/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>8265

The Jewnited States of Sodom never cease to amaze me.

>fruits of the reformation

>fruits of following scripture

>doing the opposite of what scripture says is caused by following scripture

How retarded are you OP?

>>8274

Don't you know? Anyone who claims to be Protestant is totally Protestant, but not anyone who claims to be Catholic is really Catholic.

That's why OP can post that, yet ignore that abominable practices found in some Papist churches, such as vid related.

Let's not forget the rampant sodomy and abuse that was covered up for decades by the Papist.

And I can already anticipate the objection: "Protties also abuse", "that doesn't count", "muh Pope".

Yes, there are pastors who have abused their congregants and engaged in sexual immmorality.

The only difference between them and a priest is that the pastor was arrested and imprisoned. What priest has actually faced the consequences of his crimes beyond being laicized and sent to a cushy retirement home to live in "penitence"?

>>8275

There was so much outrage over that that the priest resigned after there were complaints to the diocese

It's not that we're better than protestants in following the faith, it's that at least we have a working dicipline system to prevent some of the worst excesses we see in the prostestant church

Heck you and I both know if Martin Luther could see the protestant church today he would have taken back the reformation and stayed with the church

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/priest-resigns-after-outrage-over-allowing-ganesh-procession-in-a-church-in-spain-1511673.html

>>8283

>at least we have a working discipline system

>allow priests to engage in sodomy and abuse for decades

>once found out, shuffle them around to other parishes

>when you can't do that, put them in a "rehab" center or send them to live in "penitence"

>working discipline system

Don't worry, they're already letting priests marry with that Amazon thing. Female priests will be next. On the plus side, the rates of incontinence among altarboys will go down.

>>8283

Apples and oranges. "The protestant church" isn't an institution like "The Roman Catholic church".

Instead, compare LCMS to RCC, or the OPC to RCC if you want a fair comparison.

>>8285

that would be france

>>8283

So which is it, is there 30 gajillion different denominations with 40 bazillion popes or is there a monolithic Protestant of which this evil false Anglican minister is representative of all. Stop being such petty hypocrites when these evils occur.

Besides, instead of wasting time to fight against, by Biblical standards, a false practice in the Anglican church to as some kinda of penultimate exegetical psuedo-proof that any and all Protestant theology is wrong; you could use Biblically sanctioned means like proper exegesis of Scripture, evangelism, and right living to fight against the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing called liberalism.

As this is slander and false rage against the wrong group, you need to repent.

>>8313

Here bro I fixed your meme.

>>8325

"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

So….the Gates of Hell are going to prevail against Rome?

>>8329

I'm just saying, if Constantine could see it today he would have taken it back.

>>8325

Here's one of your own (unless you think he's not a True and Honest™ Tradical Catholic) on the La Salette business.

Spoiler alert: evidently it's not about the pope becoming "the seat of the antichrist" but some military leader.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction

>plenty of prots say that hardened sinners are still saved

Plenty of catholics say that abortion and sodomy are a-okay.

That doesn't discredit Romanism, that discredits those people as Romanists.

Much in the same way that self-professed Protestants say things that are blatantly contrary to scripture: they're discredited as Protestants.

As for your video, Dr. White brings up the same issue that I did: what do you mean by "active/practicing homosexual"?

Come back when he says "an active homosexual can be saved as long as he believes Sola Fide."

>>8335

>I know you Catholics don't like the Bible

>Papism was invented by Charlemagne

Never thought I'd see the day an Eastern Orthodox using Protestant banter.

>>8275

MIC DROP

I couldn't have said it better myself. The audacity of a papist to make this kind of thread is dumbfounding. At least the "protties" throw these scumbags out when they're caught. Does a papist really want to go toe to toe on this topic? LIKELY NOT!

>>8339

>Muslims and Mormons make the same argument.

That the real church was started by the Lord in the first century and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, while the Romanist state-church (or government-church) meanwhile was a spinoff started by Constantine which is not Biblical and has degenerated into thousands of splinter sects?

>>8339

>Go ahead and look at Our Lady of Good Events/Success

Already did. One apparition does not prove the whole of Romanism.

>Point is, they have excommunicated themselves

>they're not TRUE AND HONEST catholics, really!

Now, I don't know of ANY Protestant beyond meme-tier guys like NIFBs or heretical charismatics who say that you can believe and be entitled to sin.

Instead of dealing with the strongest of our arguments, you just act as if we're all Stephen Andersons waiting to drop some ridiculous statement so you can easily sweep it aside.

The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that we're to repent of our sins and avoid it. Here's some passages to demonstrate:

1 Corinthians 6: 15-20

>Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Ephesians 4:17-32

>Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. You did not so learn Christ!—assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need. Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

1 John 2: 1-6

>My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

If any self-professed Protestant believes they can sin with impunity just because they "believe", they'll be met with "Begone from me, you evildoers, I never knew you."

You can do better than this, anon. I don't seriously want to think that this is all you know about Protestant argumentation. Or, maybe it's all you care to know, since you're not concerned so much with actually debating our stronger points so much as giving off the Tradical vibe.

Either way, I doubt that anything I can say will change your mind (not that it's up to me, anyway).

Just know this, papist: I disagree vehemently with you, but I love you.

>>8344

>Yes,

Other people say that it's not Biblical and quote Matthew 16:18? Strange, I'm pretty sure only Christians do that.

>Constantine imposed "pagan" concepts like the Trinity. You are making a similar argument.

Really. You really think I said this?

Let's talk about the Trinity then. You seriously think that's not in Scripture? I'm very concerned for you if you truly think so. Because that's a very noticeable problem I've been seeing with many of you. In addition to all the idol worship.

>>8347

>they're not TRUE AND HONEST catholics, really!

I don't know what's not getting through to you. Do you know what a latae sententiae excommunication is?

>who say that you can believe and be entitled to sin.

…Luther?

>since you're not concerned so much with actually debating our stronger points so much as giving off the Tradical vibe.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and pretty devout in my faith. But I guess this just points to me being a teenage rebel and rejecting the faith of my parents… is what I guess many here would say. No, I just cannot square the Christianity of Apostolic Fathers with Protestantism. And, what do you know, many of these Apostolic Fathers have commentary on Scripture… showing the truth of the Catholic position.

>Just know this, papist: I disagree vehemently with you, but I love you.

u2

>>8348

As a Catholic, I am bound de fide to believe the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Tridentine Creed. So, I would never doubt the divine Truth of the Blessed Trinity.

>Really. You really think I said this?

Same reasoning, that Constantine established a new, pagan form of Christianity, which is incredulous.

>>8350

>Do you know what a latae sententiae excommunication is?

I'm aware, it's incurred when a Roman Catholic commits a particular sin and is automatically excommunicated, according to canon law.

I only make note of those types of Papists because it's hard to take the sentence seriously when there's no church discipline involved.

>…Luther?

Here's a website that clears up that infamous statement from Luther:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-be-sinner-and-let-your-sins-be.html

And if Luther meant what you meant, even he stands in judgement of the Scriptures.

The Reformers weren't infallible, just as the Church Fathers weren't infallible.

>I was raised Southern Baptist, and pretty devout in my faith. But I guess this just points to me being a teenage rebel and rejecting the faith of my parents… is what I guess many here would say. No, I just cannot square the Christianity of Apostolic Fathers with Protestantism. And, what do you know, many of these Apostolic Fathers have commentary on Scripture… showing the truth of the Catholic position.

Firstly, I have no reason to doubt your faith in the Roman system.

I wouldn't chalk it up to teenage rebellion moreso than I'd say you're enamored by the selected quotes from the Church Fathers and the aesthetics of Romanism. I understand the allure very well.

That being said, I didn't want to show my hand too soon, but it may add clarity to our discussion.

I was born and reared as a Papist. I was initially lukewarm, but experienced a radical awakening and became a traditionalist.

All the trappings: reading the fathers, listening to sensus fidelium/church militant/lifesite, praying the rosary as frequently as possible, pining for a return to the Latin Mass, debating Protestants, etc.

But as I read the Scriptures more and more, and encountered better Protestant arguments (particularly from the Reformed), my faith in Rome waned. There were things I couldn't square away (and to discuss them all in this thread, let alone this post, would take ages).

So, after a long, grueling, prayer-filled, and introspective time, I made the decision to leave Rome.

I still have books by the Church Fathers and read them. I still have the catechism and read it to stay fresh on what Rome teaches. But make no mistake–I am no Papist.

>u2

You're all right, anon. I'd happily buy you a beer or something and talk theology with you.

>>8360

When did you convert? If you don't mind my asking

>>8352

Catechisms are not infallible (though the most reliable is the Catechism of Trent) and nothing infallible has been proclaimed since the dogma of the Assumption. Is what you're quoting widely believed by Catholics today? Yes, but that's modernism for you.

>So you think I said it.

You said:

>the Romanist state-church (or government-church) meanwhile was a spinoff started by Constantine which is not Biblical and has degenerated into thousands of splinter sects

I think it'd be disingenuous to say the implication isn't that Catholicism originates from Constantine.

>>8360

>And if Luther meant what you meant, even he stands in judgement of the Scriptures.

Okay, but when the person that started the Reformation (I understand that you'd say it was restorationist, but the point is that he was behind it) is doomed to Hell, that's not exactly reassuring. I think most Protestants would agree that none of the 12 Apostles are in Hell, so it'd be strange that some of their direct successors (Ignatius, Polycarp) would be not only mistaken about the Scriptures, but so much so that they're in Hell.

>The Reformers weren't infallible, just as the Church Fathers weren't infallible.

Well, Catholics do have to say that the consensus of the Church Fathers means that something is infallible. But I understand your point.

>you're enamored by the selected quotes from the Church Fathers and the aesthetics of Romanism

Well, "select quotes" can be somewhat misleading… for example, the consensus of the Fathers is that there is a Purgatory, and Scripture (1 Corinthians 3:12-15, etc) can testify to it. One of my main issues is the Protestant canon, Protestants may retort that it was formally set at Trent, but that's untrue, Trent simply reaffirmed councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (417AD). Protestants tend to be a fan of Augustine, but he affirms the Catholic canon as well.

I will pray for you, friend.

>>8363

You have claimed that the Trinity is not found in Scripture but that it had to be originated in some fallible word of man later. But that's primally out of order with everything that our Lord says. It already exists in his Word.

The eternal, immutable Godhead, summed up in the concept of the Trinity is found consistent throughout the Bible, including of course the New Testament in absolute explicitness. The idea that it had to be formulated by some non-inspired person later is in itself objectionable.

The fact you really think that I said that the Trinity is a pagan concept really shines a light on where you're coming from. The fact you think God had to be introduced at all by anyone after the New Testament really shines a light on how little you understand of the fundaments of the word of God. And it implies you think it wasn't / isn't revealed in Scripture, which raises many many more questions.

And yes, I've also seen this claimed before. It's claimed by people who utterly don't know the first thing about what the Bible is talking about.

So that claim of yours, combined with already existing idolatry and other scripture nullification really draws out the distance between what you claim and true Biblical understanding as given by God unto his saints. And the one thing you can not prevail against is that: The word of God. So all you can do is downplay it and try to distract, bring in all kinds of fallible philosophizing that amounts to absolutely nothing because it's not based in scripture.

>I think it'd be disingenuous to say the implication isn't that Catholicism originates from Constantine.

No, you claimed I said that the Trinity is a pagan concept. That's absolutely false. The very implication that the one true God isn't found in the words of Scripture but that you have to resort to creeds is objectionable and suspicious.

>>8368

>Yes, they make the argument that early "Christians" were actually Mormon/Muslim, and that Constantine imposed "pagan" concepts like the Trinity. You are making a similar argument.

>You are making a similar argument.

Not the same argument. I put "pagan" in quotes because Muslims and Mormons believe the Trinity to be pagan, you and I know it's a divine Truth. Pretty much every Baptist says that Catholicism is pagan, do you disagree with that?

Most of your Pharisaical screed is pointless, I affirm the Creeds, and thus, the Trinity. In fact, the Creeds are _explicitly_ about Christology and the Godhead, something that Scripture contains and is used to prove, but non-Trinitarians still twist Scripture around to deny the Trinity.

>The idea that it had to be formulated by some non-inspired person later is in itself objectionable.

Councils are inspired.

>The fact you think God had to be introduced at all by anyone after the New Testament really shines a light on how little you understand of the fundaments of the word of God.

…But you seem to be a KJV-onlyist? I don't think you understand councils/infallible pronouncements in Catholicism. Something can only be infallible if it was believed to be an eternal truth/during Apostolic times.

>And the one thing you can not prevail against is that: The word of God

You deny the canon of Scripture.

>true Biblical understanding as given by God unto his saints

Yeah, the Fathers.

>The very implication that the one true God isn't found in the words of Scripture but that you have to resort to creeds is objectionable and suspicious.

How do you think people created the Creeds in the first place? Do you know the first thing about Church history? And how do you get me affirming that "the one true God isn't found in the words of Scripture" from my belief in the Creeds? Your chutzpah is outrageous.

This >>8327 is your idea of Church history, which is what I lampooned here >>8329

>>8370

>I know it's a divine Truth

You know what the difference between us is, anon? You know it's a divine truth because your pope, a mere man, told you to believe that. I know it's a divine truth because God Himself personally spoke it to me in His word.

>something that Scripture contains and is used to prove, but non-Trinitarians still twist Scripture around to deny the Trinity.

Do Protestants believe in the trinity because of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church or because of the testimony of scripture?

>Councils are inspired.

Do you realize that this would mean councils are direct and later revelations spoken by God Himself and equal with holy writ? Can you find me a church father who believed that?

>Something can only be infallible if it was believed to be an eternal truth/during Apostolic times

Is Ineffabilis Deus infallible?

>You deny the canon of Scripture.

We deny your church the right to define for God the content of His word.

>This is totally the reformation guys

>Increasingly Nervous Catholic says for the thousand time

Hedonist priests, women "priests", false Christians and so forth have existed since the early days of the church and have been a constant of history, be they simply lost on their own or part of a larger heresy.

Now I'm not defending the great Germanic REEE of the 15th and 16th century(nor am I defending the great Catholic REE of the 8th-12th Century), but if you blame the sickness on the wrong cause you won't cure it.

>>8370

>500th thread where heretical idol worshipers insist the holy spirit is God but have to point to "creeds" instead of scripture to support their heresy

Is this all anyone talks about here?

>>8386

Enjoy Hell, non-Trinitarian

>>8386

Why are you here when all you want to talk about is your strange false god you made up?

>>8392

>following scripture makes you go to hell

>worshiping a false god is good

>>8397

I did not make up Yahweh or Jesus the Christ. Why are you here when all you want to talk about is your strange false god you adopted?

>>8361

It was about two and a half years ago that I got doubtful of Rome's claims (in my trad mind, I discarded Protestantism by default), so I mostly waffled between it and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Then I encountered actual Reformed arguments, and it was a very slow descent into abandoning Rome.

Granted, for the most part it was an internal leaving (I still haven't formally left, since the majority of my family is Romanist), but God willing I'll find a local church to join at some point.

>>8363

I don't consider the Church fathers to be completely wrong.

In fact, I find much in their writings that is clearly biblical. None of them (as far as I'm aware) espoused any theological ideas that would make them damned.

I'm not one of those types that thinks Constantine "founded" the Catholic Church, the historical record among the early church is more nuanced than either side wants to admit.

>One of my main issues is the Protestant canon

The fact of the matter is that the current canon employed by Rome was officially codified at Trent. That's a fact.

You mention the councils of Hippo and Carthage, but if you look at that list they provide, neither of them include Baruch, despite including the six other apocryphal books. By Trent's standards, even these two councils were deficient.

In addition, the council of Hippo lists "two books of Esdras" as part of the canon. The second book (what we divide into Ezra and Nehemiah) are certainly canonical, but the first book (commonly called Greek Esdras or simply 1 Esdras) isn't considered canonical by Rome.

So not only is it missing a book Trent declared canonical, but it includes a book not considered canonical at all by Rome today.

For some thoughts on the apocrypha and patristic citations concerning the canon, see here: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a63.htm

(Nota Bene: the number 22 is cited as the number of canonical books in the OT, but that's merely the way the Hebrews numbered them. For example, they combined Ezra and Nehemiah into one book, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings they reckoned as one book, and all 12 minor prophets were gathered into one book.)

>but Jerome later accepted the apocrypha

Please see here: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

>I will pray for you, friend.

Likewise, bud. It's refreshing to find someone actually convicted in their beliefs than simply something out of taste.

>>8386

Have some scripture that proves the Holy Spirit is divine:

Acts 5:1-4

>But a man named Anani′as with his wife Sapphi′ra sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Anani′as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

2 Corinthians 13: 14

>The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Matthew 28: 18-19

>And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

>>8421

>Strawman?

Nope. You have no point unless you're saying that while it's in scripture, it can't truly be brought out without the magisterium. Otherwise attacks on the trinity could simply be dismissed on the grounds they are wrong in light of scripture, no need for popes, councils or creeds.

>The Creeds, however, leave nothing to the imagination.

It is offensive to say that God was more ambiguous as to His own nature than mere men. In light of scripture, non-trinitarians do not have a leg to stand on. When these creeds were drawn up, they were not proactive but reactive in nature. These councils did not assemble to progress, advance or evolve doctrine, but to set forth what had already been believed. The creeds were merely a formal definition and declaration of beliefs that were not held on the basis of any creed that did not yet exist, but on the sole basis of God's word. This was necessary to exclude heretics from the church by instituting a test in the form of the creeds. An Arian could not without lying recite the nicene creed.

>Most Protestants believe in the Nicene Creed, so both?

No, anon. The nicene creed is not the magisterium of Rome, first of all, but it doesn't really matter because the nicene creed is not the basis of our faith in the trinity, scripture alone is. The creeds are still reactive for us, they are the content of our belief not the cause thereof.

>In Acts 16:4 we can see dogmas being proclaimed to the whole Church.

The council of Jerusalem was revelatory and was led by actual apostles some of whom actually wrote books of scripture. It is not similar to papal councils.

>Can you find me a Church Father who believed that "born again" didn't mean baptism? That believed repentance was works? Sola Deo Gloria?

I take it that's a no, then?

>It's a divinely revealed truth

Where is it revealed?

>that was believed during Apostolic times

Which apostles and which early church fathers said that Mary was completely free from all taint of original sin?

>It's not like Blessed Pius IX just created it out of thin air, with zero justification

I know. It was created in the 12th century.

>2 Peter 1:20

That would include your magisterium.

>Many Protestants can't even agree on the Five Solas anymore

What are you defining as Protestant?

>>8370

>Most of your Pharisaical screed is pointless,

The Pharisees rejected scripture in order to hold their own traditions, per Mark 7:7-13.

>I affirm the Creeds, and thus, the Trinity.

The implication being, however, that scripture, that is God's word, is insufficient.

>but non-Trinitarians still twist Scripture around to deny the Trinity.

If they would twist Scripture how do you think man's feeble attempts would fare? And as the Lord said (John 15:20) "The servant is not greater than his Lord," and, "if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."

The only need to digress stems from one of two things, either the incapacity to articulate scripture or a need to augment personal doctrines over and above it. The latter case is no different than the Pharisees as per Mark 7:7-13.

When I see your posts I see an epistemology that rejects scriptural, word of God evidence out of hand. It only wants fallible, twistible evidence.

And it steps in as something "greater than God" so to speak. That's why it even calls itself inspired. It says listen to it instead of the Holy Spirit. It calls itself Christ and simultaneously rejects his Word out of hand.

>>8422

The funny thing is the Beggars all post on Jerome just fails when engaging with Matt's defence of him accepting the deuterocanon. This is because in most if not all citations provided, it's literally within the context where other Inspired books are cited which funnily enough, the Protestant missed out completely despite it being obvious. Given such way of using them and even classifying them as Scripture, Jerome isnt denying Inspiration. He is simply following what the East done for centuries, accepting their Inspiration but placing them subordinate to the other Canon books.

This isnt the same as the Protestant view because the Protestant deny their Inspiration or use in the contexts Jerome cites. In fact Prots dont even call Deuterocanon, Scripture at all.

>>8413

The Church Fathers and the Bible are both so far away from Reformed theology, it's obvious you only been reading Reformed blogs rather than the actual works themselves. And I can prove this to you. Just give one issue on salvation, sacraments, free will or one father and we can discuss in more detail. It"s easier that way than comprehensive prooftexts given in ignorance to context

>>8528

>Catholic traditions can be traced to the Apostolic Fathers, this is well documented.

When did the doctrine of Rome's Bishop being infallible first show up?

>>8545

Q: When did the doctrine of Rome's Bishop being infallible show up? (proof of papal infallibility)

A 1: Ephesians 5:27, Luke 22:32

A 2: Papal decree

A 1 Analysis:

>25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;

>26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

>27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.

>28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

(Eph. 5:25-28 NAS)

The church (read: those who are saved) are made holy by the work of Christ. Completely unrelated to the doctrine of papal infallibility.

>31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;

>32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

(Lk. 22:31-32 NAS)

Simon Peter was enabled through Christ's prayer to become a strengthening agent to his brothers (spiritual brothers, Christians) after he was to deny Christ.

Conclusion: Reading papal infallibilty in these passages is esegesis.

A 2 Analysis:

Declaration of infallibility by the purported infallible actor is completely untrustworthy. It's unverifiable.

Conclusion: circular reasoning

>>8548

The onus is on you to prove it, not vaguely reference events. Also remember that we're talking about papal infallibility, not the premise of the office of the papacy

>>8550

>it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.

This is the only on-topic sentence in that word salad, and it's a strawman argument. I don't believe that it's illogical that a pope could speak infallibly, I have an absence of cause to believe in papal infallibility and I see an incompatibility of the doctrine with written scripture regarding the closure of the canon and sufficiency of scripture.

I am asking you for the exegetial case for papal infallibility, not the papacy. These are different doctrines. Papal infallibility does not necessarily follow from the office of the papacy.

>>8551

So you believe that the leader of the flock can lead his sheep into error? That makes no sense. Sure, what I wrote was a bit of a screed (I was typing as fast as possible), but I did give proofs of infallibility.

>He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17)

>Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is.

>And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.

>with written scripture regarding the closure of the canon

You reject the Canon of Hippo, for the Protestant canon.

>sufficiency of scripture

The Bible doesn't say so. The very last words of the last book of the Bible written (Gospel of John) state that nothing could contain all that Jesus did. Plus, He also did many things His last 40 days on Earth, and you'd think it'd be important to include much more if God wanted us to have a Koran. Of what it does say Jesus did before His ascension, He gives the power of hearing confessions to the Apostles, and He tells Peter to lead the flock, and then John says that no Book could contain everything Jesus did. Hmm.

>>8554

And you're ignoring it.

>>8552

You're saying that the binding and loosing refers to teaching, not salvation of persons?

>>8556

Yes. The Apostles (Bishops) are given the same power, in the form of Councils. Your understanding is alien to the Church, before Luther.

Don't you use the opposite understanding of "binding and loosing" when you argue for extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

>>8558

Not sure what you mean. EENS is something that has always been believed, taught, articulated by the Fathers, and our Lord Himself. As the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the new Ark of Noah. God is infinite and of infinite perfection, His justice is infinitely perfect. If he has decreed a truth such as, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Then that is a perfect truth and justice. It therefore, serves as a rule for us, which we must believe is indeed perfect, just and true. If he were to make exceptions to this, that would be a sign that the Truth or Rule was not perfect in all ways. That cannot be. It was stated in language that man can comprehend but its source is the infinite mind of God. Councils have defined it as well, and the Church battled against Pelagianism, probably one of the major errors of today.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, EX CATHEDRA: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

>>8559

The basis for the eens case is the exclusive power granted to the roman church understood in the keys, where binding and loosing means disciplinary and soteriological power, not power to make decree.

This is counter to what you're not claiming about binding and loosing.

>>8560

To what you're not claiming*

I'm asking what the Roman view is of binding and loosing because I'm seeing a contradiction. I would be interested to see a church document making the connection that you are about Isaiah 22 meaning infallibility.

>>8560

>exclusive power granted to the roman church

The exclusive power is technically with Peter, and his Chair, but all Bishops are successors of the Apostles, and they also have the power to bind and loose (more accurately, define and dispense), in the context of a Council called by a Pope. If you are not in the Church that succeeds the Apostles (more accurately: with the Prince of the Apostles). You are outside the Ecclesia Jesus established. You don't suppose Jesus appointed some secret Bishops after His twelve? No, right? So, if you're not following those who succeed the Apostles, you're not following Jesus, the Mystical Body of Christ, which teaches with His authority, guided by the Holy Ghost… "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", "He who listens to you listens to me. He who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me." Binding and loosing does not just mean one thing, which is what your argument seems to presuppose. For example, the Fathers teach it also means the Sacrament of Confession (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, John 20:21-22). Every priest has the authority of Christ to “loose” (absolve) penitents from their sins.

>The basis for the eens case

And I think this is a bit disingenuous. Scripture teaches EENS, as I pointed out above.

>>8562

We are straying from topic. I'm not arguing against the papacy or against eens, but I reject your case on both.

I'm meaning to say that I object to your use of Isa 22 in such a way where you connect it to Peters office, and the powers of binding and loosing refer to making declarations. This is again eisegesis, and it's not even consistent with the Roman Catholic understanding of binding and loosing. This is another direction to try and prove papal infallibility from scripture that does not carry.

>>8562

>The exclusive power is technically with Peter

Matthew 18:18 is not addressed exclusively to Peter.

>and his Chair

How did the chair receive power when it did not yet exist?

>more accurately, define and dispense

The verbs bind and loose are clearly part of the 'key' analogy. What object does one use in conjunction with keys to bind or loose? Chains. The proper understanding of the keys is that the power of the keys is nothing other than the gospel itself, the power to keep them bound to their sin, or to loose them from it. The moment when the apostles receive the keys is the moment where they are appointed as ministers of the word and sacrament, particularly clear from John's rendition in John 20:23, where "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is given as "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld".

What the keys certainly are not in scripture, is epistemic.

>in the context of a Council called by a Pope

Is a council not called by the pope authoritative?

If the answer is yes, then how, if the bishops derive their power from the pope? If no, then are the ecumenical councils not authoritative, since they were called by emperors, not popes?

>more accurately: with the Prince of the Apostles

How is there a prince of the apostles when Christ declared there was no primacy amongst them in Luke 22:24-26, and denied them any mastery over each other in Matthew 23:8?

>So, if you're not following those who succeed the Apostles, you're not following Jesus

Mark 9:38-41, need I say more?

>Every priest has the authority of Christ to “loose” (absolve) penitents from their sins

This is the spirit of Antichrist. While ministers certainly have the authority to loose men from their sins, it is not the authority of Christ, who properly releases men from the bondage of sin, whereas His ministers only do so declaratively and improperly.

>Scripture teaches EENS, as I pointed out above.

I don't know where you think you did that, I see nothing that could be construed as that, but in response to the claim that extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that is, the idea that one must be a member of an earthly organization to be saved, is scriptural, I cite Matthew 18:20, which is clear enough to stand on its own. The Roman defense, that one is not following Jesus unless they are following the pope since Jesus allegedly appointed the pope is inane, essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories. Christ does not say "where two or three gather in the pope's name", but "in my name". If this redefinition is acceptable, then eens is made automatically correct, since any conceivable proof against it could simply be dismissed in the exact same way, the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.

>>8557

>Your understanding is alien to the Church, before Luther.

False. For example John Chrysostom understood the promise thusly: "the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world" (Homily 54 on Matthew).

>>8570

>Matthew 18:18 is not addressed exclusively to Peter.

Right. Bishops can bind and loose, but Peter has the Keys, which belong to Jesus (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18), given to him, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22.

>How did the chair receive power when it did not yet exist?

Pay attention to the wording. Jesus establishes an office on Peter.

>The proper understanding of the keys is that the power of the keys is nothing other than the gospel itself, the power to keep them bound to their sin, or to loose them from it.

That's one understanding, and the Fathers teach that to "bind" means defining doctrine, and to "loose" means earthy regulations, like Church practices.

>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld

Yes, it's also alluding to the Sacrament of Confession. Good point.

>If the answer is yes, then how, if the bishops derive their power from the pope

They get their power to bind and loose from Jesus. The Pope has the keys.

>declared there was no primacy amongst them in Luke 22:24-26

Care to scroll up? Most of what you claim here can be answered by my previous posts in this thread.

>And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.

>denied them any mastery over each other in Matthew 23:8

Have you ever debated a Catholic? This point is null and void.

>This is the spirit of Antichrist

A priest is an Alter Christus.

>member of an earthly organization

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and it was established by Christ Himself, and led by the Holy Ghost. You follow a man.

>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.”

https://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/2016/03/painful-truth-outside-church-there-is.html

https://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html

>essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories

Ephesians 4:5

>the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.

Bible alone relies on circular logic.

>John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom was a Catholic.

>>8572

>>essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories

>Ephesians 4:5

>>the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.

>Bible alone relies on circular logic.

>>John Chrysostom

>John Chrysostom was a Catholic.

None of these are arguments

>>8572

>the Fathers teach that to "bind" means defining doctrine, and to "loose" means earthy regulations, like Church practices.

Show us

>>8572

Wow, this response was really bad

>Bishops can bind and loose, but Peter has the Keys

The idea that the function of the keys can be separated from the keys themselves is so absurd on its face that it requires no refutation.

>as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22

Where does Isaiah 22:22 say that there would be a man named Peter and he would receive keys?

>Jesus establishes an office on Peter

Where does the text say that?

>the Fathers teach

Which ones?

>Yes, it's also alluding to the Sacrament of Confession. Good point.

There is no such thing as the sacrament of confession

>They get their power to bind and loose from Jesus

Then they maintain this power apart from the pope, and are not inferior to the pope

>Most of what you claim here can be answered by my previous posts in this thread

Wrong.

>Jesus affirm Peter

Where in Luke 22:24-26 does Jesus identify Peter as the greatest? Maybe it's a translational difference, mine says "But not so with you"

>He prays for Him alone

Where does it say He prayed for Peter alone? What, did He just not care about the others?

>Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure

The difference Jesus describes is that His apostles do not exercise lordship over each other. What you're saying is they do, Peter exercises lordship over the others. What an incredible example of the blindness human tradition inflicts; you have totally inverted Jesus' words, you have Him teaching the exact opposite of what He says.

>This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel

Where does Luke 22 refer to "the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel"?

>therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.

Where does Luke 22 refer to "Peter's Chair" or "Ex Cathedra teaching"?

>Have you ever debated a Catholic? This point is null and void.

Not an argument.

>Alter Christus

Antichristus.

>The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and it was established by Christ Himself, and led by the Holy Ghost.

Yes it is, for once you are correct, it has nothing to do with an earthly institution like the Roman Catholic Church.

>You follow a man.

A charge which holds no weight and is most ironic coming from a papist.

>anything the Church says, Jesus says

And they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

>Ephesians 4:5

Your lord might be the pope, but he is not the lord of any Christian. Christian unity is to be found in the person of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not in the Antichrist the pope.

>Bible alone relies on circular logic.

Not an argument.

>John Chrysostom was a Catholic.

Not an argument.

>>8579

>The idea that the function of the keys can be separated from the keys themselves is so absurd on its face that it requires no refutation.

You're blustering.

>Where does Isaiah 22:22 say that there would be a man named Peter and he would receive keys?

Do the Messianic prophesies in Daniel and Isaiah mention the name Jesus?

>There is no such thing as the sacrament of confession

There are 7 Sacraments of Christ's Church.

>Then they maintain this power apart from the pope, and are not inferior to the pope

They do not have the Keys, which belong to Jesus, as I pointed out before. Why don't you answer?

>Wrong.

True!

>Where in Luke 22

Luke 22:32

>What an incredible example of the blindness human tradition inflicts

What authority do you have to reject the Hippo canon if Scripture is enough for salvation?

>the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel

That's Peter's office, just like what David had.

>Antichristus.

Prots are the plague of locusts mentioned in the Apocalypse.

>it has nothing to do with an earthly institution like the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Church is Divine in its origins.

>A charge which holds no weight and is most ironic coming from a papist.

It hold plenty of weight, because you have tore the Bible out of the Church, to say that the Church has failed but the Bible hasn't is fatuous and denies Christ's promise. Now you're stuck with Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and Jewish Messianism.

>Antichrist the pope

DA ROMAN RELIGION IS DA ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAYS RAIGHT HERE IN ME KJV

Ephesians 4:5 proves your playdough Christianity is false. One Lord, One faith, One baptism, and a million Protestants sects, or… One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church?

>Bible alone relies on circular logic

>Not an argument.

It's an assertion that you don't care to respond to. The Bible is a product of the Church.

>John Chrysostom

>Not an argument.

https://eucharistjesuswithus.blogspot.com/2012/09/homily-from-st-john-chrysostom-c347-407.html

https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2012/10/st-john-chrysostom-on-baptism.html

https://www.homeofthemother.org/en/resources/virgin-mary/fathers/8163-st-john-chry

Wow, the Real Presence, veneration of the Mother of God, and baptismal regeneration? Perish at the thought!

>>8580

Okay, I see you've resorted to pure shitposting, so I accept your concession.

>>8581

All I did that was questionable was lampoon the glib "Pope is Antichrist" comment. Luther thought the same thing, but the institution is still here, because it is of God. Lutheranism now has tranny bishops, last I heard.

>>8585

I had a similar debate with another guy in this same thread. Fact is, your tranny Lutherans are "saved" according to Sola Fide, whereas all these "Catholics" have incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, and will go to hell.

>And yet he's the center of your worldview

You're making the same mistake Sedevacantists make. The Pope is not the rule of faith, nor does he have the power to define infallibilty "new" doctrine.

>Wow anon you're doing personal interpretation

No, I'm just restating that it's impossible for something that contradicts Scripture, the Fathers, or an earlier Papal decree/Council, to be authentic magisterium. Francis insists that everything he does is magisterium, that's not how it works.

>>8586

Neither tranny lutherans nor Roman catholics are saved. The tranny lutherans evidence that they are unrepentant (by being tranny), and Roman Catholics place their hope in a false gospel.

>>8588

Looks like someone doesn't even understand his own doctrine of forensic justification/alien righteousness. Shoo shoo.

>>8589

What did I say that is inconsistent with forensic justification?

>>8589

Why are ignorant people always the most arrogant? I bet you watched Peter Dimond's documentary and now think you'd beat Martin Luther in a debate

>>8590

That it's incompatible with being a sodomite.

>>8591

I'm not a Dimondite, or Sedevacantist. They generally just use Papal bulls out of context followed by Braaptist tier apocalyptic blatherskite nonsense. They're also Feeneyites in a very bizarre, dogmatic manner.

>now think you'd beat Martin Luther in a debate

Luther's "elocutions" would make most people (even today) blush.

>>8593

What?

Forensic justification is about how righteousness is credited. I said that trannies/sodomites are evidencing an absence of salvation.

Where is the overlap?

>>8265

Catholics have made weaker churches drunk with their Babylonian wine.

>>8325

>muh female deacons

https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A827-Deacon.htm

>>8338

>Protestant banter

If only it were:

https://youtu.be/DyuvkoiYlYk

https://youtu.be/Bqm8pt21cYg

https://youtu.be/SvEX15vd82w

>>10034

I don't know why he would call that "Protestant banter" considering the reformers recognized the Franks as the 'good guys' in their historic dispute with the Greeks

>>8660

>I'm about finished with this level of blasphemy against God's word.

Oh, like ripping 6 inspired books out of the Bible? You literally follow a twentieth century movement (KJV-onlyism).

>>10049

strawman

>>10050

What did I say that was false? Please elucidate me.

>>10051

you're dodging an argument by attacking an unrelated position that you're ascribing to your debate opponent.