/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

We already have a thread for this, we don't need two

>>839202

>look at me i have no argument

>>839203

I have no argument because I agree with you

As Saint Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honour to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honour any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honours such relics by working miracles at their presence.

>It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshipped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savour of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honour to dead men. Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honoured.

This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Saint Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen."

To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"—that is to say, with the worship of latria. "But we honour the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honour to Him Whose martyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek {μάρτυρ} is 'a witness'] they are: we honour the servants, that the honour shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honouring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of latria to dead men.

>It seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

>A dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be worshipped.

The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

>>839269

Maybe when quoting Aquinas verbatim in lieu of an argument you should actually read it to avoid embarrassing statements like

>We worship that insensible body

>>839271

Why would I construct an argument of my own, when you refuse to charitably engage with Saint Thomas' own? Or to have yet provided an argument of your own toward proving the "idolatry" of Catholicism.

In the context of Saint Thomas' argument, "worship" is not the same as "latria."

>>839272

>In the context of Saint Thomas' argument, "worship" is not the same as "latria."

The latria-dulia distinction is an unbiblical one. In scripture there is no concept of a lesser form of worship that is acceptable to give to a creature (Revelation 22:8-9). The reason whatever word Aquinas originally used is rendered as worship is because either Aquinas, or the translator, or both recognized it would be false to claim that what he is describing is not worship like modern Romanists do. The reason why modern Romanists make this false claim where the older Romanists did not is obvious: Aquinas was not apologetically answering real objections from genuine theological opponents, he was using a scholastic method of teaching, setting up mainly philosophical strawmen for his positions in order to demonstrate them to students. In contrast, more recent Romanists deal with what they realize is a weighty objection, namely that to pay any religious worship whatsoever to a creature, including inferior worship, is an abomination before the Lord as He Himself declared (Isaiah 42:8).

>>839201

>The modern protty Qixote, tilting at windmills he builds in his own head.

Heretics gonna herete.

The Fulfillment of the Law

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly,

until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

>>839273

In holding to your position you are refusing to acknowledge reason; for you believe that the bible is intelligible apropos nothing. Which can only beg the question, in the philosophical sense, how you and other protestants intuit the meaning of the Bible, i.e., Interpreting A from B and not, B from A. Hence, to claim that something is unbiblical and thereby wrong is fallacious reasoning.

Again, per Saint Thomas:

Servitude is due to God and to man under different aspects. For God has absolute and paramount lordship wholly and singly, which is entirely subject to His power. Whereas as he exercises a particular lordship over some man or creature, the lordship of man has only a certain likeness to the divine lordship.

Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the lordship of God. Moreover, dulia is a species of observance; for by observance we honour all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master.

>>839331

>In holding to your position you are refusing to acknowledge reason; for you believe that the bible is intelligible apropos nothing.

you call the Holy Spirit nothing?

>John 13:16 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

>>839358

If it were the Holy Spirit that rendered the bible intelligible then why is it that the sects of Protestants differ in their interpretation despite their profession in Christ as the Saviour? Why is that Saint Paul, who himself says that the Spirit of God dwells in Christians, cannot speak to the Christians as unto spiritual but as unto carnal?

And, so as to pre-empt such a position, claiming that men differ in their gift of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient as it begs the question: How you can intuit that your interpretation, or any other, is true or not?

Your position is contradictory and heretical.

>>839358

The literal translation of the Holy Spirit is the spirit of separation. The Bible only makes sense if you're racist. Something Catholics and Protestants were until the sixties. Now since that Spirit is gone from society churches are preaching absurdities. And yes it is blaspheming the idea of separation that is the unforgivable sin because then you cease to exist just like how removing your skin that separates you from what's outside your body kills you.

>>839412

Ethical rules have their place, but are subsumed under the judgement of reason.

The concept of racism is only relevant within the liberal paradigm. The liberal paradigm being that the sovereign nature of each individual is key, and under which hierarchy of any kind is wrong.

We note here that the liberal paradigm is wholly against Christianity in its parts and its totality.

It follows from the liberal concepts of humanity, by way of Cartesian philosophy, that everyone is in possession of equal and identical rights, which itself leads to the concept that all humans are jointly capable of reaching the same level of understanding, and therefore the claim that anyone is incapable of such achievement is false, and is the result of bigotry, or hatred, or ignorance.

To take this further, if you have accepted the concept of the liberal self, then you must justify why liberal individuals form into societies, i.e., Hobbes, Locke, Schmitt, and why society should be comprised of only some of those individuals.

It is within this paradigm that racism is made intelligible.

If you are a liberal and you seek to block liberalism from anyone for any reason, then you are an (x)ist. The logic is inescapable.

If however, you do not exist within this position, then the label of (x)ist is absurb.

One cannot be a Christian and a liberal. And so, one cannot be a Christian and a racist.

>>839415

Racism is reasonable and hated by liberals so I honestly don't know what you're getting at by saying a Christian can't be racist because a Christian can't be a liberal. That's like saying a Christian can't like blue because liberals hate blue.

>>839416

Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937).

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honourable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinises them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (1939).

Those who enter the Church, whatever be their origin or their speech, must know that they have equal rights as children in the House of the Lord, where the law of Christ and the peace of Christ prevail.

Pope Pius X, Lacrimabili Statu (1912).

Do you, moreover, take care that wheresoever moral instruction is given, in seminaries, in colleges, in convent schools, and more especially in the churches, Christian charity, which holds all men, without distinction of nation or color, as true brethren, shall be continually preached and commended. And this charity must be made manifest not so much by words as by deeds.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930).

This attitude of the Church to mixed marriages appears in many of her documents, all of which are summed up in the Code of Canon Law: "Everywhere and with the greatest strictness the Church forbids marriages between baptized persons, one of whom is a Catholic and the other a member of a schismatical or heretical sect; and if there is, add to this, the danger of the falling away of the Catholic party and the perversion of the children, such a marriage is forbidden also by the divine law.

>>839418

Oh here we go again. You're cherrypicking quotes out of context to imply paying race the respect it deserves is somehow idolatry and everyone having equal rights in Catholicism somehow translates to segregation being illegal. Well that's not the case.

>>839419

If it is not the case, then make reference to scripture and Church Father or reasoned argument. For if you are right, then you are right against the Papacy, and thereby the Catholic Church.

The delirium of race is heresy.

>>839415

>>839412

>>839416

>>839419

How the winnie the pooh did you bring race into this?

We were talking about dulia/latria, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

>>839420

You worship the way of death. You do not believe in God.

NO RACE MIXING

“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 23:2

“Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father's tribe.”

Tobit 4:12

“For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

Ezra 9:2

“Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.”

Ezra 9:12

“Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?”

Nehemiah 13:27

“For if you ever turn away from him and join with the remnant of these nations that survive among you, by intermarrying and intermingling with them, know for certain that the LORD, your God, will no longer dispossess these nations at your approach. Instead they will be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge for your sides and thorns for your eyes, until you perish from this good land which the LORD, your God, has given you.”

‭‭Joshua‬ ‭23:12-13‬ ‭

>>839423

NO RACE MIXING (extended)

“In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: and their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did strange women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to trespass against our God in marrying strange women?”

‭‭Nehemiah‬ ‭13:23-27‬ ‭

Ezra 10

The People's Confession of Sin

…9So within the three days, all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled in Jerusalem, and on the twentieth day of the ninth month, all the people sat in the square at the house of God, trembling regarding this matter and because of the heavy rain. 10Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful by marrying foreign women, adding to the guilt of Israel. 11Now, therefore, make a confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do His will. Separate yourselves from the people of the land and from your foreign wives.”…

“And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Mid´i-anitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phin´ehas, the son of Ele-a´zar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phin´ehas, the son of Ele-a´zar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.”

Numbers 25:6-13

>>839423

>>839424

>Deuteronomy 23:2

The generations are counted from Abraham, when Lot also lived, who fathered the Moabites and the Ammonites of their own daughters (Genesis 19:37-38), and it is discovered that, counting Abraham himself, there are ten generations until Solomon, who fathered Boaz, husband second of Ruth. The generations are these: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon. Salmon fathered Boaz (1 Chronicles 1:2), who married Ruth, who was a widow. That is why it is seen that after the tenth generation he left offspring in the Lord's assembly, giving Boaz children. And, were this not true, then it seems that Ruth was admitted against this prohibition.

>Tobit 4:12

That marriage is not to be contracted with Gentiles. For in the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians:

"A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:39

Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. - 1 Corinthians 6:15-17

And so it cannot be said that St. Paul errs on such a point:

And when he was now old, his heart was turned away by women to follow strange gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. - 1 Kings 11:4

>Ezra 9:2, Ezra 9:12, Ezra 10, Nehemiah 13:23-27, Joshua‬ ‭23:12-13‬ , Numbers 25:6-13

It is a grave sin to marry an infidel.

Make no covenant with the men of those countries lest, when they have committed fornication with their gods, and have adored their idols, some one call thee to eat of the things sacrificed. - Exodus 34:15

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee. - Deuteronomy 7:3

Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. - Malachias 2:11.

>>839425

<take a wife of the SEED of thy fathers

No matter how much mental gymnastics you come up with to justify your rejection of God and his reality, you are eternally btfo by this single verse. You reject the way of God and the way of thousands of years of Christians.

>>839426

>schooled

Because a liberal admitted defeat by posting a wall of text of mental gymnastics?

>>839428

You are tilting at windmills; I said that one could not be a Christian and a liberal, and I am not a liberal. And as I showed, the seed is of faith, not of race.

>>839429

>guise I'm totally not a liberal. I shill their most treasured talking point (antiracism) but still totally not a liberal I swear.

You think you can just self-identify as a Catholic to trick us? You're as much a real Christian as xir is a real gender.

>>839428

>>839430

>LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS

Called you out on that, too >>839411

Someone also debunked your verses, as well(besides the other collection of encyclical quotes).

How about you have an honest discussion for once, instead of pasting identical copy-pasta replies every time, and then running away, like a little faggot?

>>839431

Lol, you're really triggered by those verses. No matter how much wall of text gymnastics you guys post, you and everyone else knows they clearly say DO NOT RACEMIX. You know your liberal ways are going against God and no amount of cope will change that.

>>839464

>LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL

>>839331

Your inane incoherent philosophical babbling is not an argument

>>839409

>why is it that the sects of Protestants differ in their interpretation despite their profession in Christ as the Saviour?

Because most people pick and choose what from the bible they will believe.