/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

[-]

>Do you basically just believe and do whatever the heck you think the bible might be saying?

Do you basically just believe and do whatever the heck you think the bible might be saying?

>>738580

>How do you become protestant?

Protestantism isn’t a church or denomination. It’s a blanket term to describe churches that aren’t Catholic or Orthodox but haven’t received “new revelation” (like Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses). There are a varying number of Protestant denim’s (before anyone comes in ranting about muh 40,000 denominations, I should let you know that that that ever growing number (it started at only 8,196) came from a study used the loosest definition of denomination possible, and counted 727 (223 Roman and 504 non-Roman) denominations of Catholicism. If you say that that’s wrong and there’s only 1 Catholic Church, also grant Protestants the benefit of admitting the 40,000 number is wrong.) Becoming Protestant is a matter of whatever the particular church does.

>Do you basically just believe and do whatever the heck you think the bible might be saying?

Well if you just make up whatever, you’re in danger of not even being Christian, much less not Protestant. There are standards that make one a Protestant, the solaes being the broadest

>And church and baptism and communion and confession are just optional and symbolic and you an just yolo it all?

Well no. Most churches demand you follow the ordinances of Christ, not to mention I’m not even sure what confession would be a symbol for (and isn’t confession technically optional in all churches? Sure, Catholic teaching commands it, but they can’t drag you into that confessional. Was your church full the last time you went?). And besides, if just reading the Bible at home and believing “whatever the heck you think it says” makes you a Protestant, does that make Pope Michael true bishop of Rome?

How do you become right with God?

>>738589

My favorite is how they just changed the dogma on the death penalty, and now they’re claiming “well the death penalty isn’t an issue of morality.” Yeah, the death penalty is such a small thing, morality has nothing to do with the frigging death penalty!

Also, Cathbros, what is occurring in Heaven when a dogma is declared? Is God changing his mind? Does he throw all the old people in Heaven who didn’t believe in this infallible dogma back into purgatory to get that last bit off them? Why aren’t infallible decrees added to the end of the Bible so Catholic laypeople can read them at home? Call it “Doctrine and Covenants: Another Testament of Jesus Christ”

>>738599

Who are you quoting?

>>738615

>Who are you quoting?

the clever prot who just said "just believe the bible" as if the bible interprets itself, all you need to do is read it. lmao

>>738580

How do you become Catholic? Do you basically just molest children and do whatever the heck you think the Pope is saying? And belief in Christ and loving thy neighbor and ecumenical councils are just optional and symbolic and you an just yolo it all?

>>738632

It is weird how some of their dogmas are defined. For instance, did you know the church believes you’re unsaved if you disagree with them on the immaculate conception? It’s true, you could follow all Catholic practices to the T and be unsaved cause of that one belief.

What’s funny is this: Orthodox and Protestants believe in the trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, and the glorious resurrection. However, they don’t believe in the immaculate conception. However, Muslims are unitarians who believe Jesus was a mere prophet who wasn’t crucified or resurrected; yet they do believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. This explains CCC 841 more than anything else

>>738632

>the sins of a few discredit the entire religious edifice

Then all of Christianity would be refuted you genius.

>>738580

>>738599

>>738604

We love you too. 😘

May someday you too will experience God's eternal, holy mercy and follow what He said as intended for His people, as His people.

May you receive many blessings from the Lord.

>>738637

>systematic cover ups going back decades by the entire leadership of the church is “the sins of a few”

>>738636

Lmao, it's actually true.

>George Sale in 1734 proposed that the doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary may be alluded to in the text of the Qur'an. Thus, commenting in 1734 on the passage "I have called her Mary; and I commend her to thy protection, and also her issue, against Satan driven away with stones", Sale stated: "It is not improbable that the pretended immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is intimated in this passage. For according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world, is touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out, Mary and her son only excepted; between whom, and the evil spirit God placed a veil, so that his touch did not reach them. And for this reason they say, neither of them were guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam."[49]

That is eye-opening.

>>738599

Sure, the bible requires interpretation. That doesn't mean its unreliable. Take Steven Anderson, for example. He makes obvious errors in his exegesis, because he is driven by his IFB traditions and ensures that his reading with the texts always comports with that. It's a general problem with all denominations (yours included).

>>738643

>the sins of a few is the sins of a few

The actions of individuals have no bearing on the theology they adhere to. Every Christian from the time of Christ has repeatedly sinned and sinned and sinned, so what? Christ is refuted because his followers sin?

>>738655

Here's what you need to understand about Catholicism: the laity doesn't make the doctrine, so they always make up dumb stuff like Wilgefortis or Santa Muerte. That's folk Catholicism, or what the church calls a "Catholic Cult," and they don't define Catholicism.

The clergy is corrupt and shiftless, but they also don't represent Catholicism. Judas was an apostle, and he didn't define Christ's ministry, did he? So even though a lot of the clergy is embroiled in abuse scandals, and the pope espouses liberal modernist universalism at every chance he gets, that's just the natural corruption of humans in power. It's a heresy (donatism) to believe the clergy must be blameless. The clergy is corrupt, and they don't define Catholicism.

What defines Catholicism is the dogmas, which you can read in the Catechisms. Just not the Vatican 2 ones. Those are modernist heresies, and if you take stuff like CCC 841 at face value, you're going to go wrong. Remember, that stuff was made by the corrupt clergy, and they don't define Catholicism.

Some people go to far here, and assume that we need to break away from the church because the clergy isn't even Catholic anymore. People like Sedevacantists, for example. Those guys are way off! Even though the clergy is corrupt and heretical, you can't break away from them. The Vatican still leads the church. If you're a sedevacantist, you're basically a protestant. You can't form your own church, even if you call it a Catholic church and you believe in traditional Catholic dogmas and you worship in a traditionally Catholic way and even if you trace your continuity to the Roman Catholic Church. Those guys are schismatics and they don't define Catholicism.

So what does define Catholicism? I do, and the Church Fathers (I haven't read all of them, but I know they are all in 100% agreement with both each other and with me) do, and all dogmas before Vatican II (such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception from 1854) do. Those sources are where you can find the church as it was preached by Jesus Christ to the apostles. Current estimates say that I'm the only Catholic who's real.

>>738661

I'm not Catholic so I don't need to defend their dogmas/doctrines but it's a simple matter of logic that the sins of individual catholics, even high ranking clergy don't invalidate their teachings/dogmas. So your long-winded rant is pointless.

>>738662

Its a copy pasta

>>738662

Literally the entirety of the Catholic Church is flawed in some way. The laity is faithless, the clergy is corrupt, and the dogmas are inconsistent. The pasta is merely a verbose way of saying that

>>738673

There is nothing inconsistent about Catholic dogma, unless you're a schismatic or a heretic.

As for the Laity and Clergy:

He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.

27And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.

28I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.

29And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

30And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:

31If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:

32I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.

33But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail.

>>738675

Church dogmas aren’t inconsistent? Meaning, they are consistent? Okay, what is the consistent answer the consistent church throughout history would consistently give to this question: “is the death penalty morally wrong?”

Please provide citations from infallible texts in the past and present, to show how consistent they’ve been on this issue

>>738615

>My favorite is how they just changed the dogma on the death penalty

>Death penalty

>Dogma

>Also implying that everything the pope says is automatically law

10/10

>>738676

>Church dogmas aren’t inconsistent? Meaning, they are consistent? Okay, what is the consistent answer the consistent church throughout history would consistently give to this question: “is the death penalty morally wrong?”

>Again using the word dogma without knowing what it actually means

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/

<Ctrl+F "death penalty"

<0 results

Wow who would've thought.

>>738673

If you define the Church by its faithful and not it’s faith, then you obviously put your faith in people and not in the Lord. Think about that for a while.

>>738580

>How do you become protestant?

You do what every protestant has done since the invention of protestantism. You start your own church based on a single line of scripture! For example, if you close your eyes and flip through the Bible and put your finger down at a random time, you'll hit a verse. For the purposes of this example, I hit Romans 12:10 "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another". So, now I head down to the court house and file a DBA license as "The Church of Brotherly Love" and *BAM* I'm a protestant church!

>>738775

>Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another

So, Romans 12:10 is the "bros before hos" verse? I like your church. How do I join?

>>738701

>>738702

Fine, doctrine. You’re being pedantic in order to avoid the fact that the church went from wholly supportive to wholly against this major issue

>>738738

Dogmas have been added long since the apostles. Doctrines and attitudes on important issues have changed. The laity and clergy are faithless. The whole thing is a bust

Here’s what the church says in the council of Florence

>"The sacrosanct Roman Church… It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Okay, that’s pretty clear. No rooms for interpretation: nobody, not even those martyrs outside the Catholic Church, will be saved. That’s very clear. And it’s from an ecumenical council. This document is binding on all Catholic faithful.

>I have mentioned the will of the Father and the spiritual space in which each community hears the call to overcome the obstacles to unity. All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.137 Despite the tragedy of our divisions, these brothers and sisters have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood. But is not this same attachment at the heart of what I have called a "dialogue of conversion"? Is it not precisely this dialogue which clearly shows the need for an ever more profound experience of the truth if full communion is to be attained?

>84. In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.138 The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

>>738788

This is something the pope said in a speech on Christian unity. Now, certainly the answer is easy: the infallible document is correct and the random speech that DIRECTLY contradicts it is wrong. But wait, isn’t he just endorsing what the catechism teaches?

>CCC 819: "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

>CCC 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

>CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

So it used to be “gtfo heretics, if you’re not in the physical body of Christ even your martyrdom is invalid,” but now it’s “well if you’re sincere and do well I guess who am I to judge lmao?”

You wanna know how to explain this discrepancy? You realize that even though God is clearly real and Jesus is truly Lord, the Catholic Church is not and never was his church, and you seek God elsewhere, going from Protestant church to Protestant church to Orthodox Church while you read the Bible three times over thinking “well I just wasted a bunch of my time and now I need to find Christ before it’s too late”

>>738788

>Fine, doctrine. You’re being pedantic in order to avoid the fact that the church went from wholly supportive to wholly against this major issue

It's not even doctrine but if you really want your narrative we can still roleplay it is and you're right.

>>738788

>>738789

Neither the pope nor the catechism are doctrine.

The pope can say whatever the frick he wants, and the catechism is more akin to an instruction manual or a FAQ rather than doctrine.

I already said in another thread that one could (theoretically) disagree with the catechism and still be Catholic as long has he adheres to Catholic doctrine and dogma.

As for the whole martyrdom thingy, being in unity with the Catholic Church, a.k.a. being part of the Catholica, or the Mystical Body of the Church, is not defined by schism.

It is funny how you are interpreting a council on your own by the way.

>>738832

Nobody's interpreting anything, it's the plaintext reading of it.

>"The sacrosanct Roman Church… It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

>I have mentioned the will of the Father and the spiritual space in which each community hears the call to overcome the obstacles to unity. All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.137 Despite the tragedy of our divisions, these brothers and sisters have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood. But is not this same attachment at the heart of what I have called a "dialogue of conversion"? Is it not precisely this dialogue which clearly shows the need for an ever more profound experience of the truth if full communion is to be attained? In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.

Those are two contradictory statements. No interpretation required, plain reading is enough

As for real dogmas, they still aren't consistent in the sense that they are not unchanging. The assumption of Mary wasn't a dogma until 1950. What happened in heaven in 1950? Did all the saints who didn't believe in the assumption of Mary during their life get flung back in purgatory for a few years? Why did God change his mind in 1950, and decide that what wasn't dogma for so many years suddenly needed to be dogma?

Why didn't any of the prophets or apostles or Jesus Christ himself ever mention purgatory by name? Seems like a pretty important thing to mention. They always talk of Heaven or Hell, but there's an entire third world we could go to after death and they don't even prepare us for it? And God doesn't even decide it's dogma until 1254? What happened in Heaven in 1254? Why is Catholic God so inconsistent?

>>738837

You aren't quoting the council anymore though, so yeah you were interpreting the council on your own.

>As for real dogmas, they still aren't consistent in the sense that they are not unchanging. The assumption of Mary wasn't a dogma until 1950.

This was something that has always been believed, and was formally declared a dogma in 1950.

Of course dogmas can be added to, IIRC they added certain dogmas as a counter against Arius too.

Dogmas never change, the list can by addition but dogmas cannot be scrapped.

You cannot find a former dogma, doesn't exist.

>>739263

>"The sacrosanct Roman Church… It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

That's a direct quote

I'll answer since this thread devolved into catholic mud flinging as usual.

"Protestantism" isn't something you convert to because there is no "protestant" church or unified protestant belief. It is a wide catch all term usually refering to non-Catholic and non-Orthodox denominations that arose out of the reformation and a bit after.

In older denominations such as lutheran or presbyterian "conversion" is the same a catholicism. A period of catechesis and learning about that brand of christianity found in their own confession. Like the Book of Concord (lutheran), Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), London Baptist Confession (Reformed Baptist) etc

Athiests are kind of protestant if you think about it.

>>739399

Oh well my bad but that big lump of green text wasn't really readable.

The whole council was agreed on and ratified in a papal bull, but nothing new in terms of dogma nor doctrine came from it.

As with the salvation of non-catholics the Church is very clear: they aren't no matter what which pope says.

Who belongs in which way to the Church is a whole other theological discussion however.

>>738789

>isn’t he just endorsing what the catechism teaches?

Fun note: It is allowed to change/update the Catechism, but the writings of that Ecumenical Council can't be changed.