[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. - 1 Peter 4:14
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


| Rules | Meta | Log | The Gospel |

File: 27d82d68f6c58a5⋯.jpg (17.16 KB,400x400,1:1,1563427992787.jpg)

2ad35d No.10334 [Last50 Posts]

I was alone in a café in Fatima drinking my Fanta when I noticed a group of Catholic preppies (5 boys and 2 girls) sitting next to me drinking beer and bantering among themselves. One of them was wearing a medallion of Our Lady and was going on and on about how the communists are ruining the Church and how the "fags" are destroying the sanctity of marriage and so on. I thought to myself:

>"Nice, a fellow Traditional Catholic who isn't afraid to call out the reprobates".

I joined them after a while and we started talking about the moral degradation of the Church, the homosexual priests, the people being pro-abortion and female ordination and so on and, at some point, I turned to them and said:

>"Fags are a danger to the Church, that's true. But we need to remind ourselves that the first phenomenon that contributed to the desacralization of the Holy Matrimony was not fags getting married but the acceptance of divorce. In my opinion, and this is backed up by the catechism of the Catholic Church, a divorced man is as much as a degenerate as a homosexual".

Then there was a strange silence and I knew I done goofed. Dude got up and punched me in the nose:

>"Who are you calling a degenerate, you FRICKing queer? Get out of here!"

I threw my Fanta at him and we scuffled a bit until one of his friends grabbed me and brought me outside. Turns out 3 of them, 2 boys and 1 girl, were divorced. I swear none of them was older than 35.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2337fd No.10336

divorce and remarriage is fine with traditional western catholics now, only people age 70+ remember when it was a problem.

The catholic divorce rate (%) in the west is the same as with atheists.

If you want to go to the trouble and pay the money you can get an annulment. The RCC issues over 20,000 annulments per year just in the USA. You can be married for 10 years, have two kids, and sleep in the same bed every night and the church will issue an annulment saying you were never married. It does not even technically make the kids bastards in the church anymore.

This way the wife can get remarried and have kids, not sure if the annulment restores her virginity in the eyes of The Church or not

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10338

>>10336

Less than 340 Annulments were given the US even in 1968. Before that, we could say that from Apostolic times, only about a couple thousand were given. Catholicism was willing to lose England on this very principle. And as if liberalism hasn't attacked Protestantism?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2337fd No.10339

>>10338

That's so wild, 24,000 were given out last year just in the USA alone

And Francis wants to make it easier and cheaper for people with less paperwork. Why would they be willing to say a couple who got married and lived together for 10 years with kids were never married? What is their motivation behind this? It's not like Jesus is going to think they were never married.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/08/pope-francis-is-reforming-the-catholic-churchs-marriage-annulment-process/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.97cd174fdbd5

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10340

>>10339

Yeah, annulments don't fool God. Christ is clear on what exactly constitutes adultery. Rabbi Bergoglio is wants to extinguish any remnant of Catholicism that hasn't been modernized. He needs to be stopped.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fe618e No.10341

>>10340

It's crazy. What are they going to do "yeah St. Peter I was totally not married look at this form I filed out, please pay no attention to my marriage vows"

just as valid as this these days:

https://8ch.net/christianity/res/9805.html

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

462d62 No.10342

>>10339

A couple that lived together, but didn't have kids, was never really married, because marriage isn't about feelings, which change day to day, it's about kids, which hopefully last longer than the parents. The idea that marriage is about feelings was the first insult to marriage that facilitated divorce.

Many couples, who think they're married or not, are fornicating with contraceptives.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fe618e No.10343

>>10342

wat, it's about marriage vows and the sacrament of marriage anon. You get up and swear to stay together for life in front of god and everyone for a reason

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10346

What you said was wrong and he was right to be upset. Divorce is wrong and always unacceptable, but not equally degenerate as sodomy. You conflated him with faggots.

He shouldn't have hit you though, and none of them should have been socially drinking alcohol.

You should not have fought with the divorcee if it wasn't self defense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fe618e No.10347

>>10346

t.has hellbound family who are divorcees and is coping

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10350

>>10347

Nobody in my family is divorced.

Read again, "divorce is wrong and always unacceptable".

I just know what Romans 1 says.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8586fc No.10351

>>10334

For *whatever* reason, people who believe that good deeds get them to heaven are a lot less "good" than people who believe that good deeds are not required.

Reminds one of "he who knows everything knows he knows nothing"

Maybe it could be rephrased for us as "he who is truly good knows that he is not good at all"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e5f71b No.10363

>>10334

breddy funneee

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9d1ea8 No.10368

>>10334

>I threw my Fanta at him

Beta move. You should have punched that degenerate back.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

66948f No.10375

>drinking soda

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10376

So let me get this straight, it's not just that re-marriage is wrong, divorce is wrong too?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10377

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10382

>>10377

Sorry but I'm Catholic and according to my research, divorce is not a sin.

OP had no justified reason to call divorcees "degenerates" (let alone compare them in their sinfulness to homosexuals)

>>10334

OP, post your sources for why you believe divorce is just as bad as sodomy. You may be completely in the wrong here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10383

>>10382

Okay, don't believe a concise pan-scriptural explanation from that site, read Jesus' words yourself:

Matt 19

<3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So, "except for immorality", or "except for sexual immorality", or "save for fornication"; divorce is sin. I agree that this isn't degeneracy equivalent to sodomy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10388

>10383

>So, "except for immorality", or "except for sexual immorality", or "save for fornication"; divorce is sin.

Why do people ALWAYS say this? Take your argument to its conclusions. If that was true, all I'd need to do to get rid of a wife I don't like is commit adultery. That, of course, makes zero sense and could not be what Christ meant. He meant separation not "divorce".

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10389

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

833a96 No.10391

Catholics are pure evil. Every single one of them. Even Tolkein.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10392

>>10388

>Why do people ALWAYS say this?

Becuase Jesus said it

>If that was true, all I'd need to do to get rid of a wife I don't like is commit adultery.

The one permitted to initiate divorce is the victim in the case of adultery

>He meant separation not "divorce"

Divorce literally means separation. yes, I'm using "literally" correctly here

>>10391

calm down

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

833a96 No.10394

I am very calm. Be blessed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10404

>>10392

The implication, though, is that one is free to marry/no longer married. Which is not true.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

810e3e No.10405

>>10404

The implication of what?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10406

File: 55cd1763e88aaa3⋯.png (150.9 KB,374x363,34:33,cuck pepe.png)

>>10336

>divorce and remarriage is fine with traditional western catholics now, only people age 70+ remember when it was a problem.

I didn't want to extend myself in the OP but stuff like this is making me reconsider Catholicism. When even the so-called Traditionals are OK with stuff that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. Divorce used to be something scandalous, something people talked about with shame. It feels like the Traditionals 200 years from now will be defending female priests as part of the tradition and saying "Robot priests are an abomination!!".

>This way the wife can get remarried and have kids, not sure if the annulment restores her virginity in the eyes of The Church or not

Frankly, I think women who marry and are not virgins should be, by law, forbidden to wear white. That's how Trad I am and I feel so alone in a world of reprobates. Where do I turn? It's not like most protestants and orthodox are any better. What happened to SHAME?!

>>10338

>>10339

Those numbers are absolutely wild. I had no idea. And the ease with which the Church offers annulments? It's like they're giving out candy.

>“Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”

- Matthew 19:9

God hates a deceitful, treacherous divorce. He will personally hold accountable those who frivolously leave their mate, especially when they do so with the motive of taking another partner. (Malachi 2:13-16; Mark 10:9)

I feel like a sucker, like I take stuff more seriously than it needs to. How come everyone is so OK with divorce when the Bible explicitly condemns it?!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10408

>>10342

A person who can't have kids is no less married that those who can. But I agree with the sentiment that marriage is mostly for procreation and not feels.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10412

>>10346

>Divorce is wrong and always unacceptable, but not equally degenerate as sodomy.

What makes divorce totally unacceptable in my view, besides being an insult to God, is the extreme suffering and pain it causes to children. They grow up feeling unworthy and unloved and they become cold-hearted cynics who repeat the same process in their adult years. To me, divorce is worse than homosexuality, unless we're talking about fags adopting children. No one cares about the suffering of children and it pisses me off. We abort unwanted children, we bring children into the world without them having access to their biological parents because some 40+ year old career woman with her womb totally polluted wants to "experience motherhood" and so pays some poor woman to carry a baby for her. Complete depravity! So please don't defend the divorced saying it's less degenerate than faggotry. IT'S NOT LESS DEGENERATE! It's wrong and twisted and I'm sick of it!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f6a3a3 No.10415

>>10406

opc.org

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10416

File: 924d6c234180bd7⋯.png (23.1 KB,781x155,781:155,Matthew 19-6.png)

>>10376

>>10382

My source is that God said "What God has brought together, let no man separate" (Matthew 19:6).

My source is that we say "Till death do us apart" in our vows.

DOES THAT MEAN NOTHING?! Do you seriously believe some legalistic mumbo-jumbo is going to fool Saint Peter?

This is something I notice with a lot of Catholics and it's seriously starting to get on my nerves: "Oh, I can sin all I want, then I confess to the Priest and I'm clean and good for another round". It's like they are joking or something. I'm not saying people should go around with fear of committing sins, we are all fallible, but at least show some contrition. Show some repentance.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e5f71b No.10438

>>10416

all this seems rather moot, since 50% of christian men are incel in christ.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

470794 No.10537

>>10346

A sin is a sin and a degenerate is a degenerate. I personally dislike faggots more but both faggots and divorcees are going to hell if they don't repent.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d2e1eb No.10546

File: bfbad6fa4cd5bfe⋯.jpg (54.63 KB,648x272,81:34,TLMvsNO.jpg)

File: f3080d55ad0f0fb⋯.png (673.3 KB,1883x1029,269:147,OrientationMass.png)

File: a64ade381248d04⋯.jpg (327.19 KB,567x700,81:100,NewOrder.jpg)

File: a628b626de45b8d⋯.jpg (602.8 KB,2048x1368,256:171,highmasschurch.jpg)

>>10406

>When even the so-called Traditionals are OK with stuff that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago.

What manner of Traditional Catholics are you talking about? The only Traditional Catholics are those who view the Novus Ordo as an abomination. Don't listen to ANYONE that goes to the Novus Ordo "mass"–moving on,

Traditional Catholics, from the very beginning, have held 3 essential principles:

1. Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass. Stay home on Sunday if no Tridentine Mass available.

2. Seek out SURE sacraments in "lifeboats": valid priests to offer both the Tridentine Mass and traditional Sacraments, and support them wherever they are, even at independently set up "Traditional chapels" which Rome considers "illicit" or "un-canonical". Treat them for all practical purposes like one's local parish.

3. Believe "I don't need permission from the Pope, or Modernist Rome, to stay Catholic". That is, believe in supplied jurisdiction for Mass and ALL sacraments, and have NO scruples about attaching oneself to, and fully supporting, such Trad chapels and building them up.

Those elements are common to 100% of Traditional Catholics, past or present, from the very beginning in 1970. Anyone who scruples about going to Confession to a Trad priest because he doesn't have official jurisdiction or faculties from the local Bishop, for example, is not a Trad. He might be conservative, but if he doesn't understand that Catholics have a right to keep their Faith, and a need for the Sacraments, they have a lot to learn and therefore are not yet "Traditional Catholic".

For example, the FSSP:

Since part of their essence is "approval/permission from Rome" they are technically not Trad, since such approval was not part of the Trad package from the beginning. But more importantly, it actually contradicts principle #3, above. From the beginning of the movement in the 1970's, getting permission from Rome was certainly NOT one of the elements of the Traditional movement. So the FSSP is a new kind of conservative Catholic at best ("Indult Catholic"? "Latin Mass Catholic"?).

While Sedevacantists ALSO added another element to the Traditional manifesto, "4. The putative pope is not pope at all.", this is different in two main ways:

1. A good number of Trads believed this from the beginning. It was there, just not universal. So they are a specific sub-type of Trad, rather than SOMETHING OTHER THAN Trad.

2. Their additional belief doesn't contradict Trad principles 1-3.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=N0cBA0kOGFc

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_A3iVQixyTg

Here is where you can find a Mass near you:

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

021e9b No.10549

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>10546

Tell me, does this IN ANY WAY resemble the Novus Ordo? The answer: not at all. They're not the same religion.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10559

File: b360c2d95f173e6⋯.jpg (117.17 KB,1046x915,1046:915,b360c2d95f173e6170fec7f427….jpg)

>>10546

My problem is that I don't want to be animated by a spirit of rebellion. I spent so many years of my life thinking I knew better than anyone else and a great part of my conversion to Catholicism was putting my faith in what the Church teaches. But the more I read, the angrier I get. I feel like something beautiful was taken from us. And I'm still struggling with if it was deliberate to destroy the Church from within or if it was a bad decision trying to attract the secular world that backfired immensely.

The are a few FSSP masses where I live but it's only once a month.

>>10549

That video is beautiful. Almost drove me to tears. Makes me so angry knowing that's what the Holy Mass used to be like. The music is divine, the ritual is ordered, no women in the pew but you can hear their voices and they are angelic… everything is in its right place. Everyone plays their part in the natural order of things. There is no confusion, no rebellion, no anger at God like we see in Novus Ordo. By anger at God I mean people taking Communion without confessing first or asking "Why can't women be priests?" and so on.

(((They))) really did a number on Catholicism, didn't they? They showed absolutely no mercy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10562

>>10416

The Church does not see divorce as a sin therefore it's not a sin. You are deeming divorce to be a sin based off of your own individualistic interpretation of the scripture. There's no way the Church has not considered your sources before concluding to leave divorce as a non-sin so it must not be a sin.

What "legalistic mumbo-jumbo" are you referring to here? If you're referring to the phenomenon of people who were married, lived together and had kids together then having their marriage annulled, that would be understandable but I think you're talking about divorce in which case, I think that if you disregard the Church's judgement of divorce as a non-sin, you are pridefully asserting your own interpretation of the scripture above all of the theologians who have come before you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10582

File: a6034b02130c0ac⋯.webm (3.58 MB,720x720,1:1,Implicit Faith.webm)

>>10559

>a great part of my conversion to Catholicism was putting my faith in what the Church teaches

sounds like implicit faith

see how the defensive catholic reasons: >>10562

>The Church does not see divorce as a sin therefore it's not a sin

>You are deeming divorce to be a sin based off of your own individualistic interpretation of the scripture

>There's no way the Church has not considered your sources before concluding to leave divorce as a non-sin so it must not be a sin

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1c72f5 No.10586

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>10559

It's astounding how different the Catholic religion is from before 1958 to present day. Pray for a restoration of the Mass of All Time. I'm guessing that other anon was opposed to the FSSP because they have to accept the Novus Ordo, but any Tridentine Mass is better than a Novus Ordo. Here are some more sites that can help you:

https://www.latinmassdir.org

http://ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

http://www.latinliturgy.com/lmdirectory.html

http://www.latinmasstimes.com/

https://fsspx.org/en/content/5925

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10600

>>10582

What's wrong with implicit faith? What's wrong with trusting the decisions made by the wiser minds that have come before me?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bca4ed No.10602

>>10334

Why are you fighting with our brothers and sisters in Christ? You're going to be with them for eternity, so why engage in fighting back when Paul and even Jesus never fought back? His own Jewish brothers and sisters would try to hurt him, he would just hide away/run away. Get along kids!!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10604

>>10600

Simply, it's wrong. It's intellectual laziness, deferring your obligation to work out matters of doctrine to someone else.

God gave you hundreds of pages of holy scripture and commanded you to study it. Where does this leave room for implicit faith? Why would you need to study the primary source if all you needed was to just affirm whatever Rome says about Mary, or salvation, or the end times?

What I am not saying is to disregard the opinions of churches and theologians, I'm saying that the proper modus is to consider their explanation of a doctrine and follow what's consistent with scripture.

Suppose you weren't sure if calvinism is true or not. Your pastor teaches against calvinism, and you have cause to trust his methods of interpreting scripture. If someone asked, "is calvinism true?", implicit faith would be "No, and I know because my pastor says so". A proper response is "I don't think so. My pastor teaches against it but I don't understand it fully."

Roman catholics on 8chan tend to have the first one, implicit faith. You see it any time a discussion is initiated and the answer is just an assertion that the church teaches "x", or "pray the rosary harder". They do this because they're zealous, but at the expense of reason.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10612

File: e75e7131199e7fb⋯.jpg (29.27 KB,345x400,69:80,pepe crusader.jpg)

>>10562

>The Church does not see divorce as a sin therefore it's not a sin.

That doesn't sit right with me. I'm not saying it's wrong but I definitely have to read and meditate on it a little better.

I have two questions that are asked in bona fine and would love some answers. These are:

1) In Exodus 20:4-5 it says

>“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God."

Doesn't this mean that statues of Our Lord Jesus and of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints are a form of idolatry, according to the Scriptures? I understand that we do NOT worship these statues but we do in fact bow down to them. Many Catholics also pray to statues. Is there any argument besides the "venerate ≠ worship" argument?

2) In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 it says:

>"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Doesn't this imply that the only mediator between ourselves and The Father is The Son, Jesus Christ? Why do we then pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, who are not referred to in the Scriptures as mediators?

The Catechism states, in Canon 82:

>"The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."

This implies that Holy Tradition is EQUAL in worth to the Scriptures, complementing it.

As to praying to the Virgin Mary [and the Saints], in Canon 2677, it reads:

>"Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "and why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done." Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. and our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care."

My internal conflict has to do with the fact that, one thing is for Sacred Tradition to be based upon and complementary of Scripture, but it seems to me that far from complementing Scripture, we are placing Tradition ABOVE Scripture and in fact supplanting it.

I know, and everyone knows, that it's just a matter of TIME until female priests and married priests are authorized by the Church. Will you extend your "The Church says divorce isn't a sin therefore divorce isn't a sin" sentiment when that eventually happens? And please don't tell me it will never happen, that would be throwing sand in my eyes. I'm not blind, I can see where the Church is going.

Of course if you were to reject those future implementations, you'd be going against the Church, incurring in (technically) schismatic behavior.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10614

>>10604

The main argument that, for me, legitimizes the authority of the Church is that the Church was the institution that compiled the books of the Bible, separating what it perceives to be divinely-inspired Gospel from non-divinely-inspired Gospel. Without that authority, how do I know that, for instance, the Gnostic gospels, among other gospels, aren't also legitimate? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? There were lots of books that were left out of the Bible because they weren't perceived to be valid.

Of course the argument that the Church became corrupt isn't alien to me, but Jesus said "The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church".

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

669208 No.10615

File: 0d87e15e39a025d⋯.png (593.84 KB,1024x643,1024:643,diet of worms.png)

>>10612

>My internal conflict has to do with the fact that, one thing is for Sacred Tradition to be based upon and complementary of Scripture, but it seems to me that far from complementing Scripture, we are placing Tradition ABOVE Scripture and in fact supplanting it.

Time to reform my friend.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3b718d No.10616

>>10604

>Why can't you trust the teachings of very learned and self-evidently holy men such as the Church Fathers (as transmitted through church teaching) when their own intellect and insight into scripture is vastly greater than my own could ever be?

<Because then you won't be an intellectual

So then that explains why Christ said "Nothing intellectually lazy shall pass heaven's gates" and the famous line "No one comes to the Father but through perfect theology and intense personal study of the scriptures." Your argument fails because firstly, most Christians through all time were literally illiterate and even if they weren't there was no way to produce sufficient bibles for them all to study.

Secondly, most people even in the Western world lack the mental hardware to competently comprehend extremely limited literature on readthrough, you think they could ever possibly begin to properly interpret scripture (if they could even make it through it)? Personal interpretation overruling sense is how you get compounding errors and the kind of mangled parodies of the faith you find in Africa, along with the proliferation of LGBTQBRAAP affirming anti-churches in the western world. Every man being a master of his personal canon is folly and invites pilpul; it takes an exceptional intellect to begin to have a "solid" firsthand theology, and a generational intellect to have a "strong" one which can answer any of a multitude of objections easily (I count you as well as myself squarely NOT in this category). How could it be necessary to study the word yourself to be a good Christian when for most people it is literally not possible? Satan has greater specific knowledge of God than any mere human ever could, hence perfect and well founded theology is not necessary for salvation if anyone be saved.

And the position you're arguing against isn't a case of implicit faith in the Church anyway, the Church doesn't teach that divorce isn't a sin, therefore having implicit faith in the Church's teaching would have one reach the correct conclusion by your own standard.

I must say it is slightly comical for someone to be a Christian and argue against implicit faith when one of the central messages of Christianity is to trust implicitly that God cares for you and will save you in the end, no matter how hard things seem. What concrete evidence had Job, but for his implicit faith, that his suffering wasn't for naught?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f4bb24 No.10619

File: 35d2bd7c546fd4e⋯.png (114.73 KB,714x1871,714:1871,Screenshot_2019-08-01 New ….png)

>>10614

Yes I get what you're trying to say, you don't have a refutation for the single most tired Roman Catholic talking point.

The canon isn't made the authoritative word of God because the church says so, it was the word of God from the moment of writing. What the church did was to decide by scholarly debate which books are to be seen as divinely inspired. That decision is also not correct because of the decree of the church, but stands or falls on the reasons. We have full certainty that the gnostic gospels are illegitimate because of their content, which is supplemented by church history.

It was also not so black and white as most e-catholics try to assert. The apocrypha wasn't even finally canonized until the counter reformation.

>but Jesus said "The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church"

The church, not Rome.

>>10616

You're misunderstanding the criticism. Listen to the webm again, if you did the first time.

The eschatological Christian hope is not implicit in the sense we're using here, we hope for the things to come because we have a cause. Job likewise had cause to trust God, that was the entire point of the book. The example of Job is trusting God in the face of adversity, rooting yourself in the knowledge of God, not blindly appealing to an unknown God.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

021e9b No.10624

File: c322f29c33f9c27⋯.jpg (187.66 KB,854x1200,427:600,CatholicProtestantcontext.jpg)

File: db873749929444a⋯.png (423.66 KB,738x506,369:253,PastorJim2.png)

File: 47d5f06325b8275⋯.jpg (67.73 KB,564x960,47:80,pastorjim.jpg)

File: 965971763d536fc⋯.png (1002.69 KB,1169x833,167:119,iconiclasmm.png)

>>10604

>Simply, it's wrong. It's intellectual laziness, deferring your obligation to work out matters of doctrine to someone else.

Pictures related.

>God gave you hundreds of pages of holy scripture and commanded you to study it

Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, never commanded His Apostles to write, nor did He ever write.

>Why would you need to study the primary source if all you needed was to just affirm whatever Rome says about Mary, or salvation, or the end times?

Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and teaches with His authority, anything the Church says, Jesus says.

“He who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.”

Furthermore,

>>6577

>>10612

Divorce IS a sin. Don't listen to anyone that says otherwise.

>Doesn't this mean that statues of Our Lord Jesus and of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints are a form of idolatry, according to the Scriptures

God explicitly commands the Israelites to portray Angels on the Ark of the Covenant and in their Temples. He does not break His own commandments. Iconoclasm is literally Muslim in its origins, and they even weren't originally iconoclastic.

>Why do we then pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, who are not referred to in the Scriptures as mediators?

They're mediators to the Son. Look, communion of the Saints is literally taught by Apostolic Fathers and in Scripture (in Isaiah 6 Seraph is the method God uses to give His grace, David prays to angels in the Psalms, the Apocalypse talks about the saints praying for us in Heaven), for example, Fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius were directly taught by Saint John the Apostle. So, Saint John had to be mistaken about communion of the saints… right. I wish I had that much faith in the fake protestant gospel. What's also pants-on-head absurd is that Protestants have an extreme Augustinian view of original sin (they love to point Isaiah 64:6/Romans 3:10) and yet they believe these humans can go directly to God. It's absurd considering the bedrock of their entire religion (false dialectic between fath/works). And there's the issue of their mutilated Bible, and so much more.

>The Catechism states, in Canon 82:

First of all, avoid these modernist catechisms. Look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Also, the Bible is a product of Tradition.

>I know, and everyone knows, that it's just a matter of TIME until female priests and married priests are authorized by the Church

Ontologically impossible for a woman to consecrate the Eucharist.

>I'm not blind, I can see where the Church is going.

I'm not sure you see it the way it actually is. The modernist boomers are on their deathbeds, these latest schemes are only because they know they're dying and that their Novus Ordite religion will go with them. Young Catholics are fond of tradition.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ae354 No.10625

>>10334

You're alright with me, and its ok with God. Well done, brother.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10629

>>10616

>>10624

How do you know what the Church's stance is on divorce and that it's supposedly a sin? I'd like to see your sources.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

65d284 No.10631

File: 45416adad635b2a⋯.jpg (7.92 KB,250x238,125:119,762F651C951A4579BAF44B2F53….jpg)

>>10624

>Protestants don't study the fathers

>Protestantism is relativist

ok kid

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8be801 No.10634

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa30b8 No.10729

>>10634

Thank you. Now I know that the Church does reject divorce.

>>10334

Sorry OP. You were right about divorce being wrong. Since it's against the natural law, you could even compare it to sodomy. Sorry.

>>10612

I'm sorry for confusing you about divorce. It is wrong according to the Church. My sincerest apologies.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ad35d No.10784

File: cf0dc4f3ac299e3⋯.png (57.2 KB,500x382,250:191,pepe wojak hug.png)

>>10729

No problem, my friend. We're both learning.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8586fc No.10789

>>10624

You don't read the ante-nicene fathers lol

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0e0aad No.12483

Do you know how retarded y'all sound to the NON-superstitious? Having fistfights and arguing over whose stupid irrelevant cult dogma is better? Here's a suggestion: Try reality, it's fun!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

68e0e7 No.12492

>>12483

Do you know how retarded y'all sound to the NON-materialists? Having fistfights and arguing over whose stupid irrelevant subjective morality is better. Here's a suggestion: Try history, it's fun!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

23439a No.12501

>>10334

Seperation isn't the same as Divorce and isn't the same as remarriage

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b9da89 No.12523

>>10334

What's the issue anon? You're literally correct.

Gay marriage is barely an issue compared to divorce, in terms of offenses to the sanctity of marriage.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9a8c68 No.12589

>>10334

John the baptist called out divorce as no good, and he was executed for it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2eddc3 No.12660

>>10334

This is why it's important to learn how to defend yourself. If that happened to me I would've suplexed that cunt and used some boxing on the other two queers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4af1a3 No.12661

>>10334

Accept the Hindu pill M8

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d50961 No.12689

>>12660

<“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1aa7a6 No.12881

>>10406

>I feel like a sucker, like I take stuff more seriously than it needs to

No that's just a decent reaction fueled by piety.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f7c1f3 No.12886

>>10394

t. seething

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]