/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I honestly don't know the answer for you.

For me, there's nothing other than Trad Catholic. If it's not Latin Mass, it's not real. If it's not the old way handed down by the Apostles, it's not right. It's doesn't change. The Great Apostasy predicted by Our Lady is now over half a century old.

Well you already declared your disinterest in Christianity so who cares what false religion you pick? All human religion ends in the same place anyway

>>828768

>Well you already declared your disinterest in Protestantism

fify for fairness.

Op is disinterested in Protestantism. A christian is defined as someone who follows the Nicene creed, Protestantism is a set of creeds that intersects with Christians e.g. Mormons are protestants but not Christians as they reject the Nicene creed.

>>828769

No, a Christian is someone who holds the true religion of Jesus Christ. It is more or less synonymous with the term Protestant. Papism and Mormonism are both non-Christian pagan religions.

>>828770

>>828768

Protestantism is literally a man made religion. Now screw off please because all you Protestants like to do on this board is sabotage any thread that isn't a Prot echo chamber.

Now, let's get back on topic, shall we?

>>828769

>Mormons are protestants

Stop

>>828762

heresy.

Has anyone else noticed that roman catholics around here go straight to throwing out talking points while Protestants revert to asking what the Bible says

Take this one

>>828795

>The church founded by Our Lord

Begging the question

>The religion founded by Martin Luther, so you could sin boldly

Strawman (and a deliberate one)

>The religion founded by Henry VIII so he could chop off the heads of his ex wives

Strawman

>Along with the hundred other "protestant" religions, all saying something different, including "Sodomy is Okay".

Composition fallacy, guilt by associaition, cherry picking

Just making an observation.

>>828806

You're kind of proving my point man

>>828806

>That Christ established his Church on Saint Peter is a Biblical fact.

Has never looked into how anyone else understood that passage.

>Saint Peter became the Bishop of Rome and was recognized as the head of the Church by the other Apostles. Saint Peter is the First "Pope" of the Church.

Immediately reverts back to extrabiblical sources that don't agree with early historical accounts…

>As for Martin Luther… he took it upon himself to rewrite the Bible

wew lad

>Henry VII wanted an heir, because of his syphilis, contracted after a long history of fornicating

Imagine believing that Protestants cared at all about King Henry VII or that you could use Henry as an argument.

>Protestants do this last fallacy all the time: there is no united protestant beliefs

Imagine believing that Catholics were actually doctrinally uniform.

>>828806

>Apparently, you don't have an argument.

Could cut the irony with a knife, memelord

>>828829

Any more s—ty memes to s—post, friend?

>>828892

Are you a sedevacantist?

>>828890

The other error you're making is that I gave examples where Lutheran, Episcopal and Methodist all allow Gay marriage between sodomites.

Even Novus Ordo Catholics are taught that Sodom is a sin and marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. You're making a comparison of people who reject the Catholic faith with protestant religions that APPROVE of sodomy.

>>828893

Pathetic grasping at straws.

Have a nice Sunday. Go to a real mass.

>>828907

You realize that Eastern Catholic Orthodoxy is still a state church though right? Founded in 313 AD by emperor Constantine. Accepts infant baptism. Altered texts.

Claims to be something that it's not, namely an authentic church. It's not. It's actually a state-run political party gigachurch started by Constantine. It's good though if you've decided to turn to unchanged pure Biblical Christianity, with real baptism. You just have to realize these facts then.

Acts 2:41 says "they that gladly received his word were baptized". Not all. But only they that gladly received the word. And then it says they who were baptized continued stedfastly in doctrine from that point on. Acts 8:37 states the requirement that one must profess belief in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be baptized. According to Mark 16:16, it is he who believes that is baptized, and he who does not believe is not, in fact, baptized. According to Colossians 2:12, the saved individual is buried in baptism and risen "through the faith of the operation of God." There is no counterexample to these clear examples.

2 Corinthians 4:13

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

The infants do not believe nor speak nor are they in truth baptized. There are millions of unbaptized people walking around who wrongly believe based on man's opinion that they are baptized. Nope. They aren't. They ignore scripture. Only by the proper authority and method and candidate who believes and speaks so, as the eunuch did in Acts 8:37, when he was baptized by Philip. Whether you live today or in 313, it's not too late to be baptized into a real church body of believers and reject false babylonish teachings at any time. Paul warned about them as wolves who come to draw away disciples after them, as explained in Acts 20:29-32. That's also why they use corrupted versions of Scripture that alter passages such as John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11. But those that don't care don't even notice.

>>828901

>I gave examples where Lutheran, Episcopal and Methodist all allow Gay marriage between sodomites.

Yes and you're cherry picking by asserting that these examples represent the whole. It's a bad faith argument.

Learn the difference between mainline and evangelical protestant denominations.

>Pathetic grasping at straws.

?

Are you in the Roman church or not?

>>828916

>Founded in 313 AD by emperor Constantine.

Amuses me that people keep making Constantine into some diabolic supervillain that twisted Christianity for his own ends, but the guy was pretty clueless even about the theological disputes at Niceea.

He didn't even know what the whole homoisusomehing thing was all about exactly, and was just there to make sure people didn't start punching each other.

He just let the bishops duke it out, and end up with some formula that everyone could get behind.

>>828921

>just there to make sure people didn't start punching each other.

They did though

>>828928

CINO (Catholics in name only). You have to understand that 80% of people who self-identify as Catholics do so for strictly cultural reasons. One of my co-workers called herself a Catholic and only goes to Church on Christmas and Easter, doesn't take her kids. Basically says, "I pay my dues," like that matters. My mom says she's Catholic, but hasn't gone to Confession in decades. My Aunt says she's Catholic, but hasn't gone to Church in about ten years because some women gossiped about her. They jump ship and pick and choose. In my experience, 80% of Catholics actually act like Protestants.

The fact of the matter is that if you depart from any single dogma of the Catholic Church and/or commit specific sins, you are excommunicated latae sententiae. This isn't even a "No True Scotsman" thing. It is DEFINED. Here are things that, if not believed, automatically disqualifies you from being considered Catholic:

>>828921

>Amuses me that people keep making Constantine into some diabolic supervillain that twisted Christianity for his own ends

It was founded by him, and his faction which flattered him and acted like sycophants were the ones that hypocritically reaped the benefits. They were the wolves in sheep's clothing that Paul warned about.

There was still a faction opposed to this that came out clean from their errors. They were attacked and slaughtered by the legates of Constans in 343 after they refused to be bribed.

>>828930

Sounds like a bunch of stuff you just made up. If they are infant baptized then its like they are on the state register and if their name is written on the register then they are a member according to the state church leadership, whether you like it or not. Even Arians, atheists, and so on. People who openly profess these things. Maybe if you don't agree with their leadership, you should consider joining an authentic church. But that might require some humility. I would know, I've had to do the same thing.

>>828930

The Unity and Trinity of God

1 -3 God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. God’s existence is not merely an object of rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

4 - 5 The blessed in Heaven possess an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. The immediate vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural.

6 - 8 The soul, for the immediate vision of God, requires the light of glory. God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. The divine attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence.

9 - 13 God is absolutely perfect. God is actually infinite in every perfection. God is absolutely simple. There is only one God. The one God is, in the ontological sense, the true God.

14 - 19 God possesses an infinite power of cognition. God is absolute veracity. God is absolutely faithful. God is absolute ontological goodness in Himself and in relation to others. God is absolute moral goodness or holiness. God is absolute benignity.

20 - 25 God is absolutely immutable. God is eternal. God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. God is everywhere present in created space. God’s knowledge is infinite. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.

26 - 28 God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future. By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty. God’s Divine Will is infinite.

29 - 33 God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. God is almighty. God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. God is infinitely just. God is infinitely merciful.

34 - 35 In God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghos. Each of the three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. In God there are two internal divine processions.

36 The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the internal divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).

37 The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to Father.

38 - 39 The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.

40 - 42 The relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature. The Three Divine Persons are in one another. All the ad extra activities of God are common to the three Persons.

God the Creator

43 - 45 All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. God was moved by His goodness to create the world. The world was created for the glorification of God.

46 - 50 The Three Divine Persons are one single, common principle of creation. God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. God has created a good world. The world had a beginning in time. God alone created the world.

51 - 54 God keeps all created things in existence. God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. The first man was created by God. Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul.

55 - 58 The rational soul per se is the essential form of the body. Every human being possesses an individual soul. God has conferred on man a supernatural destiny. Our first parents, before the fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace.

59 - 60 In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality. Our first parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment.

61 - 62 Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the devil.

63 - 64 Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation but by descent. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.

65 - 66 In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

67 - 69 In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing. The nature of angels is spiritual. The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.

70 - 71 The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation. The devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin.

1/?

>>828931

Catholics acknowledge the Baptisms of Protestant churches. Baptism in the Catholic Church does not make you Catholic, in communion with the Church. It just means you've experienced that Sacrament of Initiation.

>>828931

>then its like they are on the state register

likely*

>>828932

God the Redeemer

72 - 75 Jesus Christ is true God and true Son of God. Christ assumed a real body, not an apparent body. Christ assumed not only a body but also a rational soul. Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary.

76 - 77 The Divine and human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person. In the hypostatic union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with each other.

78 - 79 Each of the two natures in Christ possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation. The hypostatic union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception.

80 - 83 The hypostatic union will never cease. The hypostatic union was effected by the three Divine Persons acting in common. Only the second Divine Person became Man. Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God.

84 - 85 The God-Man Jesus Christ is to be venerated with one single mode of worship, the absolute worship of latria which is due to God alone. Christ’s Divine and human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate.

86 - 90 Christ was free from all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin. Christ’s human nature was passable. The Son of God became man in order to redeem men. Fallen man cannot redeem himself. The God-man Jesus Christ is a high priest.

91 - 93 Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice. Christ by His sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God. Christ, through His passion and death, merited reward from God.

94 - 96 After His death, Christ’s Soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld. On the third day after His death, Christ rose gloriously from the dead. Christ ascended body and soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

The Mother of the Redeemer

97 - 100 Mary is truly the Mother of God. Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.

101 - 102 After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

2/?

>>828933

Ah, but you're not the leadership. What you say or bring up is irrelevant. If the leadership is permitting them into the congregation de facto, then they are considered members and are duly counted in the worldwide statistics. Just as with any other state church. Like I said, your choices are to agree or disagree, not to define or bring up anything as if you were any authority on anything.

>>828935

God the Sanctifier

103 - 104 There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.

105 - 106 For every salutary act, internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and salvation.

107 - 108 Without the special help of God, the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.

109 - 110 Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths. For the performance of a morally good action, sanctifying grace is not required

111 In the state of fallen nature, it is morally impossible for man without supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty, and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.

112 - 114 Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo. God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the divine commandments. God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.

115 - 116 God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.

117 - 119 There is grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious. The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified. The justification of an adult is not possible without faith.

120 - 123 Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present. Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul. Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God. Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of heaven.

124 - 125 The three Divine or theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused with sanctifying grace. Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace.

126 - 128 The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just. Grace can be increased by good works. The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.

129 - 130 By his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if death finds him in the state of grace) and an increase in heavenly glory.

The Catholic Church

131 - 133 The Catholic Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ. Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time. Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.

134 - 135 The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops. Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.

136 - 137 According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time. The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.

138 - 139 The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

140 142 By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses. Christ founded the Catholic Church. Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.

143 - 144 In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible. The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.

145 The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.

146 - 150 The Church founded by Christ is unique and one. The Church founded by Christ is holy. The Church founded by Christ is catholic. The Church founded by Christ is apostolic. Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

3/?

>>828936

The authority is laid out by the Magisterium, recorded in the Magisterium of the Church. I don't have to be an authority in order to cite authority. So I'll let the Church define what makes membership, not some random polling website.

>>828937

The Communion of Saints

159 - 161 It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of the Saints. It is permissible and profitable to venerate images of the Saints.

162 The living faithful can come to the assistance of the souls in Purgatory by their intercessions.

The Sacraments

163 - 164 The Sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace which they signify, and bestow it on those who do not hinder it. The Sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, the sacraments operate by the power of the completed sacramental rite.

165 - 166 All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers. Three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, imprint a character, that is an indelible spiritual mark, and, for this reason, cannot be repeated.

167 - 170 The sacramental character is a spiritual mark imprinted on the soul. The sacramental character continues at least until the death of the bearer. All Sacraments of the New Covenant were instituted by Jesus Christ. There are seven Sacraments of the New Law.

171 - 172 The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind. The validity and efficacy of the Sacrament is independent of the minister’s orthodoxy and state of grace.

173 - 174 For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental sign in the proper manner. The minister must have the intention of at least doing what the Church does.

175 In the case of adult recipients moral worthiness is necessary for the worthy or fruitful reception of the Sacraments.

Baptism

176 - 179 Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. Baptism confers the grace of justification. Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.

180 Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.

181 - 182 Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation. Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.

183 - 184 Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised. The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.

4/?

>>828939

Confirmation

185 - 187 Confirmation is a true Sacrament properly so-called. Confirmation imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, and for this reason, cannot be repeated. The ordinary minister of Confirmation is the Bishop alone.

Holy Eucharist

188 The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.

189 Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.

190 - 192 The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance. The Body and Blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity and therefore, the whole Christ, are truly present in the Eucharist. The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species.

193 - 194 When either consecrated Species is divided, the Whole Christ is present in each part of the Species. After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood are permanently present in the Eucharist.

195 - 197 The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. The matter for the consummation of the Eucharist is bread and wine.

198 - 199 For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation. Communion under two forms is not necessary for any individual members of the Faithful, either by reason of Divine precept or as a means of salvation.

200 - 201 The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only. The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be validly received by every baptised person in the wayfaring state, including young children.

202 - 203 For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary. The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice.

204 In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory celebrated, and its saving power applied.

205 In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.

206 The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving, but also a sacrifice of expiation and impetration.

5/?

>>828938

Well, unless you're the one letting them in or not, you're not deciding anything.

I should also add that I have a church whose leadership decisions I have fully accepted. I haven't tried to change them, as if it were my church. Or to privately contradict the church in my mind like this. I'm not defining all these extra qualifications in my head while privately disagreeing with who they allow in.

>>828940

Penance

207 - 209 The Church has received from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism. By the Church’s Absolution sins are truly and immediately remitted. The Church’s power to forgive sins extends to all sin without exception.

210 - 211 The exercise of the Church’s power to forgive sins is a judicial act. The forgiveness of sins which takes place in the Tribunal of Penance is a true and proper Sacrament, which is distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism.

212 - 213 Extra-sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti). Contrition springing from the motive of fear is a morally good and supernatural act.

214 - 215 The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation. By virtue of Divine ordinance, all grievous sins according to kind and number, as well as those circumstances which alter their nature, are subject to the obligation of confession.

216 - 217 The confession of venial sins is not necessary but is permitted and is useful. All temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment.

218 The priest has the right and duty, according to the nature of the sins and the ability of the penitent, to impose salutary and appropriate works for satisfaction.

219 Extra-sacramental penitential works, such as the performance of voluntary penitential practices and the patient bearing of trials sent by God, possess satisfactory value.

220 - 222 The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution. Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins. The principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God.

223 - 224 The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin. The sole possessors of the Church’s Power of Absolution are the bishops and priests.

225 - 226 Absolution given by deacons, clerics or lower rank, and laymen is not Sacramental Absolution. The Sacrament of Penance can be received by any baptised person who, after Baptism, has committed a grievous or a venial sin.

227 - 228 The Church possesses the power to grant Indulgences. The use of Indulgences is useful and salutary to the Faithful.

Anointing of the sick

229 Extreme Unction or anointing of the sick is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil. The form consists in the prayer of the priest for the sick person which accomplishes the anointing.

232 Extreme Unction gives the sick person sanctifying grace in order to arouse and strengthen him. Extreme Unction effects the remission of grievous sins still remaining and of venial sins.

234 Extreme Unction sometimes effects the restoration of bodily health, if this be of spiritual advantage. Only Bishops and priests can validly administer Extreme Unction. Extreme Unction can be received only by the Faithful who are seriously ill.

Holy Orders

237 - 240 Holy Order is a true and proper Sacrament which was instituted by Jesus Christ. The consecration of priests is a Sacrament. Bishops are superior to priests. The Sacrament of Order confers sanctifying grace on the recipient.

241 - 242 The Sacrament of Order imprints a character on the recipient. The Sacrament of Order confers a permanent spiritual power on the recipient.

243 The ordinary dispenser of all grades of Order, both the sacramental and the non-sacramental, is the validly consecrated Bishop alone.

6/?

>>828941

Letting them in, as in, to Heaven? Or through the Church doors? Because everyone is welcome to come participate in Catholic ceremonies. That doesn't make you authentically Catholic, and the Church says such. If you mean, into Heaven, I may not be letting them in, but the Catholic Church has declared dogmatically those things which disqualify you from experiencing the Beatific Vision as a Catholic. It does not declare that one cannot merit salvation by any other earthly route, but it is clear that all salvation requires admission into the Catholic Church and acceptance of its dogma.

But since we are talking about earthly things, I think it is sufficient to say that:

1. The Catholic has a list of beliefs formally declared as necessary to be Catholic.

2. If you do not believe those things, the Church declares you automatically expelled.

3. There are many people who claim to be Catholic, but do not believe things required by the Church.

4. Those people are the ones being polled, shifting the public appearance of opinions held by real Catholics.

>>828942

Matrimony

244 - 245 Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God. From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.

246 The Sacrament of Matrimony bestows sanctifying grace on the contracting parties.

The Last Things

247 - 249 In the present order of salvation, death is a punishment for sin. All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death. The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven.

250 - 252 The bliss of Heaven lasts for all eternity. The degree of perfection of the Beatific Vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merit. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.

253 - 255 The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter purgatory. At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgement.

256 - 258 All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth. Christ, on His second coming, will judge all men.

End.

—

There we are. Any "Catholic" person who self-identifies as Catholic, but doesn't profess belief in all of the listed above Dogmas is decidedly NOT Catholic. Furthermore, even if they believe all of the above, but do not adhere to the precepts of the Church, they may be Catholics, but they are decidedly BAD Catholics, or "Fallen Away Catholics."

Precepts of the Church

>You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.

>You shall confess your sins at least once a year.

>You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.

>You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.

>You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

If someone gives an opinion in a poll and they don't believe the Dogmas, I don't count them. If they don't follow the Precepts, I respect them as a person with human dignity, and even as a Christian, but not as a Catholic.

>>828761

Oh, and OP, read through the list I just posted. If you can believe all of the Dogmas and participate in the Precepts, strongly consider Catholicism.

>>828930

Who are you to define what is or is not “Catholic”? The pope has not seen fit to expel these people, though he is well aware of them. He seems to hold a different interpretation of canon law from you. You might say they are automatically excommunicated, but practically speaking what you mean is they are excommunicated in name only, though only to you.

>>828943

>Because everyone is welcome to come participate in Catholic ceremonies.

Exactly. Being in communion with all kinds of open atheists, unitarians, and the various professing open and defiant nonbelievers. Those who are making regular and open statements of nonbelief.

>>828943

>Because everyone is welcome to come participate in Catholic ceremonies

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all

1 Corinthians 14:24

>>828949

>>828950

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

— 1 Corinthians 10:16

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

— 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

>>828948

>The pope has not seen fit to expel these people

Nevertheless, they are expelled. Whether done actively and individually or not. The Pope is beholden to the ex cathedra pronouncements and declarations of his predecessors. Since a pope has seen fit to expel these people, the pope must accept that they are expelled. It is canon.

>>828950

<Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Nice context you got there. The full context completely blows out what you are implying with your snipit.

>>828951

Catholics do not practice Open Communion as Protestants do, which is exactly what 1 Cor 10 was talking about.

>But them that are without God judgeth

<I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

You're really bad at this, aren't you? If people are coming to Church, it is implied that they are not without God, and while the priests can withhold communion from those who are not worthy of it to the best of his knowledge, it is not his place to eject one which claims to be there for God. Paul was writing of people who boast of their publicly known sins – namely, person committing incest within the community of the Church and was proud of it. He was not talking about every sinner who wanders into a Church looking to worship.

And, yes, sometimes Catholics and even clergy break these rules. Doesn't mean the Catholic Church is wrong in dogma.

>>828955

>Nevertheless, they are expelled. Whether done actively and individually or not. The Pope is beholden to the ex cathedra pronouncements and declarations of his predecessors. Since a pope has seen fit to expel these people, the pope must accept that they are expelled. It is canon.

I repeat: who are you to define what is “Catholic”? Why should we favor your personal interpretation of canon law over that of the magisterium?

>Nice context you got there. The full context completely blows out what you are implying with your snipit.

Are you being serious? How does the full context change what it means? What do you think those words mean? Anyone who is fair to the text can see the meaning is the same in or out of context: unbelievers should not feel welcome in the church, instead, they should feel as though they are having a sentence read to them.

>>828931

>and his faction which flattered him and acted like sycophants were the ones that hypocritically reaped the benefits.

The faction that won Niceea were the trinitarians, while the faction that flattered Constantine and his dinasty, and ended up occupying most high seats afterwards, and made life difficult for the right-believing christians, were the arians, so even that part of your narrative is wrong.

Because that's the struggle of the forth century.

Trinitarians vs arians, with a sidedish of people that think wavering during persecution is the unforgivable sin.

>>828920

In the set of religions that are called "protestant" there is a subset of protestants who are God Damned sodomites.

Does that clear it up?

Why the red herring? It's Sunday, not abstinence day. I think you're out to pick a fight and you think you have a "gotcha" if I answer this. Just spit out your point you think you have and stop making everything personal. Can you do that?

>>828928

I don't see the need for lies and name calling.

Again, even Novus Ordo belief is that Sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. All you're saying is a lot of people who say they're catholic aren't catholic because Catholics are not allowed to pick and choose i.e. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics, but heretics.

>>828963

>a sidedish of people that think wavering during persecution is the unforgivable sin.

I'm not the one that's going to have to answer for that statement. And it's definitely not accurate: plenty of people joined the truth.

>while the faction that flattered Constantine and his dinasty, and ended up occupying most high seats

Is the state church. It was Arian during Constantine's appointment of Arius himself, and it was during all of Constantius II. The state church of Rome is responsible for the Arians who invaded Christian lands, such as the Vandals and the Goths. Bonifacius himself allowed them to cross the sea. And he was an Arian partisan according to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 1, p. 500.

I don't see how you can defend this.

>>828955

You didn't quote verse 11, didn't fully quote verse 13 and you used a corrupted version. There's nothing left to say that hasn't been said.

>>828955

Sorry, I should add. It isn't too late to turn away from the power of satan unto God. I only suggest that you find a church leadership that isn't laying aside the commandments of God and doing its own thing, glorifying only itself. Find those that follow the truth, especially if you already disagree with the state church over its policies on including everyone. Even the most extreme outright apostates and enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, without so much as blinking an eye. You've seen the evidence. There's no excuse to pretend all of it isn't happening.

What communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. - 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - 1 John 2:27

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; - John 14:16

>>828972

>And it's definitely not accurate: plenty of people joined the truth.

Baptist fantasies, my nigga.

They weren't added in the condemnations of Niceea, or of any other ecumenical council of the age, so they didn't exist.

As for blaming everything on the roman state church, in that case, the persian church should have been "kept pure", since they openly said Niceea was mostly an imperial thing that didn't affect them.

The Assyrian Church of the East still lives fine and non-protestant to this day.

Or atleast we have should seen "real churches" outside of the imperial borders building their own power base.

Surprise, we don't.

>>828983

protestantism onlly makes sense if the reformation is seen as a shedding of non essential 'man made doctrines' not as a reinvention of a idealized primitive christianity or as a remnant of christians who kept the tradition pristine. this was the view of luther, he didn't think the roman church of his time was completely lost.

>>828984

>reformation is seen as a shedding of non essential 'man made doctrines'

The key doctrines which have been discussed the most were heretical, not non-essential

>this was the view of luther, he didn't think the roman church of his time was completely lost

Yes he did. At least the mature Luther did.

>>828916

Aye, one must be of Christian conviction to be baptized. Orthodox also believe in real presence, of course then infant baptism is alright. But this issue, and orthodoxy also being maintained by an institution are your problems?

>>828984

>protestantism onlly makes sense if the reformation is seen as a shedding of non essential 'man made doctrines' not as a reinvention of a idealized primitive christianity or as a remnant of christians who kept the tradition pristine.

I agree, primitivism can be very dangerous. That's where we got the Millerites and everything that they spawned…

>>828985

>Yes he did. At least the mature Luther did.

Are you sure he wasn't referring to those who had stayed with Rome?

>>828983

>Or atleast we have should seen "real churches" outside of the imperial borders building their own power base.

The reason you don't see it is because you aren't there and the people who taught you history would rather you didn't know about it, or they weren't even aware of it themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by power base though. If you mean simply existing, there's plenty of proof of that. If you mean trying to erect a rival state church, that goes against Biblical doctrine. The Münster rebellion is not a valid counterexample. Those guys were obviously heretical and likely influenced by gnostics. I consider them to be gnostic-influenced peasants who went into political rebellion for no reason.

>>828984

>protestantism onlly makes sense if the reformation is seen as a shedding of non essential 'man made doctrines' not as a reinvention of a idealized primitive christianity

Neither of those makes sense. "Reinventions" are basically what mormons and other cults do. The first recorded "reinvention" was Marcionitism. They claimed that the true doctrine had to be re-inspired to Marcion after it was lost for exactly 115 years and 6 months.

>this was the view of luther, he didn't think the roman church of his time was completely lost.

Luther, Zwingli and so on, also persecuted the baptists of their day. Zwingli even wrote a full treatise "against Catabaptists" in July 1527.

>>828995

>I agree, primitivism can be very dangerous. That's where we got the Millerites and everything that they spawned…

The Millerites claimed that new inspiration of prophecy had occurred revealing that 1844 was the second advent. It's not the same thing as primitivism, not at all.

>>829004

>The Millerites claimed that new inspiration of prophecy had occurred revealing that 1844 was the second advent. It's not the same thing as primitivism, not at all.

I'm not hating on Baptists, but if you can't see the connection between the Millerites and the Restorationists, then I don't know what to tell you. There's a difference between sticking to the historical tradition (like real Baptists try to do, according to their interpretation) and radically rejecting all academic progress we've made since the apostles left us. I was referring to the latter.

>>829015

>if you can't see the connection between the Millerites and the Restorationists, then I don't know what to tell you.

That's the first time I've seen it brought up. Restorationism seems to be the same thing as saying someone had to be re-inspired, which is the same thing as mormons, oneness pentecostals, millerites, marcionites, and SDA. Looks the same to me!

>radically rejecting all academic progress we've made since the apostles left us. I was referring to the latter.

Again, not sure what you're referring to as academic progress. When I used the word "primitive" I had in mind the dictionary definition:

<1. Pertaining to the beginning or origin; original; first; as the primitive state of Adam; primitive innocence; primitive ages; the primitive church; the primitive christian church or institutions; the primitive fathers.

I didn't have in mind Luddism or anything of the sort, nor of course was I referring to "Restorationists."

But as far as academic progress is concerned. I absolutely don't reject natural science. I just refuse to draw value judgements from it.

>>828986

It's not that I have problems with things— God has problems with those things. Render not evil for evil, and do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind. No one should be coerced into the unity of Christ; The gospel of Jesus Christ with which we are charged is one of peace, not of envy and strife. We must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason.

>>829017

>But as far as academic progress is concerned. I absolutely don't reject natural science.

I meant theological academic progress. The things that the Restorationists reject outright. Over the centuries we've had to deal with countless heresies, tease out theological minutia, draw implications from the text, develop systematic explanations of doctrines, develop systems of education, and networks to expand and support the work of evangelism. (Which I view evangelism as an inherently educational endeavor.) I see many bad things added to the church over the years, but also many positive developments as well.

>>829019

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

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

That no flesh should glory in his presence.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

- 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

>>829017

>Restorationism seems to be the same thing as saying someone had to be re-inspired

Inaccurate

>>828995

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by primitivism but the reformers could be considered primitivists inasmuch as they sought to make the Church more like the primitive Church and rejected innovations that had developed over the centuries, even very old ones.

>>829004

>Luther, Zwingli and so on, also persecuted the baptists of their day

I doubt you’ll listen, but the Baptist tradition is historically descended from the reformers, not the Anabaptists.

>>829024

Did you just gloss over my very particular exposition of my terminology…? Those verses do not contradict what I said.

protestants: All Catholics are pedos because some catholic priests are pedos, even though that is against the Catholic church's teachings.

Also protestants: How dare you say protestants love sin by saying they don't have to confess, and by pointing out several protestant denominations not just allow, but sanctify sodomy.

What's the Point in Discussion?

Sodomy is a sin. The problem with the Protestant idea that men can contradict the teachings of the apostles is that some men will make it up to allow the sins they love more than God.

>>829004

>The reason you don't see it is because you aren't there and the people who taught you history would rather you didn't know about it, or they weren't even aware of it themselves.

Because there aren't there.

For crying out loud, even obscure af cults like the mandeeans, yazidis or manicheans managed to survive to the current day, or atleast make a decent, well-documented run.

>I'm not sure what you mean by power base though.

Heretics usually tend to settle outside of the empire, and congregate in a certain place to preserve their culture.

Various russian odd faiths fled to rural communities in the New World, paulicians fled to the Caliphate, nestorians to Persia, monophysites to Egypt.

This stuff is mentioned in the records of the courts that they ended up settling in.

>>829066

>Heretics usually tend to settle outside of the empire,

I won't accept being called a heretic, so I'm not inclined to answer.

>>829097

Heretics from the imperial POV, i mean.

Wasnt calling you one.

>doesn't know enough to make an informed decision regarding Catholicism vs Orthodoxy

>thinks he knows enough to s— on Protestants

just throw a picture of Peter's keys up on your twitter profile pic and call it day, larper scum. That's all you're in this for, anyway.

Barring being in a cult, stay where you are. All Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox churches have their problems, but all have a core who are faithful as well and would say the same things that the core of the other would say.

You can tell yourself that doctrinal/dogmatic issues make all the difference, but they do not in day to day life. The Anglican or Methodist who takes Christ seriously will actually have more in common with the faithful Orthodox or Catholic… and vice versa. You will find that these seemingly different groups will have similar people living out similar lives… despite their denominational rituals. They are those people who you'd TRULY want in your foxhole at the end of the day. Rather than the fellow Baptist/Catholic/Orthodox who doesn't care about anything with church except bake sales. You're going to find a lot thots, people soft on degeneracy (like gay rights advocates), merely "cultural" Christians, shortsighted individuals, greedy individuals, or what have you type of members in your denomination of choice. You're going to be disappointed if you walk in a church and expect them all to take Christ seriously. I wish it was that easy, but it isn't.

>>829018

>No one should be coerced into the unity of Christ; The gospel of Jesus Christ with which we are charged is one of peace, not of envy and strife. We must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason.

True. But the doctrine of the Orthodox Church is false, because Greece, Serbia and Russia are nations and have national churches as well as things like mitary history?

>>829138

I disagree. Nobody should hastily leave their present church, but there are fundamental differences in doctrine and the Christian needs to align with his convictions.

I'm a baptist. I believe the Bible teaches regenerate church membership and believers baptism. I cannot in good faith join a Presbyterian church.

>>829153

Like I said, if you're up against an army of degeneracy and unbelief, you'll be grateful for any Christian trying to walk the Narrow path. That *should* be a breath of fresh air, at least. If you're still picky about it, then I don't know what to say. The rest of the world is against you - and will kill you when it finally gets the OK. You should find friends where you can.

>>829159

You can find political common ground across church lines, but church membership is more than being anti degeneracy and unbelief

Just voicing my opinion

>>829159

Isn't it said, fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell?

>>829159

>Like I said, if you're up against an army of degeneracy and unbelief, you'll be grateful for any Christian trying to walk the Narrow path.

Yesterday I was reading in Mein Kampf where Hitler was complaining that the Catholics and Lutherans were at each other's throats while the Jews were running riot spreading degeneracy. He felt that Christians, regardless of denomination, should have each other's back on this.

This war never changes.

>>829165

I don't care about politics, anon. This is life and death. Also, look at where we are. It's practically the proverbial foxhole in and of itself. You wouldn't even be here if you didn't realize just how far underground you've already been pushed. You can't talk about half of the things the church is supposed to talk about, even within church settings. You had to seek out random anons to share some thoughts with.

>>829169

Interesting ID.. but Hitler was the last thing on my mind. Stopped clock and all that, I suppose.

>>829171

Your provided description of the church is a group against degeneracy and unbelief. All I'm saying is you're discounting the need for a common creed.

I'm not underground. I have a very healthy church and I talk freely on every issue besides race, which just isn't a polite topic.

This is an imageboard, I don't get my fellowship here.

>>829169

That was the point of "positive christianity", just a practical non-partisan culture of uniting culturally for a common good.

This didn't end. Evangelical and Catholic in America are actively united on issues like abortion (institutionally and in activism, not necessarily in voter base for Catholics)

>>829175

>All I'm saying is you're discounting the need for a common creed.

I'm not. I'm hoping that we all serve Jesus, first and foremost. That's no small thing, in terms of "creed". If we truly need anything more than him for a creed, he would have told us. All of the Gospel, his life, his words - that's what I'm holding up as what we put our faith in and what we try to imitate. You absolutely can not go wrong with it, and if you see someone else who *somehow* hears his voice, despite coming from a different background, please embrace them. That's our brother.

I'm glad you found a good church, if that's how you view it. But how you managed to come to this place, I'll never know. This is a place of desperation (although not the only one… there are enclaves and catacombs everywhere).

Before anyone says I'm being dramatic about calling this place a place of desperation, consider this:

>"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

>

>They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." -2 Tim 3:1-7

>

It's getting close. In fact, it's already at the door. The world is going to hell in a handbasket - including many breaking away from the Faith, as Jesus also said himself would be a sign of the times in Matthew 24.

So I, for one, am "desperate". I rejoice when I see people who embody the opposite traits of those listed above. A curse be on me if I ever act smug and ungrateful towards them.

>>829146

Adding and subtracting things from the word of God is a huge problem. Being founded by Constantine is a problem. Relying on works to be saved is a problem, because it means people are getting the wrong Gospel.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

<Galatians 1:6-9

The other effects that follow of this are very numerous, and all very direct and apparent problems that would be corrected simply by believing and following the Bible. One of the main things to result from these is, that all state churches have a long history of persecuting and killing those who keep the truth simply because those persons baptized according to their faith.

>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)

1.6.2

Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.

If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime – provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime – shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived at Constantinople April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.

>>829127

Ok, I understand. It's not that I'm not a sinner who deserves less than I receive… You understand, I just don't want to have a whole group of people that believe in the truth be admitted as heretics. It's not about me. So anyway churches separate from the state church have existed in most areas of western europe (plus north African until around 670) until the investiture controversy era, when uprisings occurred against the appointments of the Pope in southern France and Italy. See Petrobrusians and Arnoldists for this. Before this, there were so-called "Paterines," also the Synod of Arras in 1025, the second council of Braga 572, and the council held by Agrippinus circa 200 in Carthage (according to Augustine's letter 93 to Vincentius). There are three councils that included advocates of credobaptism. There was also no such thing as a catholic-style state entity in Wales until the English conquest, which occurred over the time period of 1093-1283. The country of Wales was separate from England after politely but firmly declining Augustine's English mission in 603. The old Frankish state church was not by any means under control of the bishops of Rome before the Concordat of Worms. According to Giuseppe Visconti in Obseruationum ecclesiasticarum, the old state churches of these regions north of the Ravenna exarchate didn't even uniformly practice infant baptism until A.D. 860. This was an area that the Byzantines under Justinian I had basically never controlled, as the Lombards entered into northern Italy in 568.

Gradually, the inquisition was established against them (and also against gnostics), starting with Lateran III [1179] and Ad abolendam [1184], then ramped up with Lateran IV [1213], Council of Bourges [1225] and Ad extirpanda [1252]. They also had to get rid of Raymond VI of Toulouse who defended their religious liberty against the "crusade." However, before the Concordat of Worms in 1122, there had been no inquisition. Hence why the Petrobrusians first appeared around 1119. And they continued to exist in Languedoc after 1163 (see Mézeray, Chronological Abridgement of the History of France, p. 248.), despite what the wikipedia article falsely states about them disappearing. Idk why anyone uses that biased encyclopedia. Hope that answers your question.

>>829197

There's your link to the Mézeray chronicle. I know it's hard to find. Bottom of page 248 is the reference.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?cc=eebo;c=eebo;idno=a70580.0001.001;node=A70580.0001.001:5.4;seq=249;submit=Go;type=simple;vid=54227;q1=1163;page=root;view=text

Also take a look at the article written in 1146 called Epistola Sive Tractatus adversus Petrobrusianos Haereticos which can be found in Patrologia Latina, Vol. 189, p. 722. In there it describes how the people clearly said: "so that infants, though they be by you baptized, yet since by reason of their age they cannot believe, are not saved" and "But we do stay till the proper time of faith; and when a person is capable to know his God, and believe in him, then we do, not as you charge us, re-baptize him, but baptize him."

>>829197

>Being founded by Constantine is a problem.

This is silly, anon. Constantine didn't found anything. In reality, he as a noob, befriended Christians, but was confused at a lot of details. He opened a council for them to hash out some major divisive issues (Arius), but the thing is, he was sympathetic to Arius himself. He was closest to Eusebius among the church fathers, who was also sympathetic to Arius. Constantine even imprisoned the famous St. Nicholas for disrupting the Council and getting angry at Arius. Constantine, like the politician he was, played more to the middle ground. If he was the "founder of Orthodoxy", it would have been a completely different church.

He died never resolving much of it. It took a few more emperors and centuries for the issue of Arianism and some other controversies to go away and for you to get what you see as Orthodox now.

I'm not Orthodox myself btw.

>>829199

Good point, Constantine's church would be Arian. By the way, don't even bother engaging with a 'trail of blood' kook.

>>829197

>plus north African until around 670

Yeah, the donatists.

Their reconciliation?

Simply acknowledge the grace of traditores, since the donatists had good sacraments, valid liturgies and apostolic succession(all 3 were impossible if they were baptist-like).

>Petrobrusians

Peter admitted the doctrinal authority of the Gospels in their literal interpretation but considered the other New Testament writings to be valueless, as he doubted their apostolic origin.[1] He questioned the Old Testament and rejected the authority of the Church Fathers and that of the Roman Catholic Church itself.[1]

Oh, so likely gnostic-ish.

>Arnoldists

>His disciples were also called "Publicans" or "Poplecans", a name probably deriving from Paulicians. The Arnoldists were condemned as heretics by Pope Lucius III in the Ad abolendam during the Synod of Verona in 1184.[3]

>Their tenets would later be addressed by Bonacursus of Milan, c. 1190, in his Manifestatio haeresis Catharorum, which refuted Arnoldist evangelical poverty and the incapacity of sinful priests to administer the sacraments.[4]

So donatists, and likely gnostic-influenced, given the references to paulicians and cathars.

>"Paterines"

>The pataria was an eleventh-century religious movement in the Archdiocese of Milan in northern Italy, aimed at reforming the clergy and ecclesiastic government in the province and supportive of Papal sanctions against simony and clerical marriage.

>The patarini initially protested the abuse by their refusal to accept communion at the hands of priests with unofficial wives or concubines.

So, a movement that was SUPPORTIVE OF PAPAL REFORMS AND MORE CLERICAL CELIBACY?

Ok

>the Synod of Arras in 1025

In 1025, a Catholic council was held at Arras against certain Manichaean (dualistic) heretics who rejected the sacraments of the Church.

Hey, gnostics.

>the second council of Braga 572

From reading on it, their focus seems to be on strengthening the relationship between bishops and priests.

>and the council held by Agrippinus circa 200 in Carthage (according to Augustine's letter 93 to Vincentius).

Against donatists and co…

Codex Justinianus also talks about donatists

As i highly suspected, copy-pasta cherrypicks from texts that talk about donatist-like schismatics and gnostic weirdness, and then larping as them.

>Bu-but, they are actually talking about ancient baptists, because rebaptism, and they grouped them with gnostics and donatists because Rome was evul and lying, and we need to read between the line!

No, they simply didn't acknowledge the church sacraments, because either they converted traditores and friends graceless, or because gnostics are weird.

I will waste no more time on this nonsense.

>>829213

If you don't mind, we were having a conversation over here.

>>829199

I don't see the contradiction. The state church of Rome has always allowed heresy (in the name of "unity"), starting from Constantine and Arius, all the way down to this day. You can't try to tell me that the Arians weren't the state church of Rome, they clearly were.

The point of my quote which you responded to there is, I wouldn't take a church founded so late as A.D. 313 as the legitimate church founded by Christ. It was actually founded by Emperor Constantine.

>>829213

>>829260

Why did this guy post a bunch of wikipedia text?

>>829261

No idea.

>>829263

Oh wait, maybe he wants to be in a church that has a really good sounding wikipedia page so he's worried if it doesn't look good there? That's probably it.

[turned off the flag because I'm trying not to upset people]

Now that we're done with the business of that >>829213 person, let me explain why what he's written is not getting a response.

It really seems like since I've come back here, the cynicism and negativity of this place has really reached a zenith. A lot of people on here are not really interested in ascertaining the truth about what really happened, and certainly not about Biblical fact; they're just concerned about vainglory, worldly prestige, having an easy to digest wikipedia page to link to their friends about themselves. The facts of the matter of what really happened just don't concern them, it's just not even a concern. They would go with whatever appeared in this world to be the most popular, prestigious thing, and I get that, but then why come on here to make low effort troll posts and intervene on someone else's conversation. That I don't get. Because it's not like they're being diligent about searching out the true state of things. They just want to have fancy symbols, act edgy and write in gothic font. They want others to recognize them. Yet they've never gone to any of the primary sources themselves. When confronted with this, it confuses them because they are only interested in the outer appearance of how they can present to others. So to them, not being able to explain things from a wikipedia link defeats the purpose of studying things any further. So they are captives to whoever controls that popular forum. They're even less interested in Scripture. They won't even respond to that. Because a lot of things there go against the trend, but in the right way.

The other reason why this doesn't deserve a response is because all of its central points were already refuted in the post >>829197 it quoted. The Mézeray chronicle (written in 1683) states that:

"Anno 1163 […] He caused some Decrees likewise to be made against the Hereticks who had spread themselves over all the Province of Languedoc.There were especially of two sorts. The one Ignorant, and withall addicted to Lewdness and Villanies, their Errors gross and filthy, and these were a kind of Manicheans. The others more Learned, less irregular, and very far from such filthiness, held almost the same Doctrines as the Calvinists, and were properly Henricians and Vaudois. The People who could not distinuish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares,"

Obviously this was not read before being responded to. The post being quoted by him also specifically stated "and also against gnostics." Because as the primary historical source documents, The People Who Could Not Distinguish Them gave them alike names. So then a lot of ideas were falsely accused toward right believers. They were counted with the transgressors and falsely accused, even to their deaths in many cases, and remain falsely accused. This chronicle even shows us that fact, but nowadays people aren't inclined to convey this information.

Even though I would, I'm not going to respond to that post by making or elaborating any additional citations. He failed to even grasp the basics of the post that he responded to.

>>829260

What exactly is it that you think Constantine did? All he was really responsible for was legalizing Christianity in the Empire, and convening all the bishops of the Church together in on place to hash out the theological issues of the day.

Do you think all those bishops just materialized out of thin air by Constantine's whim?

>>829329

>What exactly is it that you think Constantine did?

He did many things that can be seen as corrupt. First and foremost, like I believe I said earlier in this thread, his faction that flattered him was the one that reaped the benefits of his actions. He is not really responsible for the individual actions of other bishops, but he is responsible for rewarding one faction and trying to decapitate another. At one point in 325, he managed to get actual Trinitarians together who authored the Nicene creed, but by 335 he had appointed Arius as the chief of his state bishops, helping foremost to prove that he himself was corrupt overall. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

But let's return to before this. In 313 AD he tried to appoint people in his faction who had his favor at the time. This was a novel concept because up until earlier that same year the official policy had been persecutory under Maximinus II. So he introduced the concept of having the state appoint bishops instead of having them be ordained and sent out by the churches. This initial set of appointments is the founding of the state church.

In 313, there were still local churches who didn't accept Constantine's unilateral decisions, because he was clearly acting like a dictator. Like what later might be called the first caesaropapist. Those who were political pragmatists tried to curry his favor and were therefore greatly rewarded by him (until he changed his mind and appointed Arians twenty years later). So they represent the faction standing for the political theory that supports all of his actions. What about the others though? They existed. They were thrown under the bus in the Council of Arles in the year 314. But their decision to reject the precursor to state church even at their own loss was heroic. Despite their differences amongst themselves, they stayed clean of that error, and the same essential side of that controversy continues today, in an unbroken line of succession. And many people came over to their side who were baptized, which upset the state church but the caesar at the time was unmoved.

Later in 343, Emperor Constans made an attempt to "reconcile" the two factions and he sent two legates named Macarius and Paul to the area where they were concentrated in north Africa. First they attempted to subvert these churches by going around their leadership and bribing individual Christians. When this tactic failed because the Christians held their ground, the legates turned to violence. They simply killed. The record of their acts in Bagai, Numidia is according to the tract Passio benedicti martyris Marculi and also History of the church from the edict of Milan, A. D. 313, to the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, p. 58.

We can move forward to investigate the actions of the relatively weaker emperor, Honorius, who was induced to pass a law making "rebaptizandi" carry a death sentence in A.D. 413.

We can move forward from here and investigate the actions of Bonifacius according to Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 1, p. 500. In A.D. 429, He allowed the Arians to cross into the unguarded region of Africa where the Roman fleet was kept. They captured most of the vessels and took control of the sea, eventually sacking Rome in 455. The Romans could not defeat their numbers and their fire ships in the sea. Eventually around 483-484, the barbarian king Hunneric inflicted the infamous Arian persecution. Among other things, he caused the laws that were previously written against the "rebaptizandi" to extend to all that wasn't part of his Arian state church.

We move a bit past this to find that Justinian I specifically reinstated the law of Honorius against "rebaptizandi" in April 529, making it one of only two thought crimes deserving of the death sentence. The other was Arianism. However, the Eastern Romans never extended their law past the exarchate of Ravenna because the Lombards prevented them in 568, also the plague of Justinian killed 10% and possible up to 20% of the world population at the time.

>>829316

>The People Who Could Not Distinguish Them gave them alike names. So then a lot of ideas were falsely accused toward right believers.

Nah.

We have explicit texts written by priests going in detail as to debunking the points of their doctrine, for most of these groups.

We also know the historical circumstances under which these groups formed.

As for your precious chronicle, it doesn't contradict my point.

Some were gnostics, others were petrobusians and valdensians.

We already know what they believed in.

Otherwise, your speculations are on the same tier as Wiccans going "the women accused of witchcraft were actually a part of some ancient pan-european matriarchal religion that existed in secret, and that we now know as Wicca"

>>829335

>What about the others though? They existed.

Yeah, mate, we call them donatists, and we know why they happened.

But if you want ancient Christianity that didn't get tangled with the state, look to the Assyrian Church of the East.

They explicitly pride themselves on spreading their faith on their own, due to the state being either zoroastrian or muslim.

Oh look, they are pretty much the same as the other Apostolic Churches, in organization, looks and doctrine.

So your thesis falls.

>>829388

>Nah.

Hey it's your right to take a primary historical source and dismiss it. The funny thing though is that I was answering someone else's question.

>We have explicit texts written by priests going in detail as to debunking the points of their doctrine, for most of these groups.

It's interesting you say that though, because I also already linked one of these earlier. Yep. One of these sources already states what the many people in southern France believed in before the inquisition. Taken that it's from a hostile source, I'd say that establishes their claims fairly well. But again, I'm simply answering someone else's question, not yours. I wouldn't rely on anything else but the evidence of the perfectly preserved Scripture, and how I am the only one apparently who is not outright approving of killing someone else for their beliefs in here.

Anyway I quoted it in part here and gave the source for it: >>829198 If you are the guy from before it's likely you didn't read it so that's why I'm pointing this out.

>We also know the historical circumstances under which these groups formed.

Yeah, there are various groups that did form in times of history when threats appeared. I wouldn't say that everyone who took part in some political uprising believed the same thing, but that they did oppose the same thing and that it is possible to learn about some of the people who took part in those instances from the records. I wouldn't say that a church took part in anything political, but individuals from these churches might very well have. What's interesting here is that Peter of Bruys was killed in 1131, but that didn't quell the instance, because another person called Henry of Lausanne continues it. And when Henry died in 1148, it still continued beyond the year 1163 according to Mézeray whom I have already quoted twice now, and who also said that their opponents mixed them up with the gnostics. You can see how this leads up to the Albigensian crusade in 1209. It's all an attempt to put down resistance to the result of the concordat of worms.

>Some were gnostics, others were petrobusians and valdensians.

Valdensians, more known as "Vaudois" in the original tongue, are technically the survivors of the crusade. They continued to live in the valleys in the County of Savoy. They also handed off some of their manuscripts to the academy in Geneva in the 1500's, which influenced the Geneva Bible in English, which influenced the Authorized Version.

While the Vaudois survived the inquisition, the Cathars or gnostics which you often read about were finally defeated at Montségur in 1243.

>Yeah, mate, we call them donatists, and we know why they happened.

Well it's funny because there were multiple different conventions that were all lumped together as being "Donatists." The Catholic encyclopedia even admits this. For instance, Vincentius, who wrote to Augustine of Hippo, was not an actual Donatus Magnus follower. But he was variously called a "Donatist" or a "Rogatist." Similar to how others were later intentionally or innocently confused with the gnostics, and so on. This name-calling was only done to make him seem like a schismatic. I see nowhere where Vincentiu actually claimed to be a Donatist or a Rogatist. I see nowhere where the reformation era Baptists that Zwingli wrote against in 1527 called themselves either protestants or "radical reformers." Anyway thanks for giving me the chance to explain some things and clear up what I've said. I hope that this answer still makes sense to the original person who asked the question.

>Oh look, they are pretty much the same as the other Apostolic Churches, in organization, looks and doctrine.

Do you mean the Nestorians?

>>829418

>I am the only one apparently who is not outright approving of killing someone else for their beliefs in here.

I'm orthodox, man.

Crusades are not exactly our favourite things.

But im sure if, theoretically, we had become extinct, you'd be saying the orthodox were crypto-baptists, too.

>One of these sources already states what the many people in southern France believed in before the inquisition.

Yeah, catharism and gnostic-influenced petrobusianism.

We've gone over that.

>the Albigensian crusade

That was triggered by, and who's main target was, the cathars.

>But muh chronicle says people mixed people up with cathars

Regardless, most of the people there were gnostic cathars, not petrobusians.

>Valdensians, more known as "Vaudois" in the original tongue, are technically the survivors of the crusade.

Nope.

They were Waldo's gang, and their creation was strictly tied to him.

We have no evidence of any prior ties.

> But he was variously called a "Donatist" or a "Rogatist"

We was literally Rogatus's succesor, who was a donatist that schismed away over the pacifism thing.

>Do you mean the Nestorians?

Yes.

>>829420

The Ethiopians are also an example of a group of Apostolic Christians outside the Roman imperium, and they're nothing like Protestants

>>829175

Yup exactly this.

There are Eastern rite Catholics, so why not both?

Baptist

>>833789

>You realize Gandhi is the one who said that right?

Father said it last week in his Sermon. Why the ad hom attack on this idea of loving the sinner and hating the sin? Did not Christ say we should love our neighbors as ourselves? To love our enemies? I didn't see where he said hate sinners.

why is it always the baptist who do the hate?

>See Vatican II

Oddly enough, Vatican II did not invoke Papal infallibility.

>>833790

Op's ground rule: "No I will not consider any form of Protestantism because it's clear heresy and un-Biblical."

>>833794

>Father said it last week in his Sermon

And he was quoting Gandhi (or someone else who was)

It's not Biblical, like the verses that I posted. You should love YOUR enemies, and hate THE LORD'S enemies.

2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

>Op's ground rule: "No I will not consider any form of Protestantism because it's clear heresy and un-Biblical."

He said Baptist, not Lutheran, methodist, Calvinist, etc.

Baptists aren't PROTESTant because we want nothing to do with the catholic church. And most protestants are just catholic-lite that still kept many trditions that the catholic taught when they broke off.

https://invidio.us/yIQegOGFUg4

https://invidio.us/b9-fs9xNRkI

https://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm

>>833795

>>833794

also

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

>9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

>>833794

>Catholic

>Biblical

LMAO

>>833797

no u

>>833796

1 Corinthians 4:15, Philemon 1:10

>>833789

til that baptist believe hate of their fellow man is part of their religion, and bear false witness against the Holy Mother Church when they say we don't believe the Bible.

Pray for the Conversion and Souls of the Baptist

Oh Mary, mother of Perpetual help, thou knowest so well the value of an immortal soul.

Thou knowest what it means, that every soul has been redeemed by the Blood of thy Divine Son.

Thou wilt not then despise my prayer if I ask from thee the conversion of these sinners, nay great sinners, who are rapidly hurrying on to eternal ruin.

O good and mercyful Mother, know well their irregular life.

Remember that thou art the Refuge of Sinners; remember that God has given thee power to bring about the conversion of even the most wretched sinners.

All that has been done for their souls has been unsuccessful; if thou wilt not come to their assistance, they will go from bad to worse.

Obtain for them the effectual grace that they may be moved and brought back to God and to their duties.

Send them, if necessary, temporal calamities and trials, that they may enter into themselves and put an end to their sinful course.

Thou, oh merciful Mother, hast converted so many sinners through thine intersession , at the prayers to thee of their friends.

Be then moved by my prayer, and bring these unhappy souls to true conversion of the heart.

Oh Mother of Perpetual help, design to show that thou art the Advocate and Refuge of sinners.

So I hope, so it may be.

Amen.

>>833801

We already talked a lot on it in this thread >>833496 >>833439 >>833488

>>833802

sodomite reprobates that hate God aren't "my fellow man". The Bible is clear what should happen to them

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

>they say we don't believe the Bible.

Because you don't. You just deflected instead of addressing any point I made.

>Oh Mary

Stop ppraying to Mary

>>828806

>That Christ established his Church on Saint Peter is a Biblical fact.

I dont think anyone denies but the tradition has long been demonised

>>833807

There are two unforgivable sins.

One is rejecting the Holy Ghost.

Even sodomites can be forgiven.

I think baptist are using a neglectful induction fallacy; The Lord commanded us to love our neighbors, to understand the meaning of this and the other passage you quoted, you need to get to a good priest and ask the question. Hating people is not what the Lord had in mind.

>Because you don't.

Stop lying about the Catholic church

>Stop ppraying to Mary

Stop bearing false witness against the Catholic church.

>>833810

Okay, I've not seen this argument. What do you mean when you say "the tradition has long been demonized"?

I'm making a list of ways that the Protestants deny Matthew 16:18. I am wondering if this is a new argument

>>833823

>There are two unforgivable sins.

>One is rejecting the Holy Ghost.

So what's the second?

>Even sodomites can be forgiven.

Jeremiah 6:30 Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.

<meaning of reprobate means rejected by God

Romans 1

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

<26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

<27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

<28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Sodomites become that way because god rejects them by giving them over to a reprobate mind

>he Lord commanded us to love our neighbors

Yes, and that is an OT commandment

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.

>you need to get to a good priest and ask the question

No

1 John2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things

>Hating people is not what the Lord had in mind.

Like I posted earlier of David hating poeple. Here now also is Hosea.

Hosea 9:15 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

And here is God hating people

<Abohor means to hate "regard with disgust and hatred."

Leviticus 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Leviticus 26:30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Deuteronomy 32:19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Psalms 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalms 10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 31:6 I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD.

Psalms 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

I think I'm going to go what God and his prophets said over catholicanon.

Stop thinking God is like Santa Claus.

>Stop lying about the Catholic church

>Stop bearing false witness against the Catholic church.

I'm not, but there's already a thread about that, so discuss it there >>832058

>>833823

also

>>Stop ppraying to Mary

>Stop bearing false witness against the Catholic church.

How in the world is >>833802 not praying to Mary?

>>833794

>Father said it last week in his Sermon.

This sounds like some deviant cult.

>>833844

Having just learned that the Baptist have thrown out Christ "love your enemies" and are a hate cult by teaching because King David, who murdered so he could commit adultery, I think you shouldn't throw stones.

Love your enemies and judge not least ye be judged.

You must choose: worship King David or my Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God who sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

>>833834

You reject the Word of God, my Lord Jesus Christ, because of an adulterer and murderer said to hate?

You are truly lost.

>>833866

>recognizes king David, up there in the most Godly of men in the Bible (mentioned by name more times than Jesus), as just being a murderer and adulterer

Please tell me this is a joke.

And do you then not believe the Psalms are scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost? I know you don't care what the Bible says, but catholics at least claim it's inspired.

>>833865

again as said here >>833789 >>833795 >>833832

you are supposed to hate those that hate God are are his enemy. And even God says he hates certain people. Are you then better than God?

I really hope you're just a troll

>>828768

c'mon dude catholics/orthodox are valid. They believe in the trinity and a lot of them have no more than a healthy respect for Mary. God will sort them out on a few (or maybe a lot of) things and us out on a few things. I'm no universalist, but "believe and be baptized" sort of applies to them to.

>>829420

>But im sure if, theoretically, we had become extinct, you'd be saying the orthodox were crypto-baptists, too.

I'm not saying Novatians or actual Donatists were. Not at all. They were state churches nonetheless. However, the true churches were sometimes mixed up with them because they both agreed that Roman paedobaptism was invalid. That doesn't mean they had everything else right despite agreeing on this.

>gnostic-influenced petrobusianism.

I already posted the tract that showed they were not gnostics. I'm not sure why you are so threatened on what some other group believed.

>That was triggered by, and who's main target was, the cathars.

This is the same reason they were originally accused, it made it convenient for the state church to persecute them if they were falsely accused. So, they were counted with the transgressors and crucified along with them. Doesn't matter whether you call them Petrobrusian, Henrician or Vaudois/Waldensian, they still held the baptist distinctives, as shown plainly in the records I earlier linked in this thread. The churches long predate and also continue past those men.

>Regardless, most of the people there were gnostic cathars, not petrobusians.

Is your source wikipedia for that? I'm gonna need you to give sources for this statement or it doesn't hold much water with me.

>They were Waldo's gang, and their creation was strictly tied to him.

You mean the creation of the name, perhaps. The underlying church structure, the Scripture and practice of baptism predates him, likewise Henry of Lausanne, Peter of Bruys, the Italian Gundolfo, the Prophets mentioned by Atto of Vercelli, and so on. Their distinctives are, that they used the pure Scripture, rejected infant baptism and other excesses, and remained separate from Catholicism whenever they encountered them. This caused various laws to be passed against them, to little avail as God has protected. They themselves didn't have to create new laws, canons or confessions as everything they believe is contained in Scripture. That's one of their distinctives.

>>833869

Thanks for redpilling me that Baptist are satanic.

I had no idea! Given that Our Lord told us to love our enemies, I am just aghast that Baptist twisted the Bible into a book of hate.

>>833933

>You have heard that it hath been said

No where does that say "as it is written"

And the OT tells you to love YOUR enemies, but to hate THE LORD'S enemies

17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:

18 Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him.

21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:

22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

That's being angry with a brother in Christ without a cause. Not hating reprobates

And the Bible does say to be angry

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

If anger is a sin then that makes no sense

>Christ taught us not to Anger

I know you haven't read the Bible, but come on, it's a pretty popular story

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

And reading Matthew 23 he's clearly mad at the pharisees

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

>>833935

also

Mark 3:5

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

>>833936

>>833935

Yes. I get it. Baptists hate people.

I thought that Westboro and Steve Anderson were fringe and not representative of Baptist.

>>833947

>literally no argument because he knows that scripture doesn't say to love everyone and never be angry

You can just admit you don't believe the Bible.

>>833957

I believe you when you tell me about the Baptist rejection of Christ's teachings to love your enemies and that you find no sin in your hate.

I don't believe in the Baptist twisted interpretation of the Bible, no.

>>833866

Which is funny because you are abhorring and not loving someone right now as you speak.

What I find stunning about modern day worldly mindset is that they think it is ok to be full of verbal and physical abuse toward others as long as they don't say what they are doing is hate. See they've redefined the word "hate" in their mind to be anything not politically correct and "woke" to their philosophical leanings, even though they are some of the most spiteful and hate filled people you can find toward those of a different belief than their own. Rather than coming to terms with others, they are glad to deliberately misunderstand others if they see an easy way to wrongly accuse someone rather than coming to an understanding. In this case they just think as long as they don't use the word "hate" that they can be as dishonest and abusive toward others as they want. I see this throughout the worldly mindset, not just here, and so this warrants comment. The world calls itself loving today, it calls itself loving, but look at their actions more than their words.

>>833959

>Christ's teachings to love your enemies

Are you a troll or what? I've stated before that you should love YOUR enemies, but hate THE LORD'S enemies, which doesn't contradict any scripture like your beliefs.

>I don't believe in the Baptist twisted interpretation of the Bible, no.

I don't believe the Bible, no.*

FTFY

>>833967

Loving someone doesn't mean you have to accept their hate and their heresy.

Disagreeing with someone is not hate

>>833976

I get it. I really do. You have a twisted interpretation of the Bible, which is what happens when you don't have the Holy Mother church there to help you. You found a passage from King David about embracing hate, so now hate is good, in your mind.

King David also killed a man because he wanted his wife. Is that, too, good?

You are not the Bible. That was kind of presumptuous of you.

You know, I get it. You are going to lie about what I said.

God the Father Almighty is perfect and infinite. All things, spirits and souls he created He found to be good.

God made no enemies. A god that makes enemies is an imperfect god or not god at all, and God the Father Almighty is the True God of He that Is and is Good and Perfect.

God's only enemy, is human sin as sin leads the souls that He loves to hell.

You are to hate the sin, and not the sinner. God loves all souls, even the sinner. God does not love evil, nor did God create evil, but God allows us to choose evil in this life.

Hope this clears things up.

You're both queers for still going back and forth like this