the true Catholic notion of obedience.

>>697057

The indefectibility of the Church has itself nothing to do with questions of political unity. The external institutions of the Church can be compromised by her enemies and have been several times in the past. Good Catholics starting with Saint Athanasius always fought back against them.

>>697066

Are there any examples of the laity having a role fighting back against compromise in the Church?

>>696986

>The only reason why you even know about all of this is because media feeds on scandal and half-truths.

So it would be better if they could rape kids with impunity without the media and commoners getting all up in their business about it?

>>697070

meant as a reply to

>>697032

>>697069

Such examples are abundant throughout Church history. In the sixteenth century, only a single Catholic prelate, Bishop John Fisher, resisted Henry VIII; the rest capitulated. The vast majority of recusant Catholics in England were therefore laymen. In the fifth century, the Ephesian laity literally took to the streets to demand that Mary be proclaimed Theotokos against Nestorius. Several Popes were laymen at the time of their election. More recently, the three children of Fatima would not obey their priest when he capitulated to the Masonic government of Portugal. And of course many laymen opposed the modernist reforms after Vatican II, far more per capita than the clergy in fact.

>>697072

I guess I wasnt clear by fighting back I thought you meant in the sense of Arian controversy and actually preventing heresy or allowing a return to orthodoxy.

>And of course many laymen opposed the modernist reforms after Vatican II, far more per capita than the clergy in fact.

Source? The fact that there are 1.2 billion Catholics makes that seem hard to believe

>>697075

>by fighting back I thought you meant in the sense of Arian controversy and actually preventing heresy or allowing a return to orthodoxy.

I meant resisting any kind of injustice on the part of the clergy or compromise with the Church's enemies, and that includes resisting heresy. Particularly in the cases of the Nestorian controversy and the English Reformation, that's exactly what the laity did. In the latter, many laymen gave their lives to confess the true faith in the face of once Catholic bishops.

>The fact that there are 1.2 billion Catholics makes that seem hard to believe

Tbh just ask someone who was alive at the time. When they brought the vernacular liturgy to the United States in 1970, there were entire parishes that stubbornly continued to say the responses in Latin. The clergy were the ones trying to get them to change; the number of priests who cooperated in the reforms was very close to 100%.

>>696986

Stop being Catholic.

>>697111

>a bunch of made up nonsense

If you are unable even to entertain the Catholic notion of the Catholic Church, then you will always commit the straw man fallacy.

As for "my own" clergy, I deny that any of those who are one in faith with Pope Francis can reasonably be considered Catholic clergy. For neither do they profess the Catholic faith of our fathers, nor can it be said with certainty that they are priests or clergymen at all.

>>697125

Oh I'm not strawmanning.

If you hold to contradictory ideas you are bound to be manipulated.

If you believe that your church is right and that you need to be complicit with the blatantly obvious acts of evil by your clergy, then you are going to be manipulated because you have willfully suspended or terminated your application of critical thinking.

The truth is not your authority, men with dresses are.

So, again, what are you going to do about it?

Because if I'm not mistaken, "High church" tradition was conformed to while departing from the authority of the clergy during the PROTESTANT reformation.

And there's no shortage of reee on this board about "muh 30,000 denominations."

So what's the 30,001st denomination, champ?

>>697127

Where have I said that you need to be complicit with the acts of these (not my) clergymen?

To whom are you writing?

What I am doing about it right now is to point out that these perverts are not Catholic priests.

1. They do not have the Catholic faith, in fact they are largely Protestant theologically speaking.

2. They do not have valid orders.

3. They are not called by God to minister His flock.

4. They literally consort with devils.

5. Their liturgy is a deliberate mockery and inversion of the Catholic Mass – a satanic black mass in plain sight, if you will. Everyone who has studied the theology of the New Mass and the writings of the liturgical reformers knows this. The goal was to craft a service acceptable to Calvinists. Six Protestant ministers assisted in the making of the New Mass.

6. Before Vatican II a priest found guilty of sexual abuse would be executed in public. That is exactly what should be done with these false priests.

>>697136

you are still identifying as catholic laity

the laity itself is not disputing the jurisdictional claim that the clergy is making

so are you catholic laity or not?

no? yes?

You don't get off easy. If you're identifying as laity then you are responsible and are therefore shirking your responsibilities by being complicit.

>>697141

>the laity itself is not disputing the jurisdictional claim that the clergy is making

You don't get to decide that.

I am a Catholic layman, you are not, and I dispute the claim. I am not complicit in any of this. The hierarchy gets none of my support material or otherwise. The only thing I have to do with them is to get my fellow Catholics away from them.

When you understand the difference between a "man in a dress" and a Catholic priest, then you will understand my point of view. Until then I have to warn you that you are judging your neighbor rashly.

>>697145

well then since i am not a participant in a corrupt church, then i am doing more to combat the enemies of God you have identified yourself with. because if it was all corrupt clergy and no laity, they would have no enforcers.

im not judging you rashly at all.

you dispute the claim but youre not doing anything?

James 2.

faith without works is dead.

>when you understand the difference between a catholic priest and a man in a dress

when YOU realize the similarity, then you will understand MY point of view.

>>697155

I actually do understand your point of view, because unlike you, I have familiarized myself with religious ideas outside of my own beliefs. After all, if you reject something as erroneous, you at least ought to know what you are rejecting.

That said, insofar as you falsely impute these acts of perversion to the Catholic Church and not the false modernist clergy who have overtaken its institutions, you are bearing false witness and aiding and abetting those who would seek to destroy the true Church of Christ. You are aiding the enemies of God whether you know it or not.

You keep saying that I'm not doing anything. But that's because "anything" to you doesn't literally mean anything, it only means that which I see as apostasy from the faith. You're not going to convince me that way.

>>697159

no i understand catholicism very well i post here a lot and understand their false claims.

like the pope being a successor to the apostles (apostolic succession)

pagan rosary beads.

transubstantiation

owning a bible being considered a heresy

indulgences

baby baptism

mary the mother of god

the list of false doctrines go on seemingly without end

>>697161

It's telling that your proof that you have understood the Catholic faith supposedly lies in how much you write about it. Of course that doesn't matter at all.

You list the standard things that Protestants misunderstand about the Catholic faith, conveniently without defining any of them. Spelling and reading comprehension will be judged differently.

Of course I read Luther's Babylonian Captivity and other works, as well as parts of Calvin's Institutes. The calumnies that you repeat are familiar. Apostolic succession, for example, and the cult of the saints, are each in its own way supposed to rob the laity of their direct relationship to God. But Catholics already do not understand their relationship to God in terms of holy orders or the communion of saints. Rather it is the sacraments and the communion of saints that must be understood in terms of one's relationship to God, of perfect love for Him and the eternal glory to which it leads. That is what the sacraments essentially tend to, and the communion of saints is nothing else than the full number of souls who by God's grace possess it. So the popular rejection of these is founded on a basic misunderstanding.

Further, owning a Bible couldn't even in principle be considered a heresy. They're two completely different categories of action. A heresy is a proposition that you profess, so you can't commit one by owning a Bible. Catholics have always been expected to know the Scriptures, even the illiterate ones. These latter have always had recourse to Catholic artwork and the oral traditions, two things that most Protestants reject as idolatrous.

I could go on, but honestly two examples ought to be enough to make the point.

>>697164

>owning a bible was never considered a heresy

why was william tyndale executed?

>>697166

>why was william tyndale executed?

Not for owning a Bible. Tyndale had produced a translation so heretical that even King Henry VIII condemned it.

>>697167

what was heretical about it?

>>697169

It allowed the commoners to read the Bible for themselves.

>>697171

>>697169

According to Henry's clergy, there were literally thousands of errors in it. Translating the Bible into English would not have allowed the commoners to read it: most of them were illiterate. Neither was it illegal to translate the Bible; the Catholic Church herself did produce an English translation at Douay not long after Tyndale's execution.

>>697174

>according to henrys clergy

who cares?

>douay rheims published shortly after

tyndale bible was published first in 1535 and the douay rheims was first published in 1582. thats almost 50 years and that is nit an insignificant period of time.

and even still, it was based on the vulgate in which the TR by erasmus exposed the inconsistencies of the vulgate using the original greek manuscripts side by side.

coverdale followed up with tyndale anyway and this tradition ultimately continued throughout the geneva bible translation culminating into the completion of the tradition of producing the most widely circulated translation for the public by king james of Scotland.

anyway, i’ll ask you again since you dodged the question:

what specifically was heretical about the tyndale bible?

thanks.

>>696986

Well, think about it this way. You have people in the church that do certain things that obviously bothers you; if you thought there wasn't smoke along the tree line you'd outright dismiss it. Some of them certainly don't seem to take dogma or traditions seriously.

As an extension of that, they are also highly ranked in the organization. They get to appoint people who will directly service your salvation. Therefore, you should ask yourself this; is the possibility of having someone tend to you that might inculcate error in your habits, something that you feel like you should ignore for your own mental well-being?

>>697177

<what specifically was heretical about the tyndale bible?

>St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."

GIYF.

The Douay that comes down to us today actually contains parts of the KJV as well as corrections assimilated into the Vulgate from Greek and Hebrew sources. It's possible for small corruptions to creep into copies of Scripture over time, but heresy is out of the question.

>>697182

none of those are heresies, dude

for example

i actually checked my concordance with vines dictionary for the word “heretick” (titus 3:10)

it translates from the word “hairetikos” which means “capable of choosing, hence causing division by a party spirit”

sounds like tyndale was trying to preserve the connotation from the original greek into one word.

not like trying to change it like the term “metanoia” from the original greek into “penance” from the vulgate which catholic clergy applied to mean collecting a fine.

no wonder the catholics thought owning a bible was heresy, it would mean no money coming in to build the cathedrals.

Holy Ghost to Holy Wind

there doesnt seem to be a huge inconsistency here

>God breathed into the nostrils of man and he became a living soul

also in the book of acts an actual wind does fill the room at pentacost.

sounds like this so called st thomas more needs more knowledge dropped on him. what a novice

you got any better so-called heresies from the tyndale?

the vulgate is demonstrably more heretical.

>>696986

Do you stop following traffic law because of corrupt cops? No? Same applies to the Catholic Church. Your faith should only hinge on God, never on anyone else.

>>697190

>none of those are heresies, dude

Says the heretic.

>>697195

>here are the alleged heresies

<refutes the allegations that the alleged heresies are heresies

>youre a heretic

>>697195

>>697201

>>697199

>>697209

It's understood that I, a Catholic, and you, a Protestant, consider one another's positions to be heretical.

You don't consider the errors in question to be heretical because of your Protestant beliefs. Denying that they are heresies merely begs the question.

There's your substantiation, you contentious troglodyte.

>>697246

>>697199

>>697190

Expansion.

It's common knowledge that the word "heretic" derives from the Greek for "one who chooses," but the Church has employed the term in a certain way from Apostolic times. Tyndale denies this – which denial is a heresy – and thus translates it as he does.

"Metanoia" and "penance" have exactly the same connotation, they are Greek and Latin versions of the same term. The concept of penance has nothing whatsoever to do with clergy collecting fines.

I have already debunked the claim that Catholics considered it heretical to own a Bible.

Finally…

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HOLY WIND' DENOTING A SPECIAL OUTWARD SIGN OF GOD'S PRESENCE AND 'HOLY GHOST,' THE THIRD PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY. WILLIAM TYNDALE DENIES THE TRINITY BY HIS TRANSLATION AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY VERY HERETICAL.

Polite sage.

>>697246

>you contentious troglodyte

are the mods asleep or something?

>>697179

>Some of them certainly don't seem to take dogma or traditions seriously.

I really don't know what they do or don't. I really can't trust anyone's judgement, it's not something you can fully observe. Hell, I don't even know what's the best for the Church. I'll just let God naturally put things in order because I'm too stupid to comprehend everything.

>They get to appoint people who will directly service your salvation

Salvation is God's business. I don't think He'll throw me into hell for doing something my conscience and limited knowledge think is right.

>>697192

>Do you stop following traffic law because of corrupt cops?

Don't you?

>>696986

> Is it okay for me to ignore such news, gossips, and other stuff

>>697344

> I really can't trust anyone's judgement

Never ignore things like this. If you have doubts or concerns, then turn to God. Tell Him everything that is on your heart and mind. Lay out everything before Him, and ask Him to show you what He thinks about these things, and what He wants you to do.

(Proverbs 3:5-6, Psalms 145-18, Matthew 7:7-11)

>>698443

if you walk by an alley witnessing a woman being raped, are you just going to take it to prayer?

>>698445

Not quite the same. You're not witnessing a boy being molested by a priest. You're being told by someone that a priest molested them. We have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" AKA due process.

Just become sede

>>696986

You should be bothered if your supposed infallible mouthpiece of Christ is so messed up. Read the Bible and see if you can find any Catholic practices in there.

>>698445

> Completely ignoring the context of my advise

> Unironically discouraging people from seeking God's will

I'm in the same state of mind.

My solution, if I can call it a solution, has been to withhold donations to anything connected to parties involved with the crisis. This includes everything from institutions parroting the "nothing to see here" line to parties who see no need to take action to purge the devil from our midst. They want our money. We can deny them. We are obligated to give money to charity, but not to unworthy causes.

I recently had the opportunity to contact a charity planning a gala featuring Cardinal Tobin as a keynote speaker, let them know I would not be donating to them if an individual like him was going to be involved, due to concerns about his role in the scandal. Money talks. If others did the same? One less revenue stream for these devils. Look at what Legatus just did and tell me that didn't cause some consternation in Rome. They probably had that money already spent!

In other matters I'm trying to get more serious, and visibly serious, about my own faith. These abuses of people and doctrine both seem to flourish when people are lukewarm cultural catholic types…. so why not get serious? Praying, fasting, reading the Bible more, but for myself, also wearing the veil to church. Wore it when I lectored at last week's mass; mind you NO ONE at this parish wears a veil, ever. Wouldn't you know later at work someone came up to me, told me it made them feel better to see it, and we had a great conversation about showing respect to God in his house!

Maybe this is what people had to do during the rise of Arianism. I'm not a clergyman empowered to do anything to fix the problem, but if I make it clear to those who ARE that I (and others) will stand with them, maybe it will move them to act.

>>696986

why not use this opertunity to distance yourself from the system.

Find a christian faith, local without the rule of a system