/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The only logical followthrough is it's the first step to becoming a King James only Baptist that only follows scripture as the final authority. Come home brother and worship God along with us.

This is a begging the question fallacy: Op's argument is that the Pope is the Pope because the Pope says so.

The Sede argument is that Vatican II wasn't a legit Catholic Council and contradicted what previous infallible Popes and councils have said, for example, previous infallible rulings say that the mass cannot be said in the vernacular.

>>845927

How does it follow that one should become one of a thousand other protestant denominations because some in the Vatican refuse to follow the established Catholic teaching for the last 1900 years? That is not a "logical follow through", it's a non-sequitur.

Where can I read about this man and his argument in his words?

>>845928

If I am begging the question then so is Sanborn. There are two fundamental problems I have with his reasoning. One is that he cannot square the doctrine of infallibility with whatever exogenous standard he is using to determine that Vatican II is 'not Catholic' because of 'substantial distortions.' The second is that he offers no explanation as to why Vatican II does not meet the conditions of magisterial infallibility but Vatican I does. Sanborn needs to say that infallibility holds for Vatican I in order to lean on the infallibility of other papal proclamations, but he needs to explain why it doesn't hold in the case of Vatican II. He needs infallibility to fail in the case of Vatican II in order for there to be any room for him to reject it as 'not Catholic' but he doesn't fill this gap in the argument.

>>845928

You have had ""eastern catholics"" praying in vernacular prior to Vatican II in Ukraine, Greece and Middle East.

Your position is ad-hoc.

>>845925

It's a """dIvINe mYStErY""" just like jews who reject the only way to heaven magically going to heaven. And V2 contradicts previous infallible teachings so guess what, the stupid church was never infallible. It's just another Rothschild funded institution telling you to worship jews.

>>845930

Vatican II can't be infallible because it contradicted existing Church teaching wrt government of the church, Ecumenism, ect. If the old Church teaching is that there is One True Church that was founded by Christ on Saint Peter, you can't come along 1900 years later and say that The Catholic church is just ONE of God's churches.

Do you really think God couldn't make up his mind and gave us 2000 protestant denominations with different beliefs?

>>845931

There was something in there about if your rite had been doing it for 300 years before the council just to accommodate the eastern rite Catholics.

>>845946

You're not Catholic, why the deception?

If I say "2+2=4", and someone later on says "2+2=5" and both cannot be true, that doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

>>845951

You're not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the article on Sedevacantism, you're just trolling and trying to turn the thread into yet another hate for Catholics thread.

I already know protestants only have one thing in common: hate for The Catholic Church.

>>845948

Completely baseless reasoning for accepting something or not.

>>845957

I didn't explain their reasoning in the 300 year rule because it's not relevant to the thread.

My argument was:

1) Catholic teachings cannot be changed.

2) The Pope & council have said that the mass must be in the vernacular for the Latin Rite.

3) The Vatican tried to change the prior teaching, thus they are false.

The Eastern rite wasn't relevant to that.

>>845949

That's not what's going on. V2 contracted other "infallible" declarations. Two things cannot contradict and both be infallible. This is one of the fundamental principles of Logic, the principle of non-contradiction. Either V2 or old Catholicism are wrong. If the former then V2 is simply wrong. If the latter then V2 is still wrong because that means Catholicism as a whole is invalid. It is logically impossible for V2 to be correct. The end.

>>845952

not the dude you're replying to, but to play devils advocate for both sides, the beginning of Protestantism was a failure for the Catholics to address theological issues the reformers brought up in a timely manner (>inb4 papal infalibility, which is an overly optimistic and contradictory doctrine even if it is church tradition. The church absolutely did owe those who questioned them concideration), and for the Reformers to be patient and band together under a common head. Protestants and Catholics ought to understand that Man can and will make many mistakes, no matter how much cred they give themselves. And this does in fact tie into the OP's topic. The Catholic Church has a bad history of always doing too little too late, from the council of trent adressing SOME of the protestant's concerns only after Luther and many others had already split and taken many of the flock with them, and they finally created the FSSP and Diocesan TLM's only after the SSPX and Sedes were causing a ruckus. And again for the protestants, the original PROTEST FOR REFORM was obviously thrown out the window by many opertunistic individuals, and because everybody had an idea on what the purified Church should look like, now we have a bunch of people going off hearsay and crackpot theories "everyone being a little pope"

I don't mean this in a hateful way, believe it or not. As someone who went through the gambit of churches (Ortho, Catholic, Anglican, both Mainline and Evangelical Presbyterian), I do desperately desire that the Body of Christ would come together and that we could repair 1051 and 1517. And from an objective standpoint, Vatican II and other dialogue has made huge strides. But until all sides come to an agreement, which only by the grace of God could occur, it's all pointless. Bottom line, nobody is infallible, not the Pope, or Pastor Joe or the Patriarchs. If you cannot judge everyone from the top to the bottom as fellow Christians and sons of Adam, than you better ask yourself why since the only difference between Peter and Judas in disposition was that Peter could admit to Christ that he was wrong.

>>845964

I did say that it would be nearly impossible, and yeah I see your point about it probably being out of control. But again, you got the point that both sides failed to meet half way in almost all situations and that's why we're in the mess we're in, right?

>>845962

Everything that you're talking about is nothing more than an intermediate stage between abject worship of the Pope and our own position, which is worship of God alone and following his Word alone.

>If you cannot judge everyone from the top to the bottom as fellow Christians and sons of Adam, than you better ask yourself why since the only difference between Peter and Judas in disposition was that Peter could admit to Christ that he was wrong.

It all depends on whether they keep the word of God or not anon.

What I see here are people trying to replace his word with manmade denominations and failing to find a solution because it's all arbitrary. You don't find any of this in the Bible, it's simply not there. Unless maybe you turn it upside down and start reading side-to-side or something. Maybe that's how you got the pope or whatever version of antichrist many people are trying to follow instead of just receiving God's inspired word, the Holy Bible, above all manmade things which have errors.

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. - Ephesians 2:18

>>845925

The foundation is Protestantism. These are just late bloomers who are traumatized and suffer from cognitive dissonance on who they really are.

>>845966

The Bible isn't infallible either (although the contradictions are pretty minor compared to other holy books.) What the Bible does most certainly do right is point to the Logos as God. If there's one thing that's always right it's Logic. It's the arbiter of what's real and true.

>>845966

I wholeheartedly agree we need to follow God's word, but i can see from your own wording "manmade denominations" that you believe that the Baptist church is not a Protestant church but "the original church". I disagree, and this seems like a good website talking about why it's logical for it to have come from Protestantism (http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html).

>>845968

If the bible is not infallable, than the Catholic Catechism is wrong:

>The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (article 107)

This is what the church has always taught. If it pointed to the Logos as an imperfect book, than the logos who authored it would be imperfect which is blasphemy

>>845959

>2) The Pope & council have said that the mass must NOT be in the vernacular for the Latin Rite.

Fixed. I can see why I get the replies that I do

>>845969

God never explicitly authored the Bible.

>>845969

Sorry, but your site isn't taking the full historical record into account. First of all, there is no mention of Wales on that site or the fact it existed separate from England until 1093-1283 when it was gradually annexed. The Welsh had famously not joined with Canterbury when the first archbishop tried to unify with them in 603. These regions remained independent of the CoE.

And there were particular baptists even in England well before then. Consider what the non-baptist Crosby wrote in 1738:

Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis's Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), pp. 20-21.

>I did observe from this Author, tho' Mr. Lewis takes no Notice of it, how he endeavoured to shew the near Agreement there was between the Anabaptists and the Puritans; and that the Doctor did acknowledge, that there were several Anabaptistical Conventicles in London, and other Places; and that some of their Ministers had been bred at our Universities. So that, from this Author, Mr. Lewis could not but see there were many Anabaptists, and learned ones too, before the Year 1600.

And from another source, Joshua Thomas (1719-1797):

The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 14-15.

>Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans saith, that Mr. Perry was a Welsh divine, and gives him an excellent character for learning, piety, ministerial gifts, diligence, etc., though not a hint that he was a Baptist. However, A. Wood, in Ath. Oxon. many years before Neale, speaks out plainly saying, that Perry "was a notorious Anabaptist, of which partly he was the Coryphous (or leader)." He was educated at Oxford, and went to Cambridge, preached at both places; and was, says Wood himself, "esteemed by many a tolerable Scholar, and edifying preacher, and a good man." This was a great character given by those authors to a Baptist in those days. The noted Strype wrote sufficiently acrimonious against Mr. Perry blaming him for saying that popery then was intolerable in Wales. Though even Mr. Strype owns that Mr. Perry expressed a great concern for his native country; yet chargeth him with anabaptistery. So great was the rage and fury against him in those days, that he was apprehended, condemned and put to violent death in 1593 or 1594, aged 34. Dr. Henry Sampson names Mr. Perry among "the several persons that were troubled, deprived, and silenced by Whitgist or agents in the high commissions court, the star chamber, and the courts' ecclesiastical." The Dr. S. Calamy's Abridgement, second edition preface.

Bishop Ridley within the Church of England in 1550, even wrote this:

The Writings of John Bradford, M.A. Edited by Aubrey Townsend, 1853. in: "Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper, 1550." Vol. 2, pp. 382-383.

>If this reason should take place, "The apostles used it not, ergo it is not lawful for us to use it"—or this either, "they did it, ergo we must needs do it"—then all Christians may have no place abiding, all must, under pain of damnation, depart with their possessions, as Peter said they did, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, ["Behold, we have left all things", Matt. 19:27.] &c.; we may have no ministration of Christ's sacraments in churches, for they had no churches, but were fain to do all in their own houses; we must baptize abroad in the fields as the apostles did; we may not receive the holy communion but at supper, and with the table furnished with other meats, as the Anabaptists do now stiffly and obstinately affirm that it should be; our naming of the child in baptism, our prayer upon him, our crossing, and our threefold abrenunciation, and our white chrisom, all must be left, for these we cannot prove by God's word, that the apostles did them. And, if to do anything which we cannot prove that they did be sin, then a greatest part is sin that we do daily in baptism. What followeth then other things, than to receive the Anabaptists' opinion, and to be baptized anew? O wicked folly and blind ignorancy!

So you see how your page hasn't taken the full record of facts into account. Nevertheless, I appreciate your effort to bring some historical facts to light.

>>845969

>This is what the church has always taught. If it pointed to the Logos as an imperfect book, than the logos who authored it would be imperfect which is blasphemy

Leave him.

He's a real weirdo.

Thinks the Bible has constantly been mutilated by the jews, but treats Jones's anti-Logos woo like it's the New Testament(likely because that faggot shares his hysterical hatred of jews), even though we've kept saying to him that he bungles even basic terms.

>>845972

the prophets and the apostles authored the books of the bible

>>845980

None of those are God.

>>845973

I mean, there were Proto-Protestants like Peter Waldo and Jan Hus who predated Luther and Canterbury. My biggest issue with the Trail of Blood and other Landmarkists is the people that they try to say were their forerunners and make an uninterrupted chain. Fact is, if a baptist met a Cather or Albegensian, you would meet up with a gnostic libertine who believed that Satan and Jesus were brothers and that the Demiurge created the world. This is verifiable from texts that the Cathers wrote themselves.

So yes, it would be good for me to research the Welsh church at the time, but there's also no shame in saying that the (Ana)baptists originated in the 1500's from Zwingli based on the most likely historical linage. FWIW I actually find in my spiritual journey that i'm closest to the Baptist church now due to the shallowness of most mainline churches and, well, the many additions that the Apostolic church has made over 2000 years. I just seek to be sensible.

>>845979

I figured. Anybody who would go against the written text of the bible is a Gnostic and should be burned as such.

>>845979

I don't even watch Jones and getting pedantic over definitions is literal pilpul, the same kind of obsession with vague symbolic connections schizophrenics have which is probably why that illness is so common amongst kikes.

>>845982

You're insane, placing infallibility in a book written by fallible men. Infallibility belongs to God alone, the Logos that decides creation, Logic Himself.

>>845984

and who told you all of this? If not Jones, your own mind? are you not a fallable man? also, you forget that the bible was written by fallible man BY THE INSPARATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This means that God himself made sure that the words that men wrote would be protected from corruption. But since you disregard the Bible and speak from your own mind (since you put your own Logic as Logos, don't try to tell me otherwise), we should judge you by your own mind, and I judge you as a moron.

Shame on me for responding to you.

>>845981

through the grace of the holy ghost fallible men can make infallible works and declarations

what do you have the logos for when you discard the spirit

>>845985

>>845986

>some fallible men claim other fallible men have the Holy Spirit

This is the logical fallacy known as argument from mere assertion. Whether you like it or not, Logic is an objective force that dictates reality not something produced by my own mind.

>>845984

Logos is not logic.

>>845991

Of course it is Logic. The Greeks literally used Logos to refer to the art of logical thinking. Anyone who says otherwise is simply historically illiterate.

>>845991

You won't get anywhere with this guy. He does not listen.

>>845986

agreed.

>>845994

This is an interesting point in general. How do you know your (you as a rhetorical, not you specifically) leaders are led by the Holy Spirit if they claim they are? wouldn't that also require the Spirit of God to tell you that he's using the other person to do those works and make those proclamations? What if you don't have the Spirit to discern that?

>>845992

No, they didn't. They took it as order, you're confusing with logiké.

And how they used it is not relevant to the Gospel of John just as much as how germanics used Gott is to us.

Logos is not the act of thinking in a weird cartesian manner, according to Patristics, but the providence of consistence by the instrument of creation. As in, "I'll take your word for it" and "I give you my word".

>>845959

I know Roman Catholics say the pope jas to abide by tradition, but they are hypocrites.

If they had to truly abide by tradition, then he would only be superfluos. What would even be the point of a pope? Wouldn't one only go by tradition like the orthodox do?

>>845981

Pathetic. You need to repent before it's too late. Even your first and greatest Patriarch condemns you:

"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:21

Don't fight. Just shut up and accept it. There's no debate to be had with an Apostle. He holds the highest office in the Church. You're nothing. And he will be there holding the court over your soul.

This is a confusing thread

>>845995

I follow my leaders exactly as far as they can prove everything they say by scripture

Logos is not logic

>>845998

I worship Jesus not fallible men. Do you believe Peter was infallible when he denied Jesus three times? What does that make you if I'm better than even those you idolize the most?

>>845996

Logic is the Divine Order, you nugget. Stop trying to schizoify everything and detach it from anything connected to reality.

>>845999

Then your god is a book riddled with contradictions, not something unchanging and eternal with absolute authority like Logic, the real God.

>>845997

>I know Roman Catholics say the pope jas to abide by tradition, but they are hypocrites.

>

>If they had to truly abide by tradition, then he would only be superfluos. What would even be the point of a pope? Wouldn't one only go by tradition like the orthodox do?

The Popes cannot change Catholic teaching. If they teach something different e.g. Vatican II, they're in error or heretics.

We have a Pope because Jesus Christ created the office in Mathew 16:18. If you disagree, you disagree with the Lord.

I wish our protestant/jewish bros would not use false flags, as it makes it confusing.

>>846003

My God is the living God. The Bible is His central means of communication.

Your conception of God is totally arbitrary and entirely based on an anachronistic definition of logos

>>846006

>our Jewish (religious) brothers

Hmmmmm

>>846009

>Your conception of God is totally arbitrary

Well there's projection if I ever heard it. The whims of the fallible men who wrote the Bible are arbitrary. Objective Logic is eternal and unchanging.

>>846009

>an anachronistic definition of logos

Logos as Logic goes back to Aristotle who was alive centuries before Christ.

>>846012

I hate to point out the obvious, but it seems you need it: English is not Greek. They are entirely different languages. Logos doesn't mean simply logic in Greek. It's a rich word with many applications. It's the root word in reasoning, study, or statements in general. It can mean an entire discourse - such as the root in prologue, epilogue, etc.. Or the study of things (logia). Carried over into the words for all of our sciences - bio-logy, archaeo-logy, etc.. These are certainly "reasonable" studies, but they are not just that. They are entire treatises on such things.

And as the other anon said, it's certainly not a Cartesian thing. Jesus isn't a Robot. He's the Creative Power of God, the Word who said "Let there be light". A God who also creates because he is Love. Logic in and of itself conveys nothing of a personality or love or creativity. God is not an unsociable autist or egghead.

>>845982

>Fact is, if a baptist met a Cather or Albegensian,

There were actual Manichaeans (cathars) and then there were also orthodox baptists, who were jointly accused as being the same thing during that crusade. You don't want to confuse the two, because only one of those two is the holy church of God that still survives to now.

This is confirmed by historical accounts: The letter of Everwin to Bernard. Peter of Cluny's account. The account of pseudo-Reinerius. The council of Oxford and Mellinus' account of that council. I could go on. It all leads to the conclusion they were regular churches and were accused of being manichaeans. There are even quotes that prove this. For instance I'll give two:

François Eudes de Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l'histoire de France, (1676) Tome III, p. 89.

>Anno 1163. Alexander assisted at the Council of Tours Assembled by his order; and there he thunders once more against Victor and Frederick. 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 distinguish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares, Adamites, Cataphrygians, Publicans, Gazarens, Lollards, Turlupins, and other such like Nick-names.

Edinburgh Encyclopedia (1830), Vol. 1, p. 368

>"Albigenses" […] All who differed from the church of Rome, however much they might differ from each other, were comprehended under this denomination. This may also account for the great variety of appellations by which the Albigenses were known; for they were called by different authors, Henricians, Abelardists, Catharests, Publicans, and Bulgarians […] They are also frequently confounded with the Waldenses.

>there's also no shame in saying that the (Ana)baptists originated in the 1500's from Zwingli

Well technically, Zwingli didn't write against the anabaptists, he only wrote against the "catabaptists." This is because the name anabaptists didn't become the "popular" term for them until after the Munster Rebellion, when it became a cause to blame them for supposedly being fanatical law-breakers (which they are not, if you read their older, pre-inquisition articles of faith). Before the Munster rebellion occurred, the same blessed people who all believe and taught the same Biblical teachings went under different names, Lollards being just one of them. Other names were Albigensians, Vaudois/Waldensian, Leonists, Petrobrusians, etc. After the Munster rebellion, the accusers generally agreed to call all of them "anabaptists.". But these are all false accusations as their doctrine derives from scripture, being the holy church, "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15.) They are really Baptists who existed before that actual name was taken up. That's where we get our Scripture from as well.

Douglass wrote in 1748 that the name was originally an abbreviation of "anabaptist." They were to be "baptists," as there is only one baptism: the church's baptism. Outsiders meanwhile do not have the authority or commission to do it, from Sylvestre on down the line.

>>846020

>Oh my…

Oh my, what? I'm saying your insistence on these English words doesn't convey anything about the Greek. Logic in English has it's own connotations, bereft with anything to do with personality. It's purely a technical word. When Logos in Greek is not simply a technical word. It means far more.

Besides all that, it's not even a Greek concept at first anyways. It's a Jewish concept. John was a poor fisherman from Capernaum. He wasn't reading faggots like Plato and Aristotle. The original concept is the Jewish "Memra" (the Word or the Word of the Lord). In the Armaic Targums, the Memra was specifically personfied and not a purely metaphysical being either. He's the Angel of the Lord. In fact, in some Targums, whenever the Old Testament has the "Angel of the Lord", the Aramaic just says the "Memra". He is the figure who appeared to Abraham, who wrestled with Jacob, and appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush. He's not "Logic" in any Athenian/Aristotelian sense. Memra means "Word" and emphasizes the speech concept in the Jewish context.

>>846023

Anon, the jews have nothing to do with the God that created the reality we live in. Look at their miserable state compared to Christians who pioneered science and technology. Their insistence on OT purity failed them while Christian acceptance of Greek philosophy made us please God so much He basically gave us the world. John wasn't a fool no matter how you spin it.

>>846028

>Anon, the jews have nothing to do with the God that created the reality we live in.

Somehow, your EMJ fanboyism turned you into a gnostic.

>>846040

I'm the complete opposite of a gnostic. Gnostics advocate for more scripture while I advocate for people to stop idolizing it as if it were God.

And besides, all these people looking to idolize scripture as an infallible instruction set are just people who lacked a proper father figure. That's who a child is supposed to unwaveringly obey and as usual scripture points to this as the truth rather than itself. People who worship scripture are no better than people who worship angels. It's just a messenger not God Himself. And I promise you as someone who read the Bible everyday and had a good father, a real father will tell you infinitely more valuable wisdom than an ancient book ever could. I would argue the Bible on my shelf is malicious and harmful compared to my dad, and yes my entire family is composed of cradle Catholics. Like it or not, arbitrarily converting to Catholicism and blindly obeying the Bible is NOT a substitute for being raised Catholic. That's all the more reason to raise your children Catholic in the first place; just don't trust the Catholic institutions run by fallible men.

>>846022

>>846024

>Before the Munster rebellion occurred, the same blessed people who all believe and taught the same Biblical teachings went under different names, Lollards being just one of them. Other names were Albigensians, Vaudois/Waldensian, Leonists, Petrobrusians, etc.

Even though you made a good point on there being Baptists among the Gnostics in the Albigensian area, and the Weldenses have been long established as being forerunners, looking into Peter of Bruys is murkier:

>Peter de Bruys (d. prob. soon after 1130), medieval heretic. He is known through the writings of *Peter the Venerable and *Abelard. It would appear that he was a priest who was deprived of his office and then began to preach in Dauphiné and Provence. He rejected infant baptism,

the Mass, church buildings (because every place is equally suitable for prayer), prayers for the dead, the veneration of the Cross (as being the instrument of crucifying Christ

afresh), ```as well as large parts of the Scriptures``` and the authority of the Church. He gained a considerable number of followers, called ‘Petrobrusians’, who ill-treated priests

and incited monks to marry. His teaching was frequently condemned, e.g. by the second *Lateran Council in 1139. He himself was thrown into the flames at St-Gilles, near Nimes, by the people infuriated at his burning the crosses. (The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, Page 1264)

>Peter of Bruys admitted the doctrinal authority of the Gospels in their literal interpretation; the other New Testament writings he probably considered valueless, as of doubtful apostolic origin. To the New Testament epistles he assigned only a subordinate place as not coming from Jesus Christ Himself. He rejected the Old Testament as well as the authority of the Fathers and of the Church. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Granted, the two sources i used are likely to be biased (especially the second one), and it would be better for me to look into primary sources, but again always pays to look up things that people say to see what is the product of truth or made up.

>>846052

And moreover, hear what Beza says about them in approximately 1580:

Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France, Vol. 1, pp. 38-39.

>Thus in the year 1536 the Faithful of the Valleys of Piedmont, who were always beseiged and horrified by the Romans, and who had never in successive times declined in their piety, or in their doctrine, sent unto Guillaume Faren at Geneva, who was renowned for his doctrine and piety, two characters, one named Jean Girard, who has since been a printer in said city, and the other, called Martin Gonin, who having been imprisoned on his return to Grenoble, was secretly drowned there on 26 of April, to the chagrin of the Inquisitor, after having so resisted the adversaries of truth that they dared not execute it by day.

Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France, Vol. 1, p. 52,53.

>The Vaudois, who are so called, from time immemorial in opposition to the abuses of the Roman Church, have been so pursued, not by the sword of the word of God, but by every kind of violence and cruelty, joined with a million slanders and false accusations, forcing them to expand everywhere or to have little, wandering through the deserts like poor wild beasts; always having the Lord preserve and keep their abode, that notwithstanding the rage of the world, they are maintained, as they still are maintained in three countries well removed from each other: some in Calabria, others in Boismé and surrounding countries, and the others in valleys of Piedmont, which have been scattered through the districts of Provence for about two hundred and seventy years, mainly in Merindol, Cabrieres, Lormarin and surrounding neighborhoods.

>Their lives by attestation and public voice has been peaceful to all. They were agreeable to their neighbors, gaining a reputation of being loyal, charitable and marvelous people, gaining fans in their debates, and generally being enemies of vices. As for Religion, they never adhered to papal superstitions […]

>Now, to return to our history, after the above-mentioned heard the grace that God did in some cities of Germany and Switzerland, they sent there for their part Georges Morel de Freissiniere of Dauphine, a minister whom they themselves had supported at the schools, and one Pierre Masson de Bourgongne, who conferred diligently of all the points of doctrine, both in Basel with John Œcolampade, in Strasbourg with Capito and Martin Bucer, and in Bern with Berthold Haller, prime minister of that Church. By their report, they understood little by little the purity of the doctrine that remained between them, and gave orders sending as far as Calabria to their brothers, to whom everything was restored to better condition; and since the year 1535 they have printed at their expense, at Neuchatel in Switzerland, the first printed French Bible of our time, translated from the Hebrew by Pierre Robert Olivétan, with the help of Jean Calvin, who has often since amended it in a few passages. As for the translation of French Bibles printed during the darkness of ignorance, this was only falsehood and barbarism.

Pierre Boyer wrote, in the year 1691, Abrege de l’histoire des Vaudois, p. 23.

>O marvelous! God, by his wise providence has preserved the purity of the Gospel in the Valleys of Piedmont, from the times of the Apostles to our times.

And Samuel Morland wrote, in 1658…

>These Valleys, especially that of Angrogna, Pramol, and S. Martino, are by nature strongly fortified, by reason of their many difficult Passages, and Bulwarks of Rocks and Mountains, as if the All-wise Creatour had from the beginning designed that place as a Cabinet, wherein to put some inestimable Jеwel, or (to speak more plainly) there to reserve many thousands of souls, which should not bow the knee before Baal.

>>846004

You're a laughing stock.

>>846005

I don't agree there is a connection between Peter and pope. You're just taking Apostle Peter as a mascot ad-hoc and it's insulting.

I look at you the same way you would look at me if I were to say Peter nearly drowning in thw gospels to affirm Christ said Rome would drown in sin from faithlesness.

>>846061

>>846060

Wow. Argument by ridicule. Sorry you feel so triggered.

Not really relevant to the argument. I just wondered if you and the other posters hijacked the argument and made it an Anti-Catholic thread on purpose or is it just part of your nature? I hope it wasn't intentional.

>>845925

>The crux of Donald Sanborn's argument for Sedevacantism is that Vatican II is not Catholic because it is a substantial distortion of, not merely an accidental change to, the Catholic faith, and that therefore the entire Novus Ordo heirarchy who promulgated it, including Paul VI and his successors, are not Catholic.

If it were that Vatican II was a true council, then this appears to be a valid argument. But when you point out Vatican II changed the existing Church teaching e.g. "the Holy Mother Church is the one true Church" became "the Holy Mother Church is one of the true churches". We can't have two infallible statements that contradict each other.

>>846066

Do sedes argue that Vatican 2 constitutes a false gospel?

>>846064

I'll explain.

My first one wasn't an argument, it was an insult because I do not believe you're smart enough to understand why looking at a dictionary does not mean understanding a concept. You don't understand how language works.

The latter was me trying to, by analogy, make you see how ridiculous it is to associate Rome with that passage from the gospel. If it appeared ridiculous, my intent was successful.

>>846073

If you're not using dictionary definitions to speak, you're not speaking English.

What are you even doing here in a Catholic thread anyway? This doesn't concern you, and all you do is derail the conversation with hate posts about the Catholics. You don't need to do this and you're not going to win any converts with ridicule and insults.

>>846074

My dude the definition does not support your case. Logos and logic are disparate concepts

>>846075

In logic, you lay out your premises and you tie them together with an argument.

I didn't even make an argument. I posted a dictionary definition and I was attacked for with ad homs. What I saw was a diversion thread that seemed to be based on a semantic definition. I expected you to define your terms and give reasons for it

It doesn't get more pathetic than posting the commonly understood definition, saying nothing more, and being called a "laughing stock" and that I don't know how "language works" for quoting a dictionary and then more hate and ridicule. That's a fallacy in response to a non-augment on a red herring anti-Catholic diversion in a thread about the Catholic faith

Just saying I'm wrong is not reasoning.

Now don't make me explain why I don't think you and EO didn't sin.

>>846078

>I expected those who disagreed with the dictionary to define…

Fixed.

>>846075

I'm tired of you nuts playing pilpul to skirt around reason. Logos most certainly can and does often refer to logic. See >>846007. It's literally philosophy 101. And no it's not a recent definition St. John couldn't have known about. It was coined by Aristotle centuries before Christ. Catholicism ALWAYS praised the use of logic and reason. I don't watch Jones but he doesn't deserve hate just for pointing out the obvious connection between Logos and logic. This wouldn't even be a debate if you all took freshman philosophy. 12420a is right about the absurd anti-Catholic sentiment here but I think it goes deeper than that. People don't arbitrarily hate Catholicism for no reason. They hate it because it's the real Jesus' true church, the real Jesus who was the Logos incarnate in the flesh not a mere friendly magical jew wizard like people want to believe.

>>846078

Ok let's start over

Our position is that logos and logic are not identical. Logos is both a Greek philosophical concept and the person Jesus.

Logic is a structure or system of reasoning.

Logic is not a person, so it cannot be treated as synonymous with logos.

To say logos is not logic is not to reject either.

>>846082

Where in any christian literature have logos and logic been treated as identical?

I noticed that most people don't understand what religion is. Or it is just an impression. You know, religion brings only kindness and help. Earlier I didn't understand it but when I read the bible with https://ezbible.org/ many things became clear to me. Now I am going to continue my studying of religious books.

>>846074

I tried to explain why your misconception on logos is a misconception. This is not thread sliding.

>If you're not using dictionary definitions to speak, you're not speaking English.

Was saint Paul not speaking Greek because he used Christ in a manner outside the dictionaries of his time? How can you be so autistic?

>>845925

>Why does Vatican II fail to meet the conditions of magisterial infallibility

Because Pope Paul VI said it produced no new Dogma when it ended. Vatican II is fallible because the Pope said so.

>>846067

>>846082

You realize this entire argument is pointless as all popes are invalid and are antichrist from the beginning and Peter wasn't one. As shown above, you don't get any of that from Scripture. Not unless you perform eisegesis and take modern day concepts (such as Emperor Constantine's antichrist pope-vassal) read backwards into the text when they're not there to begin with. This whole argument therefore is pointless. The seat is not vacant as the head of the church is Christ alone.

>>846155 (not OP but I'll offer my 2 cents anyways)

> It is sad that the only joy found on this board is in trolling Catholics and disrupting any sensible discussion about Catholic issues. That's just sad.

I'll give you this, this particular thread was about catholic issues and it was derailed. But you probably are a newfriend because this board used to be ruled over with an iron fist by Catholic mods. Be greatful that you have democracy here now because i gaurauntee you yourself would have been subject to punishment for getting out of line.

> I wonder why Christ even HAD disciples and established a church if you're right.

So you're saying that Jesus' only purpose on earth was to give Peter and his successors unlimited power to do whatever he wanted and be above scrutiny? I get the whole unbiblical vicar of Christ thing is part of your religon but what you're doing is almost saying that Peter's being The Rock means he's more important than Jesus.

Of course Jesus came to establish a Church, and i'll even give it to you that it might have been the Catholic Church. But you know something? King George might have been the rightful owner of the United States. Doesn't mean that when he abused his power the people under him shouldn't have pushed back and resisted.

>Protestants: "Go thee forth and believe what thou want, maketh up thy self, sin and forgive thyself, and troll thy neighbor like none other, because thy burns be done!"

One could easily counter with "Catholics: Follow to the letter the words of fallable men, put your entire salvation in the hands of a man possibly less qualified than you to be on the pulpit or confessional, and demand a monopoly on discourse despite the fact it's called /Christian/, not /catholicism/". If you wanna fling s— like a mandrill, understand your big red ass is the perfect target.

If anything is tiresome, it's your whining. Conversation can and will be derailed, and that's part of life. Suck it up and do your best to keep on topic. If you give into the trolls, they win.

>>846156

>So you're saying that Jesus' only purpose on earth was to give Peter and his successors unlimited power to do whatever he wanted and be above scrutiny?

I give up. I didn't say that. You know I didn't say that. You're trolling.

>>845925

>Sanborn accepts the infallibility of the magisterium or of the pope, then no matter how much he thinks the Church is in error, it cannot be so.

The thing is, Sedevacantists do not believe that he is the pope. Sedevacantism means "empty chair," as in, the Holy See is currently vacant and the current papal claimant is not a successor of Peter. In order for papal infallibility to apply, one must be a Pope in the first place.

>>846186

tell me what you meant then. Why do YOU think that Christ left disciples (students) on the earth?

I'm so mad the race focused brand of Catholicism has died off. I don't even care about the pope. If Catholicism had a view of race as well developed as Christian Identity but understood through Catholic theology that would be beautiful. Instead, the most we get is St. Thomas quoting the OT saying too much outbreeding risks damnation. Whites being important but not toted as infallible would be great, because White genes are a wonderful thing but White people, especially in our current culture, are not. They're better than other races on average but that's not a very high bar. It's like being the most honest lawyer in the room. Sure you'd rather be with him than the others but you shouldn't trust him either. I think having a system that values White superiority but admits ALL men are flawed would be perfect. Maybe I want something like old racist USA but if it were a Catholic culture instead of Protestant so I'd fit in better.

>>846262

Maybe it's time to conclude that Protestantism is correct recognizing this as your hinge. Within Protestantism we have kinism which is fully fleshed out and clearly in line with historic teaching

>>846262

>I'm so mad the race focused brand of Catholicism has died off.

It never existed, mate.

You never had race-focused canon laws and councils.

>>846262

>>846263

You are all atheists in Chrisrian clothing.

>>846267

Believe it or not, the Jesuits actually enforced racial purity laws during the Inquisition. They're just so subverted by infiltrators now. The Catholic Crusades certainly had a racial element too. The older and more decayed something becomes the less focused on racial purity it is. Protestantism is far younger than Catholicism, which is why race focus is still common in that religion.

>>846331

>The older and more decayed something becomes the less focused on racial purity it is. Protestantism is far younger than Catholicism, which is why race focus is still common in that religion.

That's an interesting claim chief but it's just a platitude

Protestantism is a 500 year old movement which is explicitly focused on reforming the 2000 year old Christian movement to theological orthodoxy

Protestants are more closely associated with racial ideas because Protestants are more conservative, really. I would also speculate that Protestantism lends itself to more independent doctrinal thinking as compared to Roman catholicism

>>846332

If this is even true, I'd say it has more to do with the ethnic makeup of the congregation rather than anything philosophical. The Catholic Church is almost by necessity going to be more cosmopolitan in its outlook since it exists as an institution all across the world, while a church that only exists among some particular demographic is going to wind up linked to the political situation of that particular demographic to one degree or another.

To be honest though I can't really think of any churches like that. All protestant churches I can think of are very eager for converts from South America and Africa, and work to send missionaries there and bring those people to Europe or the United States where they're based. You could maybe make that argument for American branches of foreign churches like the Greeks or Armenians I suppose, but the Armenian church at least is even older than the RCC.