/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Maybe you should read the article instead of just the headline.

>>786185

Nice reddit reply.

Why would the pope be "invoking the presumption of innocence" when the man was convicted of his crimes?

>>786189

Maybe you should look up what the word "appeal" means.

>>786189

>Nice reddit reply.

Even if he did use reddit, you just outed yourself as a redditor by recognising a comment that is supposesly used on reddit. I always wonder why you retards accuse everyone else of coming from the same shithole you crawled out of.

>>786192

Well aware friend, since we're doing dictionary time lets also look up "convicted" - having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.

>>786195

>lets ignore the issue at hand to shift focus on the important matters such as recognizing board culture trends and common sayings

Dont get your panties in a bunch because Francis is making a joke out of the vatican.

>>786189

Imagine trusting the justice system half as much as this guy

>>786207

I'll remind you that you were the first one to bring up reddit.

>>786244

Not even the actual faggots who push their agenda are that stupid. They try to stretch the gay population to like 5% of the population, but I doubt it's even that. Yet here you are saying billions of upon billions of people through 2000 years of history are all fags.

>>786226

Given the general snakiness of Francis Bergoglio, I absolutely think 12 random people will do a better job of evaluating the facts than he would.

>>786184

The pope and all the sex abuse is what stops me from becoming a catholic

>>786257

If you're choosing your religion based on the sinlessness of the people who administer its affairs on the earth, you're going to be looking for the rest of your life.

>>786260

To add on to that:

>1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

<Matthew 23, NABRE

This is your relationship to the pope as well. The teaching is the only thing covered by infallibility, not his actions, not the actions of priests. There have been and always will be garbage clergy.

>>786260

>Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

>You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?

>In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

>A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

>Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

>Thus you will know them by their fruits.

<Matthew 7:15-20

>>786312

see

>>786264

Again. There is no branch of christianity that doesn't have gross sin in its ranks. If you use Matt 7:15 in this way, you disclaim all religions and might as well lie down and die.

>>786325

But Matthew explicitly refers to the fruits of a false prophet, not the fruits of a religious group/organisation. In other words, it literally applies to the Pope more so than it does other sects of Christianity that don't have such an office.

>>786329

That verse talks about false prophets, with an s denoting multiple. Like the false prophet Luther that shattered Christendom into thousands of sects when it was just one body.

False prophets that lead Christ's flock astray with all sorts of heresy and personal interpretation of His word.

One bad Pope does not discredit the See of St. Peter just like one bad King did not discredit Israels throne in the OT. For ever one bad pope there are many others that are good.

The fruits of Luther has already come to bare with the formation of liberalism, which infects peoples' souls from an ideological standpoint. The same liberalism that confuses preists into spouting heresy.

Even though the smoke of satan has entered Jesus' Church, the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst her. Bad popes come and go, but Holy Mother Church will survive. With or without (you).

>>786337

>Like the false prophet Luther that shattered Christendom into thousands of sects when it was just one body.

I completely agree with that, which is why I'm not a protestant either.

>False prophets that lead Christ's flock astray with all sorts of heresy and personal interpretation of His word.

And us Orthodox think the West was led astray by the personal interpretations of St. Augustine and Aquinas.

>One bad Pope does not discredit the See of St. Peter

I find it more disrespectful that you guys sully the good name of St. Peter to justify such a frequently abused position.

>The fruits of Luther has already come to bare with the formation of liberalism

Luther didn't help matters, but he wasn't the root of liberalism. That award goes to the Hellenistic philosophies the West (including Rome) embraced:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

>>786337

>Like the false prophet Luther

Like a broken record with you people sometimes…

You have not one but two Luther bashing threads in the catalog and every time someone keeps revealing what a joke Francis is I swear a flare goes out for people like you to come into the thread and shout

WHAT

ABOUT

LUTHER?

Living absolutely rent free in your heads…

>>786184

He already covered pedophiles when he was a cardinal in Argentine himself, makes no difference

>>786404

Both are sins. Both likely mortal, depending on mindset.

>>786407

>and compare them to the Bible.

Even the bible says the bible isn't the beginning and the end of Christianity.

>>786329

>refers to the fruits of a false prophet

>it literally applies to the Pope

Do … do you think we see the Pope as a prophet?

>>786250

>12 random people

Your americanism is showing.

>>786608

As many times as we need to point out that the words "useful" and "sufficient" don't mean the same thing, either in 2019 or back when these letters were first written.

Let's cut the translation argument off at the knees and go back to Greek.

The word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is ὠφέλιμος (óphelimos), used four times in the bible. These are all KJV, but use whatever translation you want, the original word remains:

>1 Timothy 4:8 King James Version (KJV)

>8 For bodily exercise /profiteth/ little: but godliness is /profitable/ unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come

>2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is /profitable/ for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous

> Titus 3:8 King James Version (KJV)

>8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and /profitable/ unto men.

KJV always renders this "profitable". Now ask yourself, you being a protestant who believes in the solas, if Titus 3:8 is saying that good works are /sufficient/ for men.

Because that is how you are reading that word. And that's pretty awful exegesis.

>>786614

And while we're reading the bible, have a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

>2 Thessalonians 2:15 King James Version (KJV)

>15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What is the nature of these traditions that were taught outside of the bible's writing that the bible itself places on equal footing as the apostle's writings?

>>786625

>Look past the words useful and sufficient in verse 16, and look at the very next verse where it says "complete" and "equipped for every good work".

>17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

Cmon man. It says that the "man of god" may be perfect, which is the goal of all Christians. It does not say that the bible is self-sufficient. Read the words that are actually there.

>>786625

>That verse never says which traditions were taught,

Right, because the Bible isn't the beginning and end of Christianity. You accuse me of making a leap in logic when you read stuff into another verse that simply isn't there.

>. The apostles could teach what is written to illiterate people by their word, or they could teach what is written to literate people by their epistle, but to say that this verse means there are traditions outside of what is contained in the Bible is a leap in logic.

And for you to say that those words were the bible, only the bible, and nothing but the bible, is also a leap in logic.

>And besides that, why would the apostles teach traditions that go against the Bible?

Who said anything about "against"? Against implies contradiction. It is not contradiction to teach that which is in harmony with the bible yet not explicitly mentioned therein.

>>786607

The Pope has the unique power to set Catholic doctrine. I'm aware there are stipulations and checks surrounding the whole "papal infallibility" thing, but that single aspect of centralized power still fulfils the main purpose of a prophet, even if followers of the church are reluctant to label him as one. The Orthodox for example, do not even have an office that can function that way, as they rely on ecumenical councils to even propose doctrines, and require later generations of councils to verify such proposals before they're finally accepted. It's a very different dynamic to how the Papal structure is set up.

>>786651

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in electing the Pope as the visible head of the earthly church, and grants to the Pope the charism of teaching infallibly - which is not the same as prophecy, since we do not believe that there is to be new public Revelation, only the ongoing mining of the deposit of faith.

>>786664

That just sounds like semantics. Once the Pope is elected, if the Holy Spirit is primarily guiding that one person above all others for matters of doctrine, how is that functionally any different from a prophet? Is it just because the Pope doesn't label it as a revelation? Because I don't see how an elected prophet figure is any better or more justifiable than a non-elected prophet figure, when they still carry out the same functions with roughly the same amount of authority.

>>786678

The Holy Spirit guides the whole of the Church. I know this is difficult to understand, but you can actually check with like the KoC or other organizations and read their texts and such to understand more. If you choose to remain ignorant, that's fine; but remember that you're competing with 2,000 years of knowledge. How smart do you think you actually are?

>>786612

Nah lad, not the guy you are replying to but this man was tried by 12, as were many other wolves in sheeps clothing who ruined the lives of countless young men and women, and was convicted. The Catholic church turned a blind eye this time, and many times in the past, and kept child molesters in positions were they could groom almost as many victims as they wanted. This is coming from a confirmed Catholic. These "priests" deserve life in prison and their defenders need to really consider whether they are placing their faith in Christ as the Church and God asks us to do or if they are placing their faith in Men. The Pope is not infallible, lets not fulfill the stereotypes prots paint of us. We can't fix this until we admit the problem.

One last note, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Christians are not exempt from the laws of the nation they live in, in fact we should respect the governments of our nations, including America if we happen to live in the USA. That means respect their laws and legal processes. Trial by 12 may not be infallible but it is definitely a tried and true time tested system that brings about honest results exponentially more than shoddy ones.

>>786683

>you're competing with 2,000 years of knowledge

dude, I'm Orthodox. That argument literally doesn't work on us. Our bishops manage to employ the Holy Spirit through the whole church much the same way, except we don't place anyone in such an elevated position that they may then even remotely resemble a prophet. Governance in the Orthodox Church is much more bottom-up and reliant on the smaller individual communities than the Papal governance structure is. It's frustrating that you guys are always so quick to paint everyone else as ignorant, when virtually none of you ever seem to know much about the Orthodox brothers you're criticizing. We're just as old as you guys, and have well thought out reasons for doing things the way we do compared to the rest of the West. Disrespect Protestants all you want,but it would behoove you guys to show some humility to the very church you broke away from at least.

>>786705 (cont)

Also, to imply that the papacy as it exists now goes back 2,000 years is a bit of a stretch to say the least. The early church fathers didn't exactly express viewing the bishop of Rome to be that special.

He's not saved, obviously.

He's king heretic teaching salvation by works

>>786772

You and I have different understandings of works it seems.

It is the catholic claim that participation in sacraments is required to receive grace.

>>786775

Are both types you named salvific?

Either way, the normative means of salvation is participation in those works called sacraments, with alleged "invincible ignorance" exceptions that allow for the doctrine to directly contradict itself.

The Bible's plan of salvation is by faith alone. Alone means this faith is the only criteria God considers, not that the Christian life is not marked by good works.

John 3:16 whosoever believes will not perish.

>>786780

Grace is the forgiveness God gives us even though we don't deserve it. It's not "supernatural life", it's not "a supernatural kick in the pants" that "gets the will and intellect moving". These are useless platitudes. Do a little systematic theology.

>it's not contradictory at all

<1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

Baptism is necessary for salvation

<847 This affirmation (outside the church there is no salvation) 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.

The unbaptized may achieve salvation

This is a direct contradiction

>>786788

Nope, here your catechism is exclusively referring to the rite of water baptism.

see 1278

<1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Anyway I'm not here to weasel around catholic theology with you, my case is readily apparent for anyone who wants to read it.

The catholic claim, as demonstrated in this one example regarding baptism, is that grace (read: God's forgiveness) comes as a result of physically participating in works (read: ergon - task, deed, action). This is in direct contradiction with Ephesians 2, John 3:16, Hebrews 7:25 etc.

We have observed that the catholic response in trying to find intellectual consistency results in allegorizing double-speak.

All this to make the illustration that the chief of this institution teaching a false gospel no doubt also believes this false gospel, and so the spirit is not in him.

>>786788

Ad hominem

>>786856

>you are reducing "grace" to being nothing more than a synonym for "forgiveness" which is leading you to misunderstand Church teaching.

This is a common awful translation in prot/heretic circles. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, translate it as "undeserved kindness"

>>786764

>Cyprian

http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

>>787520

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" - St Cyprian at the Council of Carthage

>>787722

"Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist."

>t. Pope St. Gregory the Great

>>787520

So you didn't read the link you responded to I gather. The point was that the entire concept of an earthly primacy existing in the church makes no sense, and was only put forward to justify a new interpretation of the universal church that Romans (like Cyprian) were advocating for political reasons. Prior to this politically motivated interpretation of the church, there was no such concept as primacy, period. Nevermind the primacy of Peter (who just so happened to be a convenient figure to fill the new theoretical role this church interpretation required), nor the Papacy. The way the office of the papacy historically originated is literally backwards from how Catholics argue to justify it.

>>787835

>but why should we believe that Augustine was in error and Cyprian was not?

who said he wasn't? You're literally just seeing what you want to see at this point, because neither my comment, nor the link you responded to (which you clearly didn't read) defended anything Cyprian said. Once again, the entire concept of the primacy was devised with the explicit purpose of granting Rome more power.

>>787722

The title of "Pope" might've been around for a while, but the powers that come with the office of the Papacy are certainly a much more recent creation:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma