/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>848051

>>848051

How about I post a beautiful Catholic hymn, done by a Protestant? :)

Protestants are heretics, and they're destined for hell unless they repent.

>>848055

>Protestants are heretics, and they're destined for hell unless they repent.

that's not even correct doctrine, it never has been

>>848055

It's pretty sad when I'm more catechized about the Roman Catholic church than some of the "Deus Vult" larpers here. Go back to Sunday School. There's a reason why even your church allows converts to join without getting re-baptized: Because they recognize their baptism as valid. Not united entirely, but valid. This is not reserved for "heretics". Get your labels correct.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

Anyhow, not a hymn, but a great little song from John Bunyan.

Good thread

>>848051

As a Catholic some things I hate about cucks is their propensity to capitulate to heretics.

>>848057

Unam sanctum declared submit to the roman pontiff or perish (way before reformation)

Catholics post Reformation have since contradicted this bull

>>848062

You're misreading una sanctum - it was in context of a dispute with the King of France and perish doesn't mean hell. The words there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church has been explained in the Catechism

read it 846 onward

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

>>848061

what makes you Catholic?

Do you go to church on Sundays? Do you pray daily, do you say the rosary daily, do you go to confession? Cause honestly a lot of the angriest chan Catholics are Catholics in words only not in practice and that's something that's bothered me since the old sub and honestly if you don't do the practice I don't want to hear it; and listening to many of the Catholics here it doesn't sound like you say the rosary daily because I don't hear the patience and charity I would expect from it

>>848065

Yes, I actually do those things quite often. In fact I went to church every day until college. Now I watch homilies on YouTube in its place because of covid. And it's better this way because then I can select rational Thomist priests instead of my local zionist priests. And as one of the priests I watch said two days ago, constantly telling logical people to behave illogically will make them angry which is why I'm being aggressive with you cucks and heretics.

>>848069

>rational Thomist priests instead of my local zionist priests.

oh really

> And as one of the priests telling logical people to behave illogically will make them angry which is why I'm being aggressive with you cucks and heretics.

on youtube huh? link or it didn't happen

>>848072

>on youtube huh? link or it didn't happen

www.youtube.com

>>848051

>I think they make some beautiful church music.

Yeah. I grew up listening to Bach.

>>848077

read the catechism

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

*847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:*

*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337*

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, *the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."*

Also no salvation =/= hell - there's purgatory >>848077

>>848077

>>848078

also the protestant isn't responsible unless the fully know what the church is and reject it anyways, which judging from most comments the protestants don't know and how should they when we have larpers on here pretending to be catholic and flinging insults and throwing around the words "heretic" and cuck" instead of explaining proper doctrine and explaining why the church is the one founded by God

>>848078

I know

Is it altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff?

No, and this section of your catechism proves it according to the rcc

I fully know what your view of the church is and reject it in principle

>>848079

>I say Catholic doctrine is you don't have to be Catholic

>anyone who disagrees with me is a fake Catholic

Logic is telling me not to trust you.

>>848078

>Also no salvation =/= hell - there's purgatory

I actually do not know what you mean by that at all

>>848082

It means he wants to prove he googled Catholic words.

>>848058

Vatican II Church is heretical. Francis is an antipope.

>>848080

it's not my view of the church it's a direct quote from the catechism you can't reject it and not be a protestant

>>848082

>>848083

it means larpers that sin or not being saved doesn't land you in hell according to our doctrine, it lands you in purgatory, only excessive or mortal sins land you in hell

>>848085

I say "you" as in you and your church

We are having communication problems. I only wanted to point out that there are places where the rcc claimed to be the only way to heaven

>>848086

>>848084

sedevacantists and those not in communion with the pope are creating confusion when they claim to be Catholics rather than rightly calling themselves protestants

>>848087

Protestantism has a specific meaning. Sedes are not with us.

>>848090

there is no "us" you're no different from that American guy whose mom declared him pope and he and his mom declared that he was the rightful ruler of the holy sea

>>848091

I'm a baptist

Baptists are Protestants

Sedevecantists are not my Protestant fellows

>>848093

oh sorry, I was arguing with the two guys claiming to be Catholic and I mixed you guys up

>>848095

That's OK buddy

>>848084

Fair enough. If you want to dismiss your own church, it's no skin off my back.

Enjoy a Charles Wesley hymn.

>>848051

>catholic starts a thread about being nice to protestants

>other catholics bully OP

Thanks anon. I hope we'll see each other in heaven :)

>>848057

This is a mistaken idea. Pope Pius IX declared that it is an error to say that "Everyone is free to embrace and profess that he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion

"In the worship of any religion whatsoever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation"

Ergo, in at least SOME protestant religions you cannot find salvation.

Also Pope Pius IX declared this is an error:

"We must have at least good hope Concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Catholic Church of Christ".

This means even those who have fooled themselves into thinking that their protestant church can lead them to salvation are probably lost.

It's all trash. Denoms are designed to pigeonhole you into psyop programs. You'd be surprised at the number of priests involved in the CIA and pastors involved in masonry.

>>848460

Saying that protestants will not go to hell and that people outside of the church will not all go to hell is not the same as saying all religions are equal.

The catechism says both, that the church is the one true church, that there is no salvation outside of the church but that non Catholics can also get into heaven.

For goodness sake I even linked the passage. Learn about your faith before you go out and correct others

Also love this song

>>848453

I've noticed that a lot of Catholics on the chan boards are people who like our traditionalism but haven't experienced the faith. That is they don't say the rosary, they don't go to a mass and receive the eucharist, they don't go to confession, etc. I thought it would be an easy mission field because they say they are already interested in the faith but I'm discovering it's difficult because they actually reject the faith in that they reject the papacy, everything in the church since Vatican II and much of our faith's established principles.

>>848482

Can confirm. I've been a Catholic since birth and at one period in my life attended mass even daily. Nucats just don't want to convert. They want to extract what info they think is useful from the religion but not actually believe or practice it.

>>848500

If you read the bible properly or do research on the early origional church you'd see that both point to Catholicism

for one example John 20:23 doesn't make sense without the Catholic church

>>848502

John 20:23 is respecting church discipline. The overseers of the church ultimately decide whether a person is in the communion of the church or not, and Christ conferred them that authority here.

Related passages to this are where he predicted his giving them of this authority. Consider:

Matthew 16:19

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:15-18

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Therefore, considering these teachings of Christ, the "sins" being forgiven here are trespasses made against the church. The Pastors decide whether to retain or forgive them, and consequently whether the person is under church discipline or not. But for sins against God, God alone forgives.

As it is written in yet another passage on church discipline, 1 Corinthians 5:

"But them that are without God judgeth."

And also in 1 John 1:9

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

And regarding sins against the individual, here is what Jesus taught:

Matthew 18:21-22

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

>>848505

>John 20:23 is respecting church discipline.

that's not what it says

>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

full verse

>So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

If you are reading church disicpline there you area not reading the words of the text

He is giving the power to

1. forgive sins

2. withold forgiveness for certain sins

Does a Baptist papstor and church counsil have that power

>>848506

>>848505

Also that Matthew 16 verse you quoted

>And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

does a Baptist church and church counsel have the power to bind in earth and heaven on top of the ability to forgive or withhold forgiveness

>>848506

Read my full post.

>the "sins" being forgiven here are trespasses made against the church. The Pastors decide whether to retain or forgive them, and consequently whether the person is under church discipline or not. But for sins against God, God alone forgives.

This is the power to bind and loose that is so often spoken about in Scripture. The church leadership, which are the Pastors, πρεσβυτέροις, ἐπισκοπῆς, bishops, or whatever other words you use to identify them will be responsible for ultimately deciding who is within the communion and who is banned from or excommunicated from the communion of the church. For example, read 1 Corinthians 5.

"11 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. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

>Does a Baptist papstor and church counsil have that power

I do not respect church councils, only Biblical leadership based on the model of the New Testament. The Pastor, overseer, etc. is the office which ultimately determines whether someone is still in communion or not, and this is how trespasses are handled.

>does a Baptist church and church counsel have the power to bind in earth and heaven on top of the ability to forgive or withhold forgiveness

The church itself is supposed to follow the decision of the leadership of the church. Christ is the head of the church, and he conferred the authority to decide who is retained in the communion to those who are overseers, Pastors, bishops. There are no such things as "church councils." The power to bind in earth and heaven is the same thing as this, according to Matthew 18:15-18, as you can see there.

Matthew 18:15-18

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

See the part where the church is either in communion with someone or not, and how this is referred to as binding and loosing. It's the same thing as forgiving or retaining trespasses against the church. But if one seeks forgiveness for trespasses or sins against God, they must obtain it from God, for He alone forgives. And that is the answer for John 20:23. He gave permission to the Pastors of His church to be the ones to determine whether trespasses against the church are retained or not, and whether or not someone is in communion with the church. This explains John 20:23.

>>848509

>>848509

>sins" being forgiven here are trespasses made against the church

That's ridiculous. Why would Jesus speak in a way that causes so much confusion and why would everyone in christiandom miss this until the reformation?

If you really believe in sola scripture - reading scripture alone without adding stuff you'll see Jesus is instituting confession

>verse mean dis

>no verse mean dis

Thrilling debate.

>>848544

Glad you liked it.

>>848628

It was even more enjoyable than drowning in sewage.

>>848053

Audrey Assad is a Catholic actually!

* I am saying this with Love behind my words, not to accuse you, but to ask you to think about what you say and what you believe.

- "Catholic" is capitalized, but "protestants" is not. Happened twice, so it wasn't a typo. Shows disrespect and superiority.

- Us vs them.

- "serious errors in schism" started when the first Pope (who wasn't Peter by the way) declared himself to be the Vicar of Christ and declared Mary (Yeshua's mother) to be an intercessor. We need no intercession to Christ! We have direct access to Jesus Christ which is why He came as Son of Man.

- "I hope one day all Christiandom can be united again" No need to hope. It is certainty. Please read Revelation 19 and onward.

* Wake up dear. You believe what you have been told. It's time to take the red pill. It is more important for you to discover The Truth than to sing while deluding yourself that being Catholic is more important than being Christian.

>>851928

>Yeshua's

Sorry, who is Yeshua?

>>851932

Yeshua is the name Jesus in Hebrew.

>>851932

Probably the name of a demon the jews want to convince you is Jesus.

>>851956

not him, but

>Jeremiah is not the same name as Jeremias

it is

>nor is Elijah the same as Elias

it is

>I won't have you changing the name of Christ when Philippians 2:11 clearly states what name it is, nor any other name for that matter. That name is Jesus.

So are Arab Christians praying to a false christ when they call him Yasu? What about Syriac Christians who call him Isho?

Another fake catholic leading souls to hell.

>>851959

>So are Arab Christians praying to a false christ when they call him Yasu? What about Syriac Christians who call him Isho?

If you want I can give you the greek spelling with the 'i' and the optional nu at the end if you wish. (Already expected this answer and it is wrong.)

>>851952

It isn't, His name in both the Aramaic Pes—ta and the Hebrew Talmud is Yeshu (Yeshu -> Yesu + Greek nominative case ending -s). There was not a single text that called Him Yeshua until the modern state of Israel was established.

>>851969

>optional nu

I don't think you understand what that means. The optional nu is a phonological feature of Ancient Greek where an -n can be added to the end of some grammatical formations when the next word begins with a vowel to prevent two vowels being next to each other. However in the Koine Greek of the Bible, the nu is typically included in all cases.

Ιησους (Iêsous) is a singular noun and so cannot have an optional nu because it is not a verb or a dative plural. Its accusative - Ιησουν (Iêsoun) does contain an n, as all Ancient Greek singular accusatives do, but this is not a nu in the grammatical/phonological sense or optional, and is simply the accusative case.

But I believe your lack of understanding of Greek is what is causing your belief. As I stated above, the -s in the name of Jesus is not actually a part of the name, and is merely the nominative case marker. This is the same with Jeremias and Elias, where the -s is not a part of the name I.e. the actual names are Jeremia and Elia.

It should also be noted that Jesus in English is pronounced completely differently to its correct Latinate, Ancient, and modern Greek pronunciations. So if you're arguing any variation of Jesus is false except the original Ιησους, then the name Jesus is also false and you should cease using it.

>>852170

>Actually that would be the movable nu. I said optional, which has a far broader meaning. But again, wouldn't expect you to understand this or to grasp the point at hand here.

You're actually retarded, the word Ιησους cannot contain a movable nu, and an optional nu and movable nu are synonyms. Please learn what you are talking about.

>Leaving out the diacritics? You're killing me. You need to add the smooth breathing mark Ἰησοῦς and the circumflex or you're not even speaking a foreign language whatsoever. All you're doing is vomiting up indecipherable gibberish letters. If you're not presenting every single thing with its complete conjugation table, nobody on earth is going to know what you're talking about or take you seriously.

What even is this autism. The earliest Bibles did not use diacritics, and neither did the Church Fathers. And you can't conjugate a noun, please learn what you're talking about.

>So again, the s or the nu being present or not is in no way affecting what I am and have been saying here. Clearly, those are all spellings present, and that's not even getting into nomina sacra for Jesus.

Again, there can be no movable nu in a singular noun. Please learn what you are talking about. But you argument was that Jeremiah and Ieremias are different, when in reality they are the same except for the latter having the Greek case marker.

>But you should probably be aware that the transliterated names of the prophets are not actually the same as the Greek forms, and they even occur distinctly in the case of Jeremiah. Comp. Matth. 2:17, 27:9 (Ἰερεμίου Ἰερεμίου - transliterated)

Are you being serious? You literally don't have a clue about Greek do you? The genitive of every masculine and neuter noun ends in ου, and Ἰερεμίου is just the genitive form of Ιερμιας. It's not a different transliteration, it's how Greek declension works. Please educate yourself.

>Acts 7:11, 13:9 (Χανάαν Χανάαν - transliterated) with Matth. 15:22 (Χανααναῖος).

Are you retarded? Χανάαν and Χανααναῖος are not synonyms, the former means Canaan and the later means Canaanite. This is like saying German and Germany are different transliterations.

>Comp. also John 1:38 (Ῥαββί - transliterated) with John 20:16 (Ῥαββουνι)

These are not different transliterations, they come from different Hebrew words - רבי and רבוני‎

>the non-Greek that some other person made which according to them says Yeshua

I already explained that this name is false, but not for the reasons you give. You made your autistic bulls— post in regards to someone asking about the Arabic version of Yasu, which is an equal descendant of the actual name. But you rejected it as it was not Ιησους. Your issue was not with Yeshua, but with all variations of Ιηεσους.

Please educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_nu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_conjugation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension

>>852367

Brutal

>>852367

>What even is this autism. The earliest Bibles did not use diacritics, and neither did the Church Fathers. And you can't conjugate a noun, please learn what you're talking about.

I never said that you could.

Again, where did I say that, quote, "every variation of Jesus is false except the original Ιησους." I never said it. In the above post, you specifically accused me of it. The rest of this is just straw men of things that were never said.

>I.e. the actual names are Jeremia and Elia.

Nope lol. Not according to every single topical dictionary and encyclopedia on the subject.

>The earliest Bibles did not use diacritics

It doesn't matter whether or not this is true because you do not have them. The manuscripts do. But I see that you miss the entire point of my highlighting your irrational fixation on grammatical rules as an attempt to ad hominem. You miss the original point of my post. You sperging out about the (actually correct) use of the term "optional nu" has nothing to do with my original point entirely.

>But you rejected it as it was not Ιησους.

Then you fail at reading comprehension. Don't tell me what I did or did not reject. I know that better than you.

>Your issue was not with Yeshua, but with all variations of Ιηεσους.

I specifically said it is not though. I specifically stated in my post before you that the original spelling is relevant. The word is sometimes spelled with a nu at the end, and sometimes not. You get that, right? If not, then disagree with that.

>>852369

Missing charity.

>>852376

That too