/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship★

>>785204

That seems more an argument in favor of writing them off then one against. Shouldn't the church.. be better somehow? Set itself apart?

<also apologies for the multipost.. I have no clue how that happened

>>785200 (OP)

>since there's no protocol nor historic precedent for what to do with a heretic in the seat of Peter.

The Church of the East recognized the Pope as a heretic in the 5th century, over the Council of Ephesus.

The Oriental Orthodox Church recognized the Pope as a heretic in the 5th century, over the Council of Chalcedon.

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognized the Pope as a heretic in the 15th century, over the Council of Florence.

More recently, the Old Catholics recognized the Pope as a heretic over Vatican I, and the sedememers recognized the Pope as a heretic over Vatican II.

There have been plenty of instances where a group within the Catholic Church recognized the Pope as a heretic and cut him off from communion, believing themselves to be the legitimate continuation of the Church.

Up to you to figure out who is the most consistent though.

>>785200 (OP)

Christ promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church, and God will not allow His son to become a liar. God will intervene before we reach the breaking point. Unfortunately, we probably won't like the intervention. In the 70s a series of Marian apparitions in Akita, Japan, which the Church holds as valid, revealed to us that God is angry with an apostate Church, and that if the Church doesn't repent then He's going to bathe the Earth in fire, sparing neither the righteous nor the guilty, and that in the aftermath of this the living will envy the dead. Because if it's a choice between the death of the Church, and massive society-resetting destruction, the destruction is far preferable. The best thing we can do to make this destruction less likely is to pray the Rosary every day. So pray like the world depends on it, because it literally does.

>>785217

Except those affirmatives are true. Greentexting and muhposting are not arguments.

>>785208

The only consistent things in your timeline are the Pope and the existence of people who will lose faith in him.

>>785248

That is precisely why the sex abuse question is irrelevant when you discuss whether Catholicism is true or not. Most of the times people mention it in forms of whataboutism, anecdotes or victim narratives.

Not to downplay the current crisis, but the Church has endured far worse, even worse popes. And despite all the evil, it's still one of if not the largest charitable organization in the world, and the large majority of priests are good people.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2018/10/what-popes-did-saint-thomas-more-die-for/

>>785275

The papacy was founded by Jesus himself. All the other heretical "sects" were founded by men who didn't like the papacy.

>>785280

Just like how God will separate the wheat from the chaff, God separated His faithful from the unfaithful with the Papacy. All those outside of the Holy Mother Church need to come home to Rome before it is too late.

>>785281

>catholics actually believe this

>>785320

Sola fide defies scripture. Read James.

>>785381

Talk about specific scriptures, rather than dumping an image full of references and pretending its an argument.

>>785395

Did you read James 2? It basically refutes your entire line of argument.

>14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

>18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe---and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

>25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

>26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

24 is pretty damn unambiguous. This line of heresy goes back to the bible author times, and it was explicitly refuted back then.

>>785397

do you believe that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of yourself?

>>785398

I believe that "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" as the bible says. Even the demons believe.

>>783476

>>785408

is that a "no"?

Both of these statements are true, because they're both from God. What you're doing is just removing Ephesians 2 and all other verses teaching justification by faith.

>>785395

>Did you read any of those scriptures? I'll go through and give you just a couple examples

Posting a large copypasta of verses that are supposedly about sola fide without any context whatsoever is a HUGE fallacy.

I think I'll be making a 10h video explaining the apostolic position of salvation and then just post that as an argument on here.

>>785410

Neither do we believe that works save, then again that would make the protestant narrative null and void.

The real issue is that we believe that one can lose their salvation, which some of the 40k denoms like baptists tend to disagree with.

>>785419

Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

>>785422

Just randomly posting single verses without any explanation is also not an argument by the way.

>Acts 13:48

This is more an argument for Calvinism as anything, because the Greek (and the Latin Vulgate as a result) says something more akin to "and all who where predestined/appointed for eternal life believed".

>1 Corinthians 1:18

Instead of "are saved" the Greek says "being saved".

>>785424

>Just randomly posting single verses without any explanation is also not an argument by the way.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So rather than not being an "argument" as you say, it is the one argument that need be made. Let it stand on its own merits and let the word of the Lord be glorified. Next.

>This is more an argument for Calvinism as anything

So you're a calvinist then I take it. Well John 5:40 says "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

>Instead of "are saved" the Greek says "being saved".

The Greek verb σωζομενοις is the present passive participle, which is an ongoing passive action. In English, an ongoing passive act can be expressed as either “are being + (past participle)” or “are + (past participle)”.

For example, the declaration "The eggs are stored in the fridge" is equivalent to the declaration "The eggs are being stored in the fridge." In both cases, the eggs are within the fridge in the current moment. You can replace the eggs and fridge and the verb with anything else, this is just an example.

It must be noted however, in specific the phrase "are being saved" is needlessly wordy since "are saved" denotes the same meaning. Furthermore, "are being saved" has an unintended connotation of an ongoing but incomplete process. This connotation is not found in the original.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 2:47 (KJV)

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Other translations apply this shift in English inconsistently. They don't do it according to any grammatical standard, but they just apply “are being” haphazardly just wherever they decided to.

To give a few examples, the NKJV changes the tense to “are being” in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Acts 2:47, and Hebrews 10:14, but does not do so in Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24.

The MEV changes the tense in 1 Cor. 1:18, Acts 2:47, and Luke 13:23, but the publishers elected not to do so in 2 Cor. 2:15 or Hebrews 10:14.

Meanwhile, the WEB only changes Acts 2:47 and Hebrews 10:14, and leaves all the others alone.

Most modern “critical text” versions tend to change all of them, but only some change Luke 13:23 or Hebrews 10:14. For instance, the NASB does change Luke 13:23 to “are being saved” but not Hebrews 10:14, while the ESV changes Hebrews 10:14 to “are being sanctified” but NOT Luke 13:23.

This shows that all modern translations are applying this grammatical change in English haphazardly, not according to any sort of rule or grammatical understanding; but the Authorized version uses English consistently as described, in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and in all the other places. “Are saved” and not “are being saved.” Every time. They are actually consistent in translation on this.

It's so strange how protestants somehow all have this pure effortless faith that requires no work. As a Catholic, for me, faith is really hard. I have to really keep at it or I end up falling back into sin. sometimes I lose my faith in Jesus when he says not to masturbate and instead have faith in myself that I'll be able to masturbate just this once and nothing bad will happen, but then I go out and see a cute girl and I just end up sexualizing her. Then I realize that I'm retarded and I can't be the one making these decisions about what's good for me so I go back to Jesus and apologize and try again. I had to get rid of my computer and my tablet because I would always go back to porn and now it's a pain in the ass to research stuff on my phone and I can't make memes anymore. Also it's really hard for me to sit down and read the Bible or read about saints or read about church teachings because my attention span is so shot from years of TV and video games and porn. I don't get how protestants follow Jesus' teachings so effortlessly.

>>785673

Have you tried praying the rosary?

>>785200 (OP)

>This passage is unironically giving me a mega-blackpill crisis of faith given what's going on in the church

Christ never promised that the reprobate would be separate from the faithful, the separation only comes at the end.

Moreover, read Psalms:

22The enemy shall have no advantage over him: nor the son of iniquity have power to hurt him.

23And I will cut down his enemies before his face; and them that hate him I will put to flight.

24And my truth and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25And I will set his hand in the sea; and his right hand in the rivers.

26He 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.

34Neither will I profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will not make void.

35Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David:

36his seed shall endure for ever.

Therefore, OP, you cannot take the failings of most fallible men as signs of a false Church, you must look upon the authority of the Church itself. And Christ built that Church upon St. Peter, 2000 years ago.

>It's so strange how protestants somehow all have this pure effortless faith that requires no work.

The answer for this, as uncharitable as it is, is that protestants have a faith that requires nothing of them they don't already want. They have a million denominations to choose from - whatever combination of beliefs jives with their personal wants and feelings.

Being a Catholic sucks, from a worldly standpoint. All these rules and regulations and obligations.

>>785690

>Therefore, OP, you cannot take the failings of most fallible men as signs of a false Church

What I'm more worried about is when the current church starts being the false church, if it's not there already. A pope is actively promoting heresy, disunity, and so forth.

I barely found the RCC. it was a breath of fresh air, speaking theologically. Now even that is looking remarkably questionable.

>>785710

>What I'm more worried about is when the current church starts being the false church

Never. If the Church can fall, then Christ lied, and then Christ was no Christ.

>a pope is bad

there have been many bad popes anon, the continuance of the true Church is more proof than you think.

>>785737

I'm probably speaking this incorrectly. Check my understanding please:

Okay, pretend that francis steps up during his morning address and proclaims homosex okay or abortion not a sin or something else equally heretical.

At that moment in time, he's formally and materially a heretic, latae sententiae excommunicated, and stops being the pope.

There's no way this doesn't cause a rift. Enough people are ultramontanist loyalists that they will engage in the usual spin and try to keep up appearances. You then have a split between those clowns, and everyone else who knows heresy when they hear it. The church is then split between the actual faithful and people who support heresy.

Are you saying this sequence of events is simply impossible? As I understand it, the church (ekklesiastikos) is more about the faithful on earth than it is the RCC.

>>785690

>men are fallible

>Christ wanted one apostle and his successors to have the right to override all the others.

Pick one.

The sad thing about this view is that all the contributions of the other apostles are ignored. Where would we be without Paul? Without John?

>>785710

The Vatican is so very worldly. This Francis is a media attention lover, the exact opposite of how Christ tells us to live. Christ says his kingdom is not of this world in the Book of John.

The argument of legalism basically falls apart in this day and age as we KNOW homosexuals and communists have made concerted attempts to infiltrate the Roman clergy. The heresy of RCC is in saying that bishops equal the church. Bishops are meant to manage church funds in a specific area.

>>785867

False dichotomy, Christ Himself made One Church, built it upon St. Peter, and gave this Church the authority to bind and loose both what is on Heaven and Earth.

Not my words, but His. It's not me you dispute, but Christ.

>>785859

Then, Francis gets about a hundred more dubias sent his way, and he becomes under monumental pressure to step down.

>there's no way this doesn't cause a rift

your problem is that you don't know the Church history, we've already gone through these scenario where a Pope is preaching heresy (that one guy that denied the particular judgement), or where they were multiple Popes vying for the seat, both technically with an authentic claim (both of these Popes even had Saints back them up!).

>Are you saying this sequence of events is simply impossible?

No, in fact, they've already occurred! Many Church writers speak that the truth of the Church is revealed wherein she survived such deadly events.

>As I understand it, the church (ekklesiastikos) is more about the faithful on earth than it is the RCC.

Then your understanding is wrong, the Church is where Cephas is, and the faithful, though they be scattered or lost around the world, are still bound by the proclamations of the Church that has the authority to bind and loosen what is on Heaven and Earth.

The crucial point, is Christ's assurance of authority. If the Church was merely the faithful on earth, then who among the faithful could possibly have the authority to bind and loosen? It makes no sense.

>he's only now starting to realize that the papists are the wolves

Kek

>>785470

>Quoting bible verses as an excuse to make non-arguments

Wew.

>So you're a calvinist then I take it. Well John 5:40 says "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

Never said I was.

>an ongoing passive action

So, they were still in the process of being saved?

>>785727

No catholic whatsoever believes works can save, nor does the Church teach this, nor do the Church Fathers.

Of course, that would make the protestant narrative null and void so we can't have that right? :^)

>>786033

Whenever people say that faith alone can save them I get suspicious as that is an excuse to live however you want, as you alone can only really know how faithful you are in your heart of hearts.

Whenever people say the opposite I get suspicious as works without faith are just empty materialistic socialism, a tower of Babel built without God.

Faith + Works are necessary lads.

It's like asking if you want brakes or airbags in your car. Which is more important? Well who cares you're dead without both.

>>785898

How do you know the rock of St. Peter isn't Antioch?

Assuming it is Rome, the seat is surely empty. How could you be in communion with this Anti-Pope Francis?

How could Christ's one representative on Earth be a heretic? This just doesn't make sense.