>worship Mary
>participate in bizarre pagan rituals
>waste money on expensive, complex architecture instead of giving that money to the poor
>leadership are a bunch of pedos surrounded by wealth
Explain to me how this is what Christ wanted.

>>17791604 (OP)
I can not. No doubt Bergoglio is one of the most miserable men in Hell right now. May he suffer forever.

>>17791612
The suffering of those whom have placed themselves in hell should be lamented.

>>17791604 (OP)
I don't have to. He willed it be so (except the pedophile part there's not much proof for that), as the only God of this world.
You don't have to scour the bible to maybe a little gleam what Christ wants if you look really hard.

>>17791661
>there's not much proof for that
I don't think that's true, Anon.

>>17791666
The church does hush down sexual abuse cases, for it's own reputation. But most if not all churches do that. People are fallible.

>>17791604 (OP)
Your blind dogma against the Church is exactly why the lot of you are unprepared for tragedies that God and his wife are warning us about

>>17791669
>men who claim to follow christ allow homosexual molestation to happen in their church
How is this not an inherent flaw?

>>17791661
How do you actually cope with following a denomination that has Vatican 2 as a document? According to present day Catholicism, Jews and Muslims worship the same God as you despite rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. So there’s no actual reason to be Catholic according to post Vatican 2 Catholicism because Protestants have valid baptisms, Orthodox have valid baptisms and valid sacraments, and if Muslims and Jews reject Jesus then apparently it isn’t a big deal and you can outright ignore your own scriptures of the New Testament claiming that Jesus is the only way to the Father. There’s no reason to care about taking your own scriptures seriously if you take Catholicism seriously, and if you take your own scriptures seriously then there’s no reason to take Catholicism seriously.

>>17791604 (OP)
Pope said so

>>17791855
>you can outright ignore your own scriptures
Rome has been doing this for a very long time.

>>17791604 (OP)
>worship Mary
Just stop talking.

>participate in bizarre pagan rituals
The mass is not radically different from mainstream protestant services. Reading scripture, praying, taking communion.

>waste money on expensive, complex architecture instead of giving that money to the poor
The Catholic Church is the single largest charitable organization on Earth.

>>leadership are a bunch of pedos surrounded by wealth
The leaders aren't wealthy and are as pedo as Southern Baptists.

>>17791604 (OP)
Christ wanted you to worship God and hold him dear in his heart, all four gospels are about how "traditions" and "laws" dont lead to God, faith does.
You are brown.

>>17791942
>largest charitable organization
But is it the most dedicated?

>>17791942
The mass is radically different, but that's also not the only pagan ritual Rome has.

>>17792014
I love how little anti-catholics know about what goes on in a Catholic church. Just read the catechism. Go to mass. Learn something before you speak.

>>17792057
Oh ok
>Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187

>1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.
That's an abomination.

>>17792062
Oh, so you're an evangelical. Since even mainline protestants maintain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

>>17791604 (OP)
>worship Mary
Yeah, she's the new Ark of the Covenant, and there's this whole discussion about veneration, but whatever, you already know what Catholics are going to answer so does it really matter? Most of the posts here are just people giving the trigger for specific answers so they can give their great hot take on it and both parties leave without anything useful happening
>participate in bizarre pagan rituals
I don't know if that's your way of describing Catholic things or legit pagan rituals, if the latter, those are heavily criticized by the Church itself
>waste money on expensive, complex architecture instead of giving that money to the poor
It does give money to the poor, however, it's the largest charity organization in the world, a big part of Catholic thought is that we should give our best to God, and the Church, like it or not, is the largest Christian branch in the world, why should they keep the money somewhere else, instead of creating beautiful and well thought out architecture and art?
Don't forget, the one who criticized the woman that gave Jesus the expensive perfume was Judas. And Jesus tomb was anything but cheap.
How many wealthy people did not visit the Vatican and decide to give their money to the Church so it can keep doing both charity and beautiful art?
It is indeed sad when someone's soul is so turned away from beauty.
>leadership are a bunch of pedos surrounded by wealth
Do you really think that shit isn't a shame to Catholics? That they don't know and suffer with this?

>>17792071
I'm starting to think we should just spam these anti-catholic threads with Hail Mary's. It'll accomplish more than talking to these brainwashed evangelicals.

>It's not worship, bro, it's veneration. We just kneel before carven images of the Virgin Mary as if we were praying to a God :)
Give me a break with this shit already.

>>17792077
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>17792073
I feel like most of those threads care more about getting people away from the Church than actually converting anyone. They never specify which brand of protestantism people should convert to. Adventist? Prebysterian? Lutheran? Evangelical?
Those are radically different, but it doesn't matter, as long as people are turned away from the Body of Christ anything goes.

>>17792079
That's a pretty prayer, commandment breaker. Pass the flesh and salt, I'm in a cannibalistic mood tonight.

>>17792070
It's ironic for you to tell me I don't know what Romanism is, when I don't believe you even know what those words mean. You should think of "mainline" and "evangelical" as the Protestant equivalents of "modernist" and "traditionalist" in modern parlance. Mainline churches are defined by not believing anything anymore.

I am a Presbyterian. I believe in real spiritual presence, but transubstantiation is not what I set my sites on anyway. I quoted a specific part of the CCC for a specific reason: the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, which is the central aspect of Roman Catholic worship, an idol of human religion, and a denial of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Our reformers scorned the mass for the abomination it is and abolished it in our churches.

>>17792082
How is it a denial?

>>17792080
How about none, because all these denominations suck ass and always have one contention or another that flushes Christ's purity down the toilet. Catholicism, Protestants with their Sola Scriptura, you're all the same brand of misleading. School's out, you don't need to join a Glee club to make your Heaven resume look more impressive.

>>17792081
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>17792084
Hi, Satan, did you get a new golden fiddle after losing yours to a hillbilly in Georgia or that was a one time item?

>>17792088
How about you try an honest request for once and ask God yourself to show you some unknowable truth, instead of shoving pounds of incense up your ass at Mass and getting absolute silence. Seriously, ask him yourself, he's God, he can make it 100 percent knowable to you. All this pussyfooting around and you guys are still afraid to just go directly to him and get the 411 from his own mouth. Go with heart and mind and he'll show you, why wouldn't he?

>>17792092
Are you hearing God's voice now? Is he in the room with us?

>>17792092
That's exactly how I imagine a true Christian would speak. Brilliant.

>>17792083
Because the mass makes nobody perfect who draws near through it. You can partake of the mass, and then the next moment commit a mortal sin and destroy the state of grace, needing a new sin offering in the future. This completely overthrows the biblical gospel that He has paid once for all the price which was owed by His people. One to whom the sacrifice of Christ has been applied can never lose the state of grace, but has been indestructibly reconciled with God by the perfection of His one offering. Hebrews 10:1-4
>For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
And verses 11-14
>And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until His enemies are put as a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

>>17792098
>Because the mass makes nobody perfect who draws near through it

Nothing does. You can do anything, including believe and confess your belief and then the next moment commit a mortal sin. That's free will.

>>17792096
No, he'd obviously want us to engage in back rubbing and lullaby voices for condoning practicing false practices. That's what a hella based Christian would do! Fuck the truth!

>>17792098
>And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices,

Priests of the Catholic church are partaking in the eternal sacrifice of Christ.

>>17792098
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our deaths.
Amen.

>>17792098
There are plenty of saints who spoke about the importance of the Mass. You do not believe in them. I do. They're actively interceding for us. The Vatican regularly canonizes them for miracles, nowadays very well documented.
I know the arguments of miracles is more of an atheist argument, the "miracles stopped after cameras were invented", but they didn't. And the only religion that offers any credible proof of them happening is the Catholic Church.
Your ignorance is your own problem, but you should at least try to appear smart in front of others.

>>17792104
Yeah, the Catholic church has more miracles than any other "denomination" out there. Marian apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, modern saints, private revelations. We don't handle snakes, we have real miracles.

>>17792104
Nobody should care about your false saints shilling Catholic garbage

>>17792111
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>17792113
Luke 11:27-28
Shaddap already

>>17792111
Your heart is black. You're unable to truly believe in anything. Your hate for the saints is your own admission of knowing better people than you exist. You hate God. You hate His Holy Mother, you hate His followers. Your "God" is nothing but a god of hate and misery, not unlike the place you'll go once you die.

>>17792118
>Blessed, rather, are those who hear the word of God and obey it!
Do you think Mary did not heard the word of God and obeyed? Is that it?

>>17792118

Try looking up these images and learning about how Mary continues to appear to us, to this day.

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>17792124
Wow, a lot of false accusations here. Even The Bible is saying you're being straight up lied to and you still want to persist in spitting on it.
>>17792129
Jesus's rebuke was set up from Mary being called blessed earlier from another woman. We're all blessed, the verse can not be any clearer than that, but we're not praying for dead relatives to be intercessors. This isn't the "shit on Mary power hour" it's to say we're all equal in his blessings if we keep to his word, rebuking the superficial way of thinking Mary was truly exalted above all for "her womb" and birthing Jesus.

>>17792118
That's the problem with you people, Jesus is replying to a woman that wasn't listening to Him, but instead choosing to flatter Him with compliments. If anything this passage confirms what Catholics have been saying all along.
Mary is not blessed because she carried Jesus, she's blessed because she heard the word of God and obeyed it. That's what made her worthy of being the new Ark of the Covenant. Obeying God.

>>17792099
No, the blood of Jesus does. That's what this scripture says. He said "It is finished." The Lord Jesus has perfectly accomplished the salvation of everyone for whom He died, even purchasing for them the right to believe. I promise you that if you put away your dead works and empty righteousness and rely on Christ alone you will find Him to be a perfect savior. What's more, the regenerate man is not left to his own devices to love sin as he did in his past life, nor can the unregenerate man cease doing so, since in the original sin eradicated good in the heart of the natural man so that not even a kernel remains which would enable him to freely co-operate with God (he is the slave of sin), but to be saved a man must be born again, the Spirit raising him to new life free from the dominion of sin that he may serve God.
>>17792101
This is a distinction without a difference. When the apostle said "the blood of goats and calves cannot take away sin", this was a conclusion and not a premise. That is, from the fact they needed to be offered so many times, we may infer they could not bring forgiveness, otherwise forgiveness being obtained the first offering would be sufficient. Therefore if the blood of Jesus needed to be poured out continually, it would likewise mean He could not take away sin, as the Roman Catholic finds himself falling back under the wrath of God continually. But Jesus offered Himself once for all time, and there is no longer any offering for sin.
>>17792104
>They're actively interceding for us.
I surely hope not, any man who relies on the intercession of men is doomed. For the true believer there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, and He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him.

>>17792138
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners.
Now, and at the hour of our deaths.
Amen.

>>17792144
>Must....keep....repeating....Satanic....prayer

>>17792142
>"It is finished."
Oh, you're the semantics asshole from the previous threads.

No one says the mass redeems and saves, the CCC itself says "by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit."

Can you not read? Are you stupid?

> any man who relies on the intercession of men is doomed

So the apostles were heretics for asking others to pray for them?t42th

>>17792146

>>17792150
Catholics see the saints as some super cheat code, because they're completely sinless and their prayers have more power. We're asked to share each others burdens and bond through faith while ALIVE, because that's how we get closer to Christ. But nope, Catholics have this mental gymnastic thinking where "It's all copesetic, we can pray for each other AND saints too" when saints would actually make it moot because their holiness transcends us because they're at God's side. No point in sharing each other's woes and strengthening the unity of man to get closer to God, we have these super badasses in Heaven to do that for us!

>>17792142
>your dead works
James 2:14

>>17792153
Stop just making shit up. Just stop it. Go read a book or KYS, I don't care. Just stop talking.

>>17792156
I know, you have zero rebuttal, as expected from "Hail Mary" zombies. If it's any consolation, all this Catholic bullshit is going the way of the dodo bird, because God makes all truth known in the end.

>>17792150
>you're the semantics asshole
The gospel of Christ is not semantics.
>No one says the mass redeems and saves
If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it avails him only who receiveth; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
The Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3
This is the official teaching of the magisterium of the Roman church. This is dogma, you are not free to dissent from it. But you would be right to deny it; "Come out of her, my people"!
But if it does not redeem and save, then it certainly is not the sacrifice of Christ.
>Can you not read?
>its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit
Can you?
>So the apostles were heretics for asking others to pray for them?
No.

>>17792154
Isaiah 64:6, Hebrews 9:14

>>17791604 (OP)
1/2
Case #3947 of protestants viewing worship so low that they consider asking for prayers and chants to be worship.
The Bible clearly states that prayers of the righteous are more effective.
Job 42:8-10
>… my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you: for you have not spoken right things before me, as my servant Job hath.
>10 The Lord also was turned at the penance of Job, when he prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.
God accepted Job’s friend because Job prayed for him, this shows that prayers of the righteous are more effective, so asking for them to pray for you and intercede for you is completely normal.
>Revelations 8:3-4
>And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.
Prayers of saints are effective.
We see in James 5:16-18 that praying for each other is effective and so are prayers of saints.
>Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. And he prayed again: and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
Again in Acts 19:11-12, we see Paul’s handkerchief interceding.
>And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them

>>17791604 (OP)
>>17793374
2/2
Same case in 2 Kings 2:13-14 with Elijah miraculous cloak
> And he took up the mantle of Elias, that fell from him: and going back, he stood upon the bank of the Jordan, 14 And he struck the waters with the mantle of Elias, that had fallen from him, and they were not divided. And he said: Where is now the God of Elias? And he struck the waters, and they were divided, hither and thither, and Eliseus passed over.
The Bible also teaches that dead saints can listen to you (unlike what many anons stated here before). Matthew 17:2-3
>And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.
1 Samuel 28:12-20, Samuel when dead is intervening in our world.
>And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice, and said to Saul: Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said to her: Fear not: what hast thou seen? And the woman said to Saul: I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said to her: What form is he of? And she said: An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul understood that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself with his face to the ground, and adored. And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up?
Revelation is even clearer.
5:8
> And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:
In 6:9-10 you see dead saints communicated with God.
>And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

>>17793374
>viewing worship so low that they consider asking for prayers and chants to be worship.
If you really were just asking the dead to pray for you, it would merely be necromancy. However this is obviously not what's going on when we look at the content of these prayers.
>Most holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary, to thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the queen of the universe, the advocate, the hope, the refuge of sinners, I who am the most miserable of all sinners, have recourse this day. I venerate thee, great queen, and I thank thee for the many graces thou has bestowed upon me even unto this day; in particular for having delivered me from the hell which I have so often deserved by my sins. I love thee, most dear Lady; and for the love I bear thee, I promise to serve thee willingly forever and to do what I can to make thee loved by others also. I place in thee all my hopes for salvation; accept me as thy servant and shelter me under thy mantle, thou who art the Mother of mercy. And since thou art so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the strength to overcome them until death. From thee I implore a true love for Jesus Christ. Through thee I hope to die a holy death. My dear Mother, by the love thou bearest to Almighty God, I pray thee to assist me always, but most of all at the last moment of my life. Forsake me not then, until thou shalt see me safe in heaven, there to bless thee and sing of thy mercies through all eternity. Such is my hope.

>>17791604 (OP)
>Protestantism
>engage in a most intensive, century-spanning war with Atheism, because you recognize your Remus in it.

>>17792071
Looks like matriarchal

>>17791604 (OP)
The blessed St. Mary is undoubtedly the ark of the new covenant.
John 6
>48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Where did the bread come forth from in the OT?
Hebrews 9:4
>4 Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament.
St. Mary had the bread from heaven insider her, just like the Ark of the Covenant. She is the ark of the new covenant.

Eve is the mother of the living, St. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is the way, the truth and the life. St. Mary being the new Eve is born free from original sin.
1 Corinthians 15:45
>“And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”
Jesus Christ is the new Adam. Adam was brought forth from the pure dirt without original sin. Therefore Jesus Christ was brought forth from the pure St. Mary without any original sin. Meaning St. Mary was good like God’s creation after he finished it.

>>17793387
>Adam was brought forth from the pure dirt without original sin. Therefore Jesus Christ was brought forth from the pure St. Mary without any original sin.
So Mary is dirt?

>>17792175
2 Peter 2:4
>God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”
The angels were created in justification; but they sinned mortally, lost their justification, and were cast into Hell. This refutes once saved always saved. St. Paul also mentions mortal sins that damn the believe if he commits them in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21.
>Hebrews 9:14
>dead works
Dead works ≠ good works, dead works could be better described as works done to put God in debt instead of being done with good intention. For example, you helped someone and now you believe that God owes you because you did a “good” work. This in case is a dead work.
On the other hand the same St. Paul:
Romans 2:7-9
>7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
>8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
>Isaiah 64:7
Because humans can be as “righteous” as possible for them, yet they are not even close to God. Also, God does count people as righteous like Abraham in Genesis 15:6, Phinehas in Psalm 106:30-31.

>>17793379
1. You ignored my entire post.
2. None of this is “Latria” or worship given to God alone. This is Hyperdulia, the veneration offered to the St. Mary. The writer repeatedly thanks her and even finishes it by expressing love for Christ. You would have accused David of worshipping the Ark of the Covenant in Psalm 99:5 and Joshua of worshipping the Ark of the Covenant in Joshua 7:6.
The veneration given to icons is that of “proskynesis” like David offers to the Ark in Psalm 99:5.

>>17793389
This shows you did not read my post. God finished his creation and saw it wa good, including the dirt. The dirt he brought Adam from was obviously free of any guilt or sin. For Jesus to be the second Adam, he had to be brought forth from an entity free of guilt and sin. This entity is the blessed St. Mary.

>>17793389
I deleted my previous reply for it was unclear.
St. Mary is obviously not dirt.
Jesus is the new Adam, Adam was brought forth from the Earth, what was the state of the Earth Adam was brought forth from?
Genesis 1:31
>And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
The Earth from which the first Adam was formed, like the entirety of God’s creation before the fall, was completely uncursed, unfallen and perfect. Therefore, the second Adam was brought forth from an entity absent of sin and curse. Therefore, St. Mary of which the second Adam was brought forth upon was created completely void of any curse of sin.

>>17793404
>The angels were created in justification; but they sinned mortally, lost their justification, and were cast into Hell.
The rebellion of angels has nothing to do with the status of people redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ before God.
>This refutes once saved always saved.
I have no idea how that's supposed to work.
>Paul also mentions mortal sins that damn the believe if he commits them in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21.
He does no such thing. In 1 Corinthians you don't allow him to finish, as the very next words are "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
In Galatians, he says "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." The whole point is that the believer does not belong to such things anymore. The entire book of Galatians is about the fact that one is not justified by works, but by faith alone.
>Dead works ≠ good works
I never said otherwise.
>dead works could be better described as works done to put God in debt instead of being done with good intention
No, dead works are sins, which includes any action undertaken by the unregenerate man.
>Because humans can be as “righteous” as possible for them
Which is not at all, our righteousness is as filthy rags because it is covered in sin, we have nothing of value to offer God.
>Also, God does count people as righteous like Abraham
Why was Abraham counted as righteous?

>>17793410
>1. You ignored my entire post.
The rest of what you said wasn't relevant to the point I was making.
>None of this is “Latria” or worship given to God alone. This is Hyperdulia, the veneration offered to the St. Mary.
This distinction is false and alien to scripture. Isaiah 42:8 "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images". There is no worship which is acceptable to give to a created thing, it is an abomination.
>You would have accused David of worshipping the Ark of the Covenant
If he wrote stuff like that about it, absolutely.
>The veneration given to icons is that of “proskynesis”
And they worshiped (proskynēsantes) Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy
Luke 24:52
>>17793428
>St. Mary is obviously not dirt.
Why would the same argumentation you use to "prove" she is the ark of the covenant not prove she is dirt?

>>17793465
>the rebellion of angels
The angels were already in a state of justification yet lost it. This is the main point. They were justified and lost it.
>mortal sins
If one was sanctified and washed and repented of these sins, yet committed them again, how would it work?
>Galatians
The only works referred to in Galatians are that of the old law, not good works. The passage I shared refutes this narrative, because it implies that the believer must regenerate from inside in order to be justified. Unlike the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification that states that justification is imputed. Galatians 5:19-21 teaches that one must change himself in order to be justified. Not only must he have faith, but he most also control himself so that he does not fall into these mortal sins. This refutes forensic justification and sola fide.
>dead works
The point here remains the same. We both agree that dead works are not good works and they save not. The works I described are also dead as they are made in an attempt to put God in dept.
>righteous
You did not let me finish my sentence. Relative to God our righteousness is sinful.
>Why was Abraham counted as righteous
In Genesis 12, for obeying God.
In Genesis 15, for having faith in God.
In Genesis 22, for offering Isaac as a sacrifice. He was justified several times.
I also recommend reading the case of Simon Magus in Acts 8, he believed and was baptized, but in a few verses later he fell into grave sin.

>>17792071
>you already know what Catholics are going to answer so does it really matter? Most of the posts here are just people giving the trigger for specific answers so they can give their great hot take on it and both parties leave without anything useful happening

Checked 15 hours later. I was right. Damn. Maybe I really am that good.

>>17793467
>point I was making
I showed that veneration of Saints is Biblical.
>Isaiah 42:8
Brother, you are not reading my reply. The service given to God is known as Latria, we do not give it to any saints, we give them dulia, protodulia in case of St. Joseph, and Hyperdulia in the case of the Theotokos.
>David
He worshipped there, he prostrated in front of it. Had a Catholic done that in front of St. Mary you would accuse him of idolatry.
>proskynesis
You can obviously venerate God, but you cannot serve the icon like God.
>properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior
David also offered the same proskynesis to the Ark, do you believe he was committing idolatry?
>she is dirt of ark of the covenant
In both cases she is born free of sin. The main point is that she is free of sin. These are titles given to her.


Take care anon, it is late in my timezone, good night. I’ll continue tomorrow. If the thread is archived I will try opening a new one.

>>17793580
>The angels were already in a state of justification yet lost it.
The point is so absurd it's almost hard to respond to. They were not sinners justified by the righteousness of Jesus. There is no parallel.
>If one was sanctified and washed and repented of these sins, yet committed them again, how would it work?
I don't understand the question.
>The only works referred to in Galatians are that of the old law, not good works
The words old law do not appear in Galatians. The phrase 'works of the law' or simply 'works' in Paul refers to any human act of obedience to God, the operation of the human will in keeping the commandments of God. He defines his own terms in Galatians 3:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them'". The quotation is from Deuteronomy 27:26 and self-evidently includes all things commanded there, and not only ceremonies, but in the specific context of that passage examples are also given, such as dishonoring parents, worshipping idols, or committing murder. Are these merely Jewish ceremonies, or are they moral laws to which all are bound?

>>17793580
>The passage I shared refutes this narrative, because it implies that the believer must regenerate from inside in order to be justified. Unlike the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification that states that justification is imputed.
When we refer to justification we refer to a very specific aspect of the salvation process, namely the status of the sinner before God. Unlike regeneration or sanctification, justification takes place outside of the believer, when God declares them to be righteous on the sole basis of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and not anything about them. It absolutely, unequivocally a misrepresentation of our position that we do not say that a believer must be transformed inwardly or born again, even to say that we do not believe this is necessary for justification is false; for we only deny that the basis of justification is anything about the believer, but unless they are born again they will not believe, and it is by faith the righteousness of Christ is apprehended.
>Galatians 5:19-21 teaches that one must change himself in order to be justified. Not only must he have faith, but he most also control himself so that he does not fall into these mortal sins.
No sir, it teaches God must change him. There is nothing about justification, or mortal sin (which is not a concept that would exist for centuries) in this scripture, and the interpretation contradicts the entire purpose of the book.

>>17793580
>He was justified several times.
So the judaizers were right and Paul was wrong. Because Paul's argument in Romans 4 is that Abraham was not justified after his circumcision. Verses 9-11
>Therefore, is this blessing on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it counted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be counted to them
Would it be a mortal sin for Abraham to refuse circumcision? Surely, if anything is, refusing the direct orders of God to you personally must be. Then you are in agreement with the judaizers, against Paul and us, since it was necessary for Abraham to be circumcised to be justified. But Paul says *not* while circumcised, and circumcision was only the seal of a righteousness he already had by faith alone in the absence of circumcision.

>>17793615
>I showed that veneration of Saints is Biblical
You did not.
>you are not reading my reply
I read it, I reject it. These categories have no basis in scripture and an identical referent, and were conceived to excuse foul idolatry. Isaiah 42:8 is one of many scriptures which makes it clear that God does not share glory with any creature. Worship is for God alone.
>He worshipped there, he prostrated in front of it
He was prostrating to *God*.
>Had a Catholic done that in front of St. Mary you would accuse him of idolatry.
Amen.
>You can obviously venerate God
Would you disagree that the disciples were worshipping Jesus? What about in Revelation 5:11-14, is what's going on there worship or veneration? Why is it that when John attempts to offer proskynesis to an angel in Revelation 22:8-9 it rebukes him and tells him to worship God alone? Is it not true that the word proskynesis in a religious context refers to the act of worship?
>David also offered the same proskynesis to the Ark
No, sir, again; the object thereof was God, who was especially present in that location.
>In both cases she is born free of sin
I suppose you could say dirt is free of sin. The point is that this interpretation is an abuse of scripture which could literally be used to prove anything. Mary was not free of sin, no child of Adam is, and Mary herself called God her Savior because she knew she was a sinner.

>>17791604 (OP)
> Explain to me how this is what Christ wanted.
It isn't. All popery is extrabiblical and distinctly blasphemous. Fuck the Pope, and fuck the RCC.
> In b4 "Muh original church!!!"
The original church is purely spiritual and is filled with those who earnestly believe in the messiah, his sacrifice, and his message
Catholics cannot cope.

>>17791647
>The suffering of those whom have placed themselves in hell should be lamented.
Why?

>>17794077
>there is no parallel
>they are not sinners
They became sinners and lost justification?
>I don’t understand the question
If one was baptized, believed, yet fell again to these sins. Does he lose his salvation?
>moral laws
No, St. Paul referred to works of the law excluding moral ones, as he himself in Galatians tells us these sins severe the believer.
>>17794078
>misrepresenting our position
>1646 Westminster confession of faith, Chapter 11 on justification
> I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience
Chapter 13, on sanctification
> They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them
In case the believer must actually change to be justified, he is not saved through faith alone anymore.
>God must change him
But the person is changing? There is a change in the person, the righteousness is not imputed. It is infused.
>>17794082
Abraham was justified several times, he was justified when he obeyed, when he believed, and finally when he almost sacrificed Isaac.
I did not say it was necessary for Abraham to be circumcised. Did you even read my post? I did not say this at all.
>>17794087
>you did not
Read it all please.
>worship is for God alone
Where did I deny worship was for God alone?
There is a difference between worship “Latria” given to God, and “proskynesis” which may be given to Saints and the holy like the Ark in Psalm 99:5 and Joshua 7:6. See continuation in reply.

>>17795197
>prostrating to God
You can see proskynesis is not exclusive to God, it is used at the Ark of the Covenant in Psalm 99:5 and Joshua also prostrated the Ark of the Covenant.
>is it not true that the word proskynesis refers to an act of worship?
It means prostration, it can be done in worship or not. You can bow down in reverence, but you cannot worship anyone else but God. In case you prostrated meaning worship, of course it can only be done to God alone.
>the object thereof was God
I will explain this with detail in the reply.

>Mary called God her savior
Yes because he saved her from original sin.
>abuse of scripture
No it is not, she is clearly the holiest human after Jesus. She is the ark of the new covenant as I showed you. The Ark also carried the word of God, so did she. She was overshadowed by God, so was the Ark. St. Mary is the ark of the new covenant.

christians if christians are right

>>17795206
The dative article is the definitive article for indirect objects.
>I gave a gift to him
The gift is the direct object. Him is the definitive article for the indirect object, the indirect object is “him”.
The preposition προς in προσκυνεῖτε can be combined with the accusative article or the dative article. The accusative meaning may mean for example, “to the field”. The dative meaning would mean “near the field”.
The work proskynesis, gets the dative meaning because the head bows down near the object is bows down to. In Psalm 99:5, the indirect object (bowing down) is not only near the Ark, but to the Ark itself. Therefore, Greek text means “bow down to the footstool”. In this case the footstool receives the act of prostration. Unless you are saying that God is the footstool itself. When you prostrate, do you place your head near what you do not prostrate to?

>>17794656
The papacy is in Isaiah 22
>21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
>22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Notice the parallels with Matthew 16:18? God would give the keys to the prime minister of the house of David. He would have authority over the government and the kingdom. In this case, God gives the keys to St. Peter, he makes him his prime minister and he has authority over the government (in this case the other bishops) and Christians on earth.

>>17791942
>J-just stop talking

>>17795235
'Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening.'

And Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

>>17795255

>>17795259
'The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads.'
That gif elder must bend the knee to the Lady Ark.

>>17791942
>>worship Mary
>Just stop talking.
I would like an honest discussion about this, I'm catholic but I feel there is extreme devotion to Mary to the point of putting her as the same level as the trinity. I see it in many, many people worship her like a Venus and put her at the same level as God.

Everytime I try to discuss this, people hush me.

>>17791676
You Catholics are not Christians, you are pagans who worship false idols.

>>17795570

>>17795573

>>17795361
Your image is the right idea. Mary is Catholicism’s version of a fertility goddess (or sex goddess if you prefer). No different than any other religion, Catholicism needed their feminine, sensual deity. However, Catholicism subverted the sex goddess archetype. Rather than centering Mary’s identity on her sexuality, they centered it on her lack of sexuality. Mary’s perpetual virginity (even after the birth of Jesus) is very important in Catholicism. They cannot give you a good reason why it matters nor what evidence they have that Mary (a married woman) died a virgin, but they get very upset if you challenge the premise. But the effect is still the same, her entire character concept still revolves around sexual themes. That theme in this case is just virginity, but it is still on topic for sex deities. Mary isn’t venerated primarily for her intelligence or courage, but her chastity.

The idea that Mary engaging in sex (with her lawfully wedded husband) would be “defiling” to her character is an interesting idea. It almost implies that sex itself, even in proper context, is a perversion, which is a hilarious idea, but also on brand for the Abrahamic faiths.

All of this is pretty funny since it’s just the result of nature devising the most efficient way for a sperm (which can’t survive outside the body) to meet an egg (also can’t survive outside the body). Nature picked the simplest method imaginable, a round peg and a round hole. Nature made it pleasurable to incentivize reproduction, lest mammals not even bother to do it, and accidentally created the most complex and ironic mental machinations in humans.

I wonder if seas slugs consider female sea slugs to be dirty, defiled whores when they shoot their egg piles into the murky cloud of slug sperm that’s floating in the water.

still don't get why proddies hate on the catholic church when protestantism is one massive rollercoaster, especially in the US
my church was founded by jesus and saint peter, the rock the church will be built on, not lunatics from the late 19th century

>>17795609
>I wonder if seas slugs consider female sea slugs to be dirty

Most seas slugs are hermaphrodites, possessing both male and female parts and using both in their reproduction.

>>17795647
It’s funny because you could add another 1,500 branches to this tree, but most of them would be after like 1850 AD.

>>17795647
Yahu Sabbaoth would never built his temple outside of Jerusalem.

>>17795647
“Founded by Christ” my ass. For an institution that you Catholics claim was supposedly “founded by Christ”, the Catholic Church did not exist for centuries. No one followed the Bishop of Rome's orders in the West at first (They deferred to Milan originally). No one followed the Pope's orders in the East at any time since the foundation of the church, The Bishop of Rome himself bowed to the Emperor in Milan, then Ravenna, and then later in Constantinople as his superior for hundreds of years, and was in fact appointed to his position by them, not the other way around. Am I really just supposed to believe some Medieval degenerate who wanted to use Charlemagne as a cudgel against the Byzantines when he says "Actually I just remembered Rome’s local bishop was the supreme authority in Christianity this whole time."?

Eastern Catholicism just seems even more absurd when it exposes that the Roman Catholics don't care about anything except the acknowledgement of the Pope as supreme. You can larp as an Orthodox, do the Eastern Rite, say the Nicene Creed without the Filioque (as it is written in marble on the walls of the Vatican), teach against purgatory, deliver the eucharist into mouth and it isn't a problem so long as you acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Theology doesn't matter to them. Geopolitical influence is the only thing they care about, and the Papacy is at this point too big to fail. They'll never humble themselves.

>>17795573
It really feels like you didn't read the Bible and have never read Church history if this makes any sense to you.

Christianity did not start in 1500. Traditions like the real presence of Christ in the eucharist date from the first century. Unless you're trying to claim the first 1500 years of Christianity is wrong, including the first century, but somehow it was "corrected" by several protestants with conflicting ideas, that is.

This would also imply though that Christ did a poor job instituting his Church, as he told Peter "the gates of Hell will not prevail" against the Church he therein founded upon him. Are you calling Jesus Christ a liar? If you're saying his Church was mistaken from the first century, then you are.

>>17795647
So, what is the common US Protestant theological position on King Henry VIII of England?

>>17795756
Is the same Jesus that told the disciples their generation will not pass away before the son of man came in the clouds to judge the whole world? Yes he's a liar.

>>17795361
>>17795235
Did David and Joshua worship the Ark of the Covenant or venerate it? In Psalm 99:5 and Joshua 7:6?
>>17795570
St. Peter and St. Paul knew Pope Linus himself, also see this: >>17795232
>>17795573
>Bible
Who set the canon of the new testament?
The Bible is definitely infallible, but who set the canon for it?
>call no man father
See Acts 7:2, Acts 22:1, Romans 4:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, Hebrews 12:7-9, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 1 John 2:13-14.
Many titles are applied to both, Jesus is called Shepherd but he calls St. John a shepherd as well. Titles may be applied to both.
>the Popes are supposed to be infallible
When speaking ex-Cathedra yes.
>judges all and is judged by no one
This is referring to laymen and bishops. Its does not mean that the Pope judges who goes to hell or not. But as the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the one with the keys of heaven and hades, he has authority over Christians, thus he judges any heresies.
>Alter Christus

If they were not alter christus. They wouldn't be able to do what He did. Just mimicking it symbolically.
>"is not me (St. Paul) but Christ that lives in me"
>Eucharist
When jews accused Jesus of being crazy when he told them to eat (phago) his own flesh, he told them they had to chew (trogo) his flesh to be saved. His own followers left him by the end of the chapter just as you did in the 16th century. Also Jesus is not “obeying” the priest, Jesus commanded the apostles to break the bread and to eat his flesh to be saved. The priest is obeying Jesus during the celebration.
>sacrifice again
It is the same sacrifice as if we were there in 33 AD, Jesus did not sacrifice himself again as taught by the council of Trent.

>>17795578
>>17795578
>Christ had given his church the holy Bible by 100 A.D
False, the canon of the Bible was determined later, there were also many forgeries going around. Therefore, a council was needed to set them apart.
>outside of which none can be saved
If you need to eat Christ’s flesh, drink his blood and listen to his apostles’ tradition, how do you do so through another church? The church is also the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), therefore you will not find salvation outside of it. (Does not mean non-Catholics are dammed, if they labor in ignorance of the truth, as stated by Pope Pius IX himself, it means that non-Catholics can only be saved in spite not thanks to their false religion.)
>true believers on the hit list
You cannot even find any true believers back then based on your baptist faith. Church fathers all accepted common apostolic doctrines which you reject.
>they called Peter the first Pope
See the post linked in my previous post.
>see Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56
You are not even trying, this is easily debunked by Matthew 27:56 and Matthew 12:50. See this on St. Mary’s sinlessness: >>17793387
>>17793428
She is the purest and holiest after God.
>Rome knows it
Not at all, Rome itself teaches that we cannot know what happens to unbaptized babies. Not to mention that you yourself claim to be sure of your salvation.

>>17796036
>>17795573
Also concerning the sacrifice, among other things. Christ in His humanity couldn't suffer infinitely. So his physical body must mystically but substantially and really suffer for your sins in today's mass for instance.

A human body will be made dust if doing physical penance for all the sins of all the ages in one go. So it's historically stretched out. But in a mystical (but still real) way and Christ is physically there.

>>17795756
The “Catholic Church” was not the church founded by Christ. It was founded by Satan centuries later to deceive people. Catholics worship Satan

>>17795570
Pride

>>17796072
Where did the Church of Christ disappear for 1500 years? The ordinations of Catholic clergy go back to St. Peter himself, and to the priesthood of the Old Testament. Protestants however have no continuity with the early church, see all of the early martyrs and early church fathers, none of them were protestants in faith. All of them believed in the real presence in the eucharist, intercession of saints which is also supported by the Bible as mentioned earlier in the thread, the successor of Saint Peter being Pope Linus was known by St. Paul. The church fathers are students of the students of Christ, an unbroken chain of teaching which teaches nothing related to protestantism whatsoever. You have absolutely no connection to the early church, your “church” was invented by a protestor in the 16th century.

>>17796130
>>17796072
In addition, St. Paul referred to the church as the pillar of truth, also where is the royal priesthood St Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9? St. Paul commands us to retain the apostolic tradition, where is this in Protestantism? Jesus commands us to listen to the church in Matthew 18:17, where did this church which we are supposed to listen to disappear for 1500 years? Same case in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the tradition received from them. Where is all of this in your reformist view?

>>17795578
>Bibles were outlawed

Just making shit up. I shouldn't be surprised since it's from the author who was scammed into thinking the Jesuits created Islam.

>>17796072
So in your theology the Holy Spirit is entirely impotent to preserve true doctrine?

>>17796167
That's true though

>>17796175
No.
Large Churches have a bible chained at the altar precisely because they wanted everyone to read the Bible

>>17796052
Please, repent and be saved.
By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
— Hebrews 10:10

>>17796047
Beware the trappings of tradition, which ensnared the Pharisees.
God's Word is sufficient.

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.’”
— Matthew 15:8-9

All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

>>17796241
Brother I did not deny that the sacrifice was one. It is not several sacrifices. Also brother, did you read why the real presence of the eucharist is Biblical?
>>17796247
Traditions of the pharisees are completely unrelated to the infallible apostolic tradition which Christ and St. Paul command us to obey.
>scripture is God breath
Definitely. I never denies that.

>>17796130
The church is those who have true faith in god, not a physical human institution. The Catholic “church” suppressed actual Christians who had true faith like the Hussites for centuries.

The papacy is the whore of Babylon

>>17796175
Show me one country where the Bible was outlawed. People were largely illiterate back then, that's all.

>>17796362
>The papacy is the whore of Babylon
Just keep repeating that, I'm sure it will convince someone by sheer repetition.

Meanwhile...
Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>17795573
>WORSHIP HIM!!!
>BUT NOT THAT WAY, NOW YOU GO TO HELL!
>is what christians tell each other
can you be not psychopathic for once

>>17796378
Pagan filth. Veneration of anyone other than god is heresy. Mary is not god and anyone who venerates anyone other than god is a pagan
Enjoy burning in hell papist

>>17796390
>hey Steve from accounting, pray for me
Acceptable
>hey Mary the mother of my lord and savior chosen by God for her purity, pray for me
Evil, idolatry, satanic, pagan

>>17796175
40-60% of Printing presses were Church-funded/owned because they wanted to distribute as many bibles as they could

They even encouraged reading sessions in their own houses.
What they discouraged was trying to administer the sacraments without obtaining the Priesthood

>>17791604 (OP)
>worship Mary
no
>participate in bizarre pagan rituals
no
>waste money on expensive, complex architecture instead of giving that money to the poor
construction workers are poor
>leadership are a bunch of pedos surrounded by wealth
ok this one is true but its not like thats what the average catholic wants. I'm sure whatever leadership structure you follow has pedos on the top too.

>>17791855
>Protestants have valid baptisms
True fact.

>>17796580
>I'm sure whatever leadership structure you follow has pedos on the top too
What's wrong with you, why are you like this

>>17796375
>>17796578
The bible was on the list of forbidden books for centuries. At many times the subordinates of the Roman church in various places outright prohibited scripture and undertook a purge of their copies. Vernacular translations were generally discouraged before they were forbidden, and when Trent declared Latin the authentic version even the scriptures in their original languages were being destroyed (some handwritten copies of the printed original language texts survive, which were produced to preserve them from Rome's fires).
Why do you pretend like they did otherwise, I know you will suddenly turn to defending their actions, since you share their opposition to the authority of scripture and their contempt for the words of God. They sought to silence the bible because nobody can believe both the bible and the pope.

>>17791604 (OP)
I'll agree with the other ones but catholics are way better at taking care of the poor than protestants.

>>17796662
That is false.
Vernacular translations were praised but also labeled as dangerous because of context and mistranslations.
While it was banned, it was not a blanket ban, and people can still have access to it. It is just forbidden to use it in official gatherings. In fact, ecclesiastical authorities are known to use those Bibles when speaking to the common people

Latin was the official translation because it was the lingua franca

>>17796703
You are going to burn in Hell, forever. You'll have zero rest, day or night. Have fun.

>>17796711
sigh

>>17796711
Do you think that will sway anyone?

>>17796662
Name a first party source.

>>17796724
>sigh
Effeminacy is a sin. Those flames just got hotter.
>>17796719
Who cares? It is a damnable heretic. I am not trying to persuade it. I just enjoy reminding it where it's going when it takes its last worthless breath.

>>17796729
Just shut it

Every Catholic theological position can trace it's way back to the Bible.

Just ask Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Gregory Pine, G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, or Thomas Aquinas.

Until you can debunk them, I won't listen to semantic screeing about "idols" and "alter christi".

>>17791676
> that satan and his ishtar, the queen of heaven
Fixed you, paganoid filth

>>17796739
Revelation 12 is pagan now is it?

"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;"

>>17796739
Southern Baptists are dying because of disgraces like YOU

>>17796744
That and the massive child rape scandal.

>>17796731
That is not a way to talk to your intellectual and spiritual superior. Know your place.

>>17796753
eyeroll

>>17796753

>>17796728
Index Librorum Prohibitorum

>>17796036
>Did David and Joshua worship the Ark of the Covenant or venerate it? In Psalm 99:5
>Praise the Lord our God
>Not "Praise the Ark of the Covenant"
Sounds pretty open and shut to me.

>and Joshua 7:6?
>He fell facedown on the ground before the Ark of the Lord
>Not "He fell facedown on the ground before the Ark that was just the Ark"
Same.

>>17796774
Did God command you to make a statue of Mary and bow to it? They did what God commanded. When he says don't make images you can't make images. If one day he tells you to make one then you go and make one.

>>17796738
They're all lying.

>>17796766
>>17796754

>>17796729
You are in sin

>>17796801
How do you figure?

>>17796738
>Until you can debunk them,
They debunk them by removing the books of the Bible that contradict their position like Maccabees 2

>>17796945
You are going to burn in Hell, forever. No rest. No hope of escape. Just pain.

>>17796949
>and when he disclosed it, the four living figures and the twenty-four elders fell down in the Lamb’s presence. Each bore a harp, and they had golden bowls full of incense, the prayers of the saints.

>>17796951
Are you okay?

>>17796955
I'm more okay than the guy that valued Judaizers over the deuterocanon

>>17796974
You are not very bright, are you?

>>17796975
I'm brighter than the guy that ate a spoonful of his feces everyday

>>17796982
>Its brain immediately goes to eating feces.
How very.

>>17791604 (OP)
>>worship Mary
Wrong
>>participate in bizarre pagan rituals
Wrong
>>waste money on expensive, complex architecture instead of giving that money to the poor
What does your prot church give back?
>>leadership are a bunch of pedos surrounded by wealth
Prot churches are just as bad if not worse, they just aren't unified

>>17791604 (OP)
if it's so bad then why doesn't god just come out of his gooncave and say which one is the right christian denomination? how can someone know they are not following best practices if every authority figure in their life says so? isn't god supposed to be all powerful? can't he just snap his fingers and write a message on the moon clarifying how he's supposed to be worshiped?

>>17797220
That would deny free will and faith.

>>17797220
>say which one is the right christian denomination?
He did
>how can someone know they are not following best practices if every authority figure in their life says so?
You can follow the method Jesus gave us for this problem: testing the traditions of men by the word of God (Mark 7)

>>17797329
You just posted a book protestants disrespect

>>17797343
You don't read the bible. I've literally spoken to atheists who knew more about the bible than any Romanist I've spoken to. For you to claim we disrespect the scripture, because we make it alone the source and supreme authority for religion (as is proper) and repudiate your human traditions which He commanded us not, is laughable.

>>17797347
How do you reconcile Sola Scriptura with the people pre-Bible formation that were receiving prophecies and the word of God left and right, to now saying "Nope, that's it. Everything that was chronicled is all there is and we have to source everything through it". Is God not powerful enough to make that happen again outside The Biblical canon and to prove himself one hundred percent to the chosen receiver? Are there not mysteries that can't be found in The Bible that need to be revealed elsewhere?

By the way, I'm not a Catholic, just so there's no confusion.

>>17797347
If protestants respected the Bible, they wouldn't side with messianic Jews over the Church in regards to the deuterocanon.
>because we make it alone the source and supreme authority for religion (as is proper) and repudiate your human tradition
And who determined which books belonged in the Bible? Church councils and the tradition of elders.
>repudiate your human traditions
I repudiate your human innovations.
I repudiate your Antinomianism

>>17797357
>How do you reconcile Sola Scriptura with the people pre-Bible formation that were receiving prophecies and the word of God
Now to an extent the solas are a theological shorthand, when we say scripture alone we really mean the word of God alone (which now exists only in sacred scripture). To quote the Westminster Confession of Faith
>Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable, yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church, and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
In a sense you answered your own question, this was before the closure of the canon. We do not claim the bible has always been the only rule of faith, only since God completed the revelation and ceased to send prophets to whom the whole covenant people was bound to listen, as scripture says "God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days spoke to us in His Son".
>Is God not powerful enough to make that happen again outside The Biblical canon
He is not willing.
>prove himself one hundred percent to the chosen receiver
He does this by the testimony of His Spirit.
>Are there not mysteries that can't be found in The Bible that need to be revealed elsewhere?
Who can tell God what He needs to reveal?

>>17797364
>If protestants respected the Bible, they wouldn't side with messianic Jews over the Church in regards to the deuterocanon.
You yourself call it "deuterocanon" precisely because it was a matter of controversy between Christians until the Reformation. We did not side with anybody "over the Church". Secondly, the correct term is not messianic but old covenant, these were God's people and they never recognized the apocrypha as scripture. Josephus testifies as to which books were laid up in the temple as the word of God, and it is identical to our Old Testament. Nor have I ever known the term "messianic Jew" to mean anything but Jewish Christian.
>And who determined which books belonged in the Bible?
God.
>Church councils and the tradition of elders.
I've asked this before and have not received an answer: could your church make the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas to be canon scripture? What about the quran? If you say no, on what basis would you refuse their authority?

I cannot stress enough what a shocking blasphemy it is when papists say this. They could not betray their faithless hearts more clearly than when they claim the authority of the word of God is subject to the authority of men, as if the pope was God's master. For scripture is nothing else than the verbal word of God, to read its words is to hear His voice, yet you claim that He cannot speak without this man's permission and His word has no authority apart from his (truly, this man is the Antichrist, declaring himself in the temple of God that he is God). The list of biblical canon is to include all those books which are actually and ontologically the words of God Himself, and no others. Nor could any man or group of men have any authority to add or subtract from them.
>I repudiate your human innovations.
>I repudiate your Antinomianism
You repudiate the commandments of God for traditions of men.

>>17797469
>Now to an extent the solas are a theological shorthand, when we say scripture alone we really mean the word of God alone (which now exists only in sacred scripture).
Which would discount the observable word, which is God manifesting himself in the world and to drive people to a truth. What if The Bible didn't have a passage for a truth yet unknown?
>In a sense you answered your own question, this was before the closure of the canon. We do not claim the bible has always been the only rule of faith, only since God completed the revelation and ceased to send prophets to whom the whole covenant people was bound to listen, as scripture says "God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days spoke to us in His Son".
I think the emphasis on prophets (as in prophets who deliver mighty words of revelations) is one of the core failings in your tenet, because with the line of thinking of not seeing the miraculous prophets and wonders that would state God clearly, you overlook the small - which is the Holy Spirit's words in man's mouth and the small signs used with everyday objects and whatnot. How to weave this into a path of revelation to some unknown truth? That's for the person who truly believes to put the question forward to God and ask him to manifest it. Sola Scriptura precludes this.
>He is not willing
"Willing" doesn't mean "Never"
>He does this by the testimony of His Spirit.
Then there'd be no point in having the Holy Spirit in us in the first place. That can't act as a transmission receiver of sorts to 100 percent accept God's intent without scrambling for The Bible?
>Who can tell God what He needs to reveal?
Maybe ask yourself what those fallen angels have truly been up to when they got cast down here

>>17797527
>Which would discount the observable word, which is God manifesting himself in the world and to drive people to a truth.
There is no "observable word", though God has revealed Himself in the creation this is not a verbal revelation and does not contain propositions. When men misapply the qualities of special revelation to general revelation what they are really doing is taking their own opinion, and vainly declaring it to be the word of God.
>What if The Bible didn't have a passage for a truth yet unknown?
Where God ceases speaking we cease speaking.
>the Holy Spirit's words in man's mouth
This is exactly what happened with the prophets.
>small signs used with everyday objects and whatnot
Do you mean pagan superstitions like reading omens in the entrails of pigs or flights of birds?
>How to weave this into a path of revelation to some unknown truth?
You do not. There are two kinds of religion, true religion (which is founded on the word of God alone) and false religion (which is founded on the wisdom of men and the whisperings of devils). It is false because it is not derived from God's revelation; it is made up. What you describe is more like the pagan mysticism of the Hindu gurus, but Christianity is not a religion in which we in our wisdom climb up the highest mountain and enlighten ourselves, but God comes down from heaven to bestow truth on us.
>Then there'd be no point in having the Holy Spirit in us in the first place
Non sequitur
>That can't act as a transmission receiver of sorts to 100 percent accept God's intent without scrambling for The Bible?
I don't understand the question.

>>17796362
And how do you decide who has the true faith of God? The blessed St. Peter mentions a royal priesthood, where is it? When St. Paul asked the Church when he had a doctrinal dilemma in Acts 15.
>And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Where are the elders and successors of the apostles in Protestantism? Who also set the canon of the New Testament? It was the early apostolic church which you have no continuity to.
>hussites
Hussites themselves were split into different factions.

>>17796390
See this >>17793374 about intercession of saints.
See this >>17793387 concerning the purity of Saint Mary.

>>17797620
I think this is an important point to note, especially with protestantism. WHO can rebuke someone leading the faithful astray? In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the Bishop and further up to the Pope/Patriarch can rebuke and silence a heresy.

In any protestant denomination, who can rebuke a Church? I've seen too many women pastors, too many gay pastors, and even a few pastors who deny the divinity of Christ and turn him more into a prophet. Where is the authority?

>>17796390
This has me thinking, do you believe people who lead exceptional lives in Christ are alive or dead? If you do believe they in Heaven, alive, why is it do you believe they are deaf to the world or they can't pray for us?

No where in the hail Mary does it invoke Mary to any act. It simply asks she pray for us.

>>17797620
Those who read the follow the scriptures that god gave us. Catholics follow nothing in them as all Catholic rituals and belief are pagan in origin.
Those flames just got hotter. Enjoy Hell papist

>>17796774
See this: >>17795221

>>17796779
So God commanded them to commit idolatry in your view?

>>17797997
>those that follow the scriptures that God gave us
How did they become priests? How does your priesthood even work? How did they become elders and such? How do you unite the people of your “church” without any figures of authority? How do you even excommunicate false teachers? Who set the canon of the scriptures God gave us? It is the universal apostolic church that you apostatized from.
>Catholic rituals and beliefs are pagan
Pick one that we can discuss, don’t run away this time. Did you also see this reply: >>17797785 ?
Papists believe in Christ as well, so according to your soteriology, they are saved, if not you refuted yourself.

>>17797945
Definitely, good point, protestants can’t even excommunicate arians, who are they as lay people to decide that? They also have no proper priesthood, specially baptists.

>>17798054
Veneration of Mary. Praying to anyone other than god is paganism.
God has told us in His Word that we are to worship Him alone without any use of idols or symbols. We are to worship Him in spirit and truth. We are to worship Him in line with His Word alone. Any other form of worship is unacceptable.
There’s also the fact that the Vatican has an obelisk and only sun-worshipping pagans do that.

>>17798086
We ask St. Mary to pray for us, as I have demonstrated earlier, it is Biblical to ask holy people for prayers. We recite the “hail Mary” which is what the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth both told St. Mary when they met her. Do you believe the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth were worshipping St. Mary? What do you also think about asking saints for prayers?
The veneration given to St. Mary is that of hyperdulia, not Latria which is given to God alone.
>obelisk
What are you referring to specifically?

>>17798242
Those flames just got hotter. Enjoy hell. Only god deserves praying or veneration. Also, you literally pray to statues and images of her, that’s paganism.
>What are you referring to specifically?
This. Only pagans build obelisks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_obelisk

>>17798247
Salvation by works is a clear papist heresy
>Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
>Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
>Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Papists contradict what is written in the Bible

>>17797945
>WHO can rebuke someone leading the faithful astray?
It is the duty of every believer to watch out for vicious wolves seeking to destroy the flock, but those with the power to put them out and prohibit them are the elders.
>In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the Bishop and further up to the Pope/Patriarch can rebuke and silence a heresy.
So why don't they? They both have priests openly and vocally endorsing and blessing the abomination of sodomy, which even for all its corruption is contrary to their official teaching, yet they are not even defrocked. Such a heretic would be put out immediately in our churches.
>I've seen too many women pastors, too many gay pastors, and even a few pastors who deny the divinity of Christ
And these do not have any party with us, who do not tolerate them. They don't believe the bible.

>>17798248
works of the law specifically is referring to the Torah (law)
that particular quote is just saying the old jewish practice of “okay if we do what the book says we can get to heaven” is rejected
one needs Christ

>>17797549
>There is no "observable word", though God has revealed Himself in the creation this is not a verbal revelation and does not contain propositions. When men misapply the qualities of special revelation to general revelation what they are really doing is taking their own opinion, and vainly declaring it to be the word of God.
"To general revelation". This circles around back to what I said earlier about Sola Scriptura already taking the stance that whatever God can reveal to a person can't be confirmed, despite him being all powerful and the ability to make sure he's known. If it isn't a grandiose event through the parting of an ocean, Protestants just don't have any time for it.
>Where God ceases speaking we cease speaking.
I guess you can tell that to everyone in history who has their prayers answered about divine truth, unless you want to put forward the argument that never happened.
>This is exactly what happened with the prophets.
What do we understand the Holy Spirit to mean here? That God isn't talking through us 24/7? Because he is, that's the whole point.
>Do you mean pagan superstitions like reading omens in the entrails of pigs or flights of birds?
The very Bible you clutch so tightly to already showcased the use of donkeys talking. God makes use of the humble, ordinary, and foolish to get his word across. You keep taking the stance that God just isn't powerful enough to make himself known through ordinary signs. Apparently, he's just unable to use a person's life and all the events that happened to them to lead to one clear revelation when they start observing things that fit like a jigsaw piece.
Cont.

>>17797549
>You do not. There are two kinds of religion, true religion (which is founded on the word of God alone) and false religion (which is founded on the wisdom of men and the whisperings of devils). It is false because it is not derived from God's revelation; it is made up. What you describe is more like the pagan mysticism of the Hindu gurus, but Christianity is not a religion in which we in our wisdom climb up the highest mountain and enlighten ourselves, but God comes down from heaven to bestow truth on us.
This isn't taking a position of excluding the Bible entirely, it is truth that can be used to aid in revelation, just like anything else that can be used. Do we not assume that God, being all powerful and all seeing, cannot weave every single particle in our reality to reach a conclusive revelation? The Bible can be used as a companion to the things you want to write off as "mysticism" and "headcanon", but it's not the end all, be all.
>Non sequitur
It isn't, because that's the whole point of the Holy Spirit. When you talk to someone, you're both speaking God's intent through you, even though you may not know it. Everything gets moved into place through the ordinary interactions and observations we take for granted, and that includes being moved into a position of divine revelation.
>I don't understand the question.
Just as the disciples were able to discern lies from truth with the use of the Holy Spirit, the same thing applies when God wants you to know something. The argument for "divine revelation not apparent in The Bible" being spoken to you is what the Holy Spirit can resonate with. The bookish outlook you're taking seems to be putting the divine and ungraspable nature of the HS on the backburner.

>>17798274
>Do we not assume that God, being all powerful and all seeing, cannot weave every single particle in our reality to reach a conclusive revelation?
No, of course not, because a message requires language to be transmitted. That's why he gave us all the revelation we need in the 66 books of the King James Bible. You don't like what that book says, so you have to pretend that seducing spirits and your own wicked imagination are "God's voice". Enjoy Hell.

>>17798282
Tattoo a 666 number on your ass the next time you bottom for someone, which I'm guessing for you is soonish o' clock. There ya go, kid.

>>17798284
>its mind immediately goes to buggery
Telling.

>>17798262
>If it isn't a grandiose event through the parting of an ocean, Protestants just don't have any time for it.
No, we allow for private spirits, for scripture says "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world". Now if there were no true spirits there would be no cause for a test, but as there is a test these spirits are themselves subordinate to the scripture, and do not add to the deposit of faith, but are meant to move a particular individual at that time to the truth which was once for all given to the saints.
>I guess you can tell that to everyone in history who has their prayers answered about divine truth
What if the object of these prayers was named Vishnu? Do you accept their veracity and authority then?
>That God isn't talking through us 24/7?
God talks to us through the written word.
>The very Bible you clutch so tightly to already showcased the use of donkeys talking
What did not happen is that the donkey laid down in a particular spot, and an unsound priest divined some meaning from that. What happened is the donkey opened its mouth, and human speech came out of it.
>You keep taking the stance that God just isn't powerful enough to make himself known through ordinary signs.
I'm taking the stance that the idle fantasies of unstable minds are not the words of God.

>>17798274
>This isn't taking a position of excluding the Bible entirely, it is truth that can be used to aid in revelation, just like anything else that can be used. Do we not assume that God, being all powerful and all seeing, cannot weave every single particle in our reality to reach a conclusive revelation? The Bible can be used as a companion to the things you want to write off as "mysticism" and "headcanon", but it's not the end all, be all.
The bible is a clear and verbal word from God. It is not to be reduced to a "companion" of this pagan mysticism. You do not divine God's revelation in your superstition, but only your own thoughts. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. You take an object, and make a superstitious connection like the pagans did that because of something like the direction it faces it must be a message from God to you personally that must mean such and such, and this is supposed to be the equal or even superior of His actual speech in scripture? This is human religion which is not from and is necessarily contrary to the revelation of God, and precisely because it is the invention of the diviner it was forbidden, Deuteronomy 18:10-11
>There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices soothsaying or one who interprets omens or a sorcerer, or one who is an enchanter or a medium or a spiritist or one who inquires of the dead.
This error is not idle and swiftly gives way to damnable heresies since the one who believes it is unhitched from the revelation of God found in scripture alone. There is a tremendous arrogance in superstition, as if you were the center of reality and everything was a message for you personally, and you could not be wrong.

>>17798352
>You take an object, and make a superstitious connection like the pagans did that because of something like the direction it faces it must be a message from God

Oddly specific. What are you talking about?

>>17798248
>Salvation by works is a clear papist heresy
Catholics don't believe in salvation by works. We believe that faith without works is dead. Salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ.

Show me in the Catechism where it says otherwise.

>>17798247
>Only pagans build obelisks

George Washington was a pagan?

>>17798247
1/2
>only God deserves praying or veneration
Didn’t the Hebrews of the Old Testament venerate the ark of the covenant and the cherubim? You also did not answer anything regarding the intercession of saints which I linked on my previous posts.
>obelisks
A simple search from Catholic.com gets you your answer:
>Where St. Peter’s now stands once stood a Roman circus erected by the infamous Roman Emperor Caligula. Caligula placed this obelisk, a symbol of ancient Egyptian religion, in this circus. Many Christians were executed in this circus, particularly during the reign of the Emperor Nero, and would’ve seen the obelisk in their dying moments as they looked upward. Christian tradition holds that Peter was one of those martyrs.

In homage to these early Christian martyrs, against whom death could not ultimately prevail (John 11:25), the Church erected St. Peter’s Basilica on the location of the former circus, and placed the obelisk as a reminder of the victory of both the Church in general and early Christians in particular over the pagan Roman Empire.

If pagans used statues does it mean you cannot erect a statue for a national hero? In the OT, pagans used statues yet God commanded the Hebrews to erect cherubim of gold, did God command paganism?

>>17798248
Papists do not teach salvation by works.
Second Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon I
>CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
>Ephesians 2:8-9
Quote verse 10:
>For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
After being initially saved you must continue in the good works prepared. The same St. Paul wrote this in Romans 2:7-9
>He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness.
Those who keep on *doing* good will be rewarded with eternal life.
>Romans 3:20
Works of the Law (circumcision, Sabbath, abstaining from pork and shellfish) ≠ Good works
>Galatians 2:16
Again referring to works of the law, see this as well from Galatians 5:19-21
>19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
>20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
>21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
This proves that asides from faith you must also control yourself not to fall into these sins. Which contradicts forensic justification, because the believer must change from inside in order to be saved, the righteousness must be infused for him to be saved.
Repent and join the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

>>17798347
>No, we allow for private spirits, for scripture says "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world". Now if there were no true spirits there would be no cause for a test, but as there is a test these spirits are themselves subordinate to the scripture, and do not add to the deposit of faith, but are meant to move a particular individual at that time to the truth which was once for all given to the saints.
Romans 1:20:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”
Romans 2:14–15:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness"
Subordination strictly to The Bible alone is not the end all be all to God's intent and will being known to a person and driving them to revelation.
>What if the object of these prayers was named Vishnu? Do you accept their veracity and authority then?
No, because they're false idols, therefore disqualifying them from the argument. We're talking strictly in the framework of God in The Bible.
>God talks to us through the written word.
Yeah, but why can't it be both? Both written word and non-written word?
>What did not happen is that the donkey laid down in a particular spot, and an unsound priest divined some meaning from that. What happened is the donkey opened its mouth, and human speech came out of it.
But we can both agree it was from an unlikely source, correct? Hence my argument for the mundane and the unexpected.
>I'm taking the stance that the idle fantasies of unstable minds are not the words of God.
Again, I reiterate the power of God to 100 percent verify it's coming from him. The argument isn't to take every person's claim of God speaking to them.

>>17798352
The bible is a clear and verbal word from God. It is not to be reduced to a "companion" of this pagan mysticism. You do not divine God's revelation in your superstition, but only your own thoughts. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. You take an object, and make a superstitious connection like the pagans did that because of something like the direction it faces it must be a message from God to you personally that must mean such and such, and this is supposed to be the equal or even superior of His actual speech in scripture? This is human religion which is not from and is necessarily contrary to the revelation of God, and precisely because it is the invention of the diviner it was forbidden, Deuteronomy 18:10-11
Again, the Holy Spirit is just this side thing that apparently can only be activated when you read a certain verse in The Bible. (Which it can, but is that the only way? Bible says otherwise). What exactly do you find the Holy Spirit to be?
>This error is not idle and swiftly gives way to damnable heresies since the one who believes it is unhitched from the revelation of God found in scripture alone. There is a tremendous arrogance in superstition, as if you were the center of reality and everything was a message for you personally, and you could not be wrong.
There's just these circular paradoxes that permeates throughout your arguments. God is all powerful, but he can't prove himself infallibly. Signs exist, but can't be stated with 100 percent clarity. You keep presupposing that what I'm arguing is for some Wiccan 50 year old house wife to be playing with tarot cards and a card landed on something and she jumped up and knew it was from God. There are a bunch of other factors from personal experience, events that spring to mind that immediately connect into place with said witnessing, being in a personal relationship with God, etc etc.

>>17798371
Yes, the founding fathers were all Satan worshipping Freemason pagans. Why else would they invent the first amendment?

>>17798387
>Repent and join the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
The Catholic Church worships Satan. So no, I will not join

>>17798400
>Subordination strictly to The Bible alone is not the end all be all to God's intent and will being known to a person and driving them to revelation.
So God's intent is for us to make things up and practice willworship conceiving religion in our own minds and not deriving it from God's word, and the basis for this is Romans 1 which is about general revelation and Romans 2 which is about Christian gentiles being morally good. Why do you even use the pretense of the bible? Would not your own so-called revelations be sufficient authority?
>No, because they're false idols
How do you know? How do you explain all the "revelation" they receive?
>We're talking strictly in the framework of God in The Bible.
No we're not, we left the bible, now we have our own "revelations" constantly
>Yeah, but why can't it be both? Both written word and non-written word?
Are your superstitions ontologically equal to the bible? Is your divination the very verbal word of God? The words of the prophets were, and they had the full authority of scripture. If they are, then you are a prophet, but must be a false one since God said He was no longer speaking to us through them. If they are not, then they are beneath scripture and subject to its authority and correction.

>>17798400
>But we can both agree it was from an unlikely source, correct?
No. The donkey was not speaking, any more than a burning bush was speaking, therefore the source is anything but unlikely. Nor does it have anything in common with the superstition you advocate but was verbal speech.
>I reiterate the power of God to 100 percent verify it's coming from him
It's only the power of unclean spirits to deceive you. Scripture gives us strict parameters for the judgement of prophets and spirits, and you tell us to disregard it. You are a false prophet.
>>17798416
>What exactly do you find the Holy Spirit to be?
I find Him to be the third person of the Trinity and the sovereign Lord of all creation, who does not serve your fancies and answer to your whims. You seem to find Him to be something entirely else based on your comments. What heresy are you setting yourself up for? I have heard many syncretists say that their "Holy Spirit" (which is anything but) guided them to embrace sodomy, is that your objective?
>You keep presupposing that what I'm arguing is for some Wiccan 50 year old house wife to be playing with tarot cards and a card landed on something and she jumped up and knew it was from God.
I see no difference, especially in light of your clarification.

>>17798248
No, Catholics believe that you need to believe in God and Jesus. They just don't think that once you're saved you're always saved. If you kill someone for no reason or fornicate and don't repent, then no amount of believing in Jesus as your personal lord and savior will save you from hellfire.
>As God’s favoured children, you must be like him. 2 Order your lives in charity, upon the model of that charity which Christ shewed to us, when he gave himself up on our behalf, a sacrifice breathing out fragrance as he offered it to God. 3 As for debauchery, and impurity of every kind, and covetousness, there must be no whisper of it among you; it would ill become saints;

>>17798509
>I see no difference, especially in light of your clarification.
No, of course you don't, because Protestants want to be scholarly bookworms first and being in the flow of God and the faith never. Bespectacled and hunched back over The Bible, burning their eyes on paper and then making pretentious condemnations when the needle slightly skews to right outside the book. The Holy Spirit is just a word to them, like a librarian reading a thesaurus and nodding their head that they got the definition "right".

I'm tired of this exchange. If it's not the Catholics chaining themselves to empty acts of sanctity, it's Protestants chaining themselves to the empty act of literality. Hope you find the truth someday.

>>17795221
Thanks for the grammar lesson but if you think that contradicts anything I said, you need to titrate your dosage.

>>17798784
Telling yourself lies to feel justified in departing divine religion.

>>17798491
You could not even answer my points, yet again you were refuted and failed to evangelize. How would your “pastor” react to this?

>>17798251
Okay, so if I might ask, what is your denomination?

If you're so adamant your way is the correct path to Christ, you'd be happy to share it with a wayward soul such as myself, wouldn't you?

>>17791604 (OP)
#RejectCatholicism

>>17801323
No thanks.

>>17791604 (OP)
Least Demonically inspired Prot/Atheist/Muslim (They all talk , speak and think the exact fucking same , I refuse to differantiate them)

>Cathodox demolish prottie delusions for years on /his/
>prottie’s only response is to parrot atheist talking points that only attack Catholicism while completely ignoring orthodoxy
This is how you know they’re just vomiting propaganda at you. If a Greco-Russian orthodogs coalition invaded the west tomorrow the evangelical’s kneejerk response would be to call the pope the antichrist. They’re poo flinging monkeys who have no clue what’s going on. Their conditioning is Pavlovian.

>>17800185
Confessional Presbyterian.