The Protestant view of Mary can’t be correct cuz every Christian ever prayed to her for 1000+ years. Yet the RC/EO view of Mary can’t be correct cuz Mary is barely mentioned in The Bible. So…?

>>17793666 (OP)
>every Christian ever prayed to her for 1000+ years.
So what?

It's not even "Protestant", just Americans
Every protee in Europe understands veneration of Mary and the Saints

Americans are just more about anti-Catholism than understanding Christian dogmas

>>17793676
Yes Protestantism didn’t exist for 1000+ years whats surprisin

>>17793676
It's been there the whole time. It is you who had to explain what makes you think that the founders of Christianity are wrong

>>17793666 (OP)
>So…?
Christians syncretised with local cults that 'venerated' female deities. We even have recent examples in Mexico and the Philippines
>Akchoally you're really just worshiping an incredibly-degraded interpretation of our blessed Mary o algo

>>17793705
>Every protee in Europe understands veneration of Mary and the Saints
Not true, but America is definitely worse. I attended a Lutheran school here, and it's insane what I was taught looking back.

All lies and mischaracterization of the Apostolic faiths. Some are such obvious lies I wonder if my Pastor and teachers were THAT gullible and ignorant? Or if it was just lies and malice.

I like to think they wouldn't tell so many falsehoods knowingly, but I don't know man. Like it was entirely wrong

Not even going to touch on how they portrayed Martin Luther, and just ignoring or "not knowing" all the abhorrent major things he did lol

>>17793720
Just for the laughs, during sex education our Lutheran Pastor made it clear once you're married you can do anything to your wife
Like condoms, birth control, anal, literally anything as long as you don't involve someone extra

Fucking wild looking back

>>17793716
>The founders of Christianity
No, the ones who came after all was said and done is when they started to introduce the disgusting goddess worship of Mary. The church has been corrupted
>But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies…
If you want to go ahead and doubt scripture, feel free. It's not even a Protestant line of thinking, it's the Bible straight up telling you what's to come and the swindling of believers in Christ.

>>17793676
So the closer to the time of the Apostles, the more just and true the Christian tradition.

>>17793734
>But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies

You just described the Reformation.

I am the Mother of God
>We are all meant to be mothers of God...for God is always needing to be born.

>>17793771
What the what?

>>17793769
*tips mitre*

>>17793666 (OP)
>Yet the RC/EO view of Mary can’t be correct cuz Mary is barely mentioned in The Bible.

Did we read the same Gospel of Luke? Read the first few chapters, c’mon guy.

>>17793903
>Read the first few chapters
Don't ask them to do that, they might realize the holy rosary is just reciting scripture with meditative prayer.

>>17793666 (OP)
>>17793903
I’ve got my EO Study Bible here… If you believe it’s Divinely inspired Scripture, you cannot avoid Luke 1:43–

“But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
(Luke 1:43 [NKJV])

So, the EO position, (Forgive me if this is wrong) that Mary is the Theo-tokos (God-bearer) is COMPLETELY biblical, as Elizabeth speaks by the Holy Spirit that she is the mother of her Lord, “Lord” being a Jewish name for God.

This all depends on if you believe in the Bible… However, Mary’s presence within the Biblical narrative is not negligible… The EO position can be defended.

>>17793666 (OP)
The Roman Catholic church isn't Christian.
It features Christ, but doesn't follow his teachings. The Church, is a pagan reimagining of Christ.
Hope this helps.
If you want to get into it, you can look to the Roman pantheons for inspiration with respect to the Roman Catholic church.

>>17793807
When the Reformers were asked why their movement wasn't blessed by God with miracles, they replied that God had stopped working miracles since the time of the Apostles (look it up yourself) and that the Church's many many miracles in turn were in fact the work of Satan. You have some very sober leaders, I would never wish to follow myself.

>>17793948
Elizabeth spoke in the Holy Spirit and then later Jesus had an encounter later that was exactly like Elizabeth's where he gives a rebuke, so Elizabeth's words are not an absolute proclamation by God that Mary should be considered blessed above others, it's just set-up for Jesus to have that encounter and get the final word in.

>>17793734
No one's worshipping Mary.
It is you and your blind dogma who just can't let go of your Anti-Catholic dogma

Question where it came from rather than just assuming everything is heresy

PS
The fact that you are assuming that an interpretation can be wrong already dictates the necessity of a magisterium
Which is against Sola Scriptura

>>17793666 (OP)
>666
>every Christian ever prayed to her for 1000+ years
Except for literally every Christian in the new testament. Enjoy Hell.

>>17793705
>>17793720
Both of you are going to wish you were never born.

>>17794051
Why not read up on the history of the Church and its traditions, you ignorant shit

>>17793666 (OP)
Catholics ought to really stop replying to Protestants on 4chan. This isn't an ideal place for discussion, and few of you are able to reply with proper gentleness and detachment. These threads are also nearly always made in bad faith. For the love of baby Jesus, please stop replying. Just stop. We are all sick of this boring, dumb spam.

>>17793666 (OP)
>The Protestant view of Mary can’t be correct cuz every Christian ever prayed to her for 1000+ years.
No they didn't, Mary worship didn't appear for centuries and was primarily influenced by monasticism which was a corruption derived from eastern religion.
>>17794026
>No one's worshipping Mary.
>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.

>>17794101
Read the prayer
>I venerate thee

No. Ones. Worshipping. Her
And no Veneration of Mary is right in the scripture. Before Jesus got Baptised even

>>17794115
>it used the word venerate instead of worship so blatant idolatry's ok
Blindness. Sheer, incomprehensible blindness. I will pray for God to open your eyes.

>>17794168
>haha your words are wrong, you are actually saying something you never said

Idiot

>>17794172
>It’s not ‘worship’ because we don’t call it ‘worship!
This is not a convincing argument. We don’t care about what you think it is. We care about what it is.

>>17794201
Mary can give you another prophecy of an upcoming bloodshed, telling you to flee
And you'd call her a devil.

Heresy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. Remember that

>>17793666 (OP)
I will not worship Mary, anime tranny.

>>17794245
No one does

>>17794210
>My gnostic deity will try to deceive you and you will stick to scripture and reject my apparition.
I’m not the one worshipping a gonstic deity so I’ll be fine.

>>17794259
She was proven right every single time
Every prophecy was as bad she foretold and people like you are the reason she cannot cancel it altogether

>>17794101
>monasticism which was a corruption
Monasticism isn't a "corruption". It's a voluntary act of praise and devotion.

>Mary worship didn't appear for centuries
Earliest known Marian prayer is 250 AD. Only a hundred years later than the Gospel of John.

Do you honestly think the one church was "corrupted" that fast?

>>17794210
1 John 4:1. Marian apparitions are devils.

>>17794308
>Monasticism isn't a "corruption". It's a voluntary act of praise and devotion.
It's a pagan practice that's contrary to scripture.
>Earliest known Marian prayer is 250 AD
Post it
>Only a hundred years later than the Gospel of John
You think John was written in 150?

>>17794010
The catholic church canonised a zoomer for having good computer skills, fuck outta here with this bullshit

>>17794308
>Earliest known Marian prayer is 250 AD. Only a hundred years later than the Gospel of John.
Propaganda and disinformation. While it’s true that some old scholars optimistically dated it to the 3rd century, nowadays in the light of the latest palaeographic research, the date should be moved to the 6th/7th or even 8th/9th century.
https://repozytorium.kul.pl/items/a908fcef-84c8-400e-8bc2-41ac59c76318

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2023/08/24/theotokos-a-review-of-the-scholarship-on-the-paleographical-date-of-p-ryl-iii-407-sub-tuum-praesidium/comment-page-1/#comments

>>17794325
Healing the blind comes from Beelzebub, too, right?

You are committing a Heresy against the Holy Spirit. Stop that

>>17794364
Your mother goddess is not the Holy Spirit

>>17794342
That is 100% false
Collyridianism is the heresy that actually worships Mary and existed in 400AD.

>>17794368
She works *with the Holy Spirt.
Just like the Saints and the apostles

Jesus left so that the Holy Spirit could descend upon all who believes in him
And you are committing a heresy against the Holy Spirit

>>17794378
Your false goddess has no magic power. You are committing heresy against the Holy Spirit by associating Him with it.

>>17794384
She gave you prophecies that were fulfilled right at the exact date

You are a SCUM

>>17794387
Deuteronomy 13:1-5, you are an idolater and a pagan

>>17794387
You make the Holy Spirit sad when you speak in anger.

>>17794394
The queen came to warn us
And you spat on her face

Thus, I repeat
You are a SCUM

>>17794396
Ishtar is no god of mine

>>17794396
I'm not the "Protestant" you're arguing with, but a different poster.

>>17794331
>contrary to scripture

How?

>Post it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_tuum_praesidium

>>17794373
Cope
>>17794405
>>17794342

>>17794402
Read your post again:
You are calling his mother the devil

You will explain this once you meet him, you know

>>17794409
>Recent scholarship has identified the hymn in the Georgian Iadgari (Chantbook) of Jerusalem, demonstrating that the Sub tuum praesidium was in liturgical use during the 5th century.

>>17794342
And it was in use by the Jerusalem church by the 5th century, so even if that papyrum is older, it's in evidence elsewhere.

>>17794405
>How?
They retreat from the world, practice vain mysticism, and forbid to marry, among other errors.
>later dated as late as the 9th century A.D.
Shocking

>>17794412
No I'm not. I'm calling the devils who deceived you devils. Nobody has seen Mary since she died.
>You will explain this once you meet him, you know
You will explain your worship of other gods and of images

>>17794423
You mean since she ascended to heaven.

>>17794423
>images

What is it with you evangelicals and hatred of art?

>>17794423
Her prophecies are on point and she gives glory to God every time she appears.

You don't want to face the fact that you are wrong
PRIDE

>>17794420
>They retreat from the world, practice vain mysticism, and forbid to marry, among other errors.

What mysticism? They choose not to marry, just as Paul taught in Corinthians.

>>17794429
I will never worship a creature. I will be put to death before I practice idolatry.

>>17794413
>>17794414
You realize, I hope, that words used in liturgies evolved over time and that even if some of the liturgies went back to the 4/5th centuries, they didn't mentioned Mary at all at those early stages? The intercession of Mary was introduced centuries later.
>conclusion from a chapter of Presbeia Theotokou The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium
(4th_9th Century)

>>17794435
You know you are wrong and you are just speaking out of PRIDE

>>17794439
I know I'm right, I'm speaking out of faith.

>>17794441
Blind Faith, for sure

>>17794436
Did you read what you posted? It mentions amulets with intercessory formulae in the 5th century.

It literally says "Nevertheless, on the basis of the amulets alone I would suggest that appeals to the intercessions of Mary were probably already an aspect of Egyptian devotion in the fourth century.""

>>17793666 (OP)
Israel in the Old Testament prayed to Baal and other demons for centuries and defended themselves to the Prophets who rebuked them and pointed to Scripture by citing it was their "tradition"
That the Church engaged in idolatrous acts as tradition does not on its own prove idolatry is orthodox any more than Israelites worshipping Baal for centuries proves Baal worship was orthodox.
Appeals to tradition without Scripture are utterly without foundation.

>>17794450
Jesus left us the apostles and their traditions, he didn't leave us a Bible. The Bible was created BY that tradition, later on.

>>17794455
Christ quoted Scripture to the Pharisees in argument. Did Christ have to wait for "tradition" to canonise what Scripture he could prove Himself with the Pharisees?
"Tradition created the word of God" is the dumbest Romanist apologetic.

>>17794464
>Did Christ have to wait for "tradition"
YES!
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING YES!

The reason why Jesus had to be circumcised, wait till he is 30, and receive Baptism from John the Baptist is because these are the qualifications for becoming a Rabbi

Jesus follows Tradition
Why don't you?

>>17794464
The Bible wasn't finalized until the Council of Rome in the 4th century. Around the time that book says Marian intercessory prayer started. Hmm...

>Christ quoted Scripture to the Pharisees in argument. Did Christ have to wait for "tradition" to canonise what Scripture he could prove Himself with the Pharisees?

Yes. That was the point, the scripture had been codified long before then so he could cite it and have people know what he's talking about. Otherwise what's the point in quoting something?

>>17794470
>The Bible wasn't finalized until the Council of Rome in the 4th century. Around the time that book says Marian intercessory prayer started. Hmm...

If the church had been "corrupted" by the 4th century, that means the current canon of the bible is suspect. So why don't more protestants throw it open to the Book fo Enoch or the Testament of Mary Magdalene?

>>17794469
Mark 7

>>17794485
>Mark 7
So you think that applies to all traditions everywhere? No one is saying praying for Mary's intercession is the word of god. The Catholic church is well aware what is scripture and what is tradition. Jesus didn't come to destroy all tradition, just the hypocritical ones.

>>17794485
Don't worship the scriptures, dumbass
Anyone, including the devil, can quote it to promote their own personal agenda

The scripture is holy only if it is interpreted correctly under the guidance of tradition and magisterium

>>17794469
>circumcision is a divinely ordained tradition
>God himself has to follow tradition
Judaizer heretic and retard
>>17794470
>The Bible wasn't finalized until the Council of Rome
The Bible is the word of God and its literary canon was finalized when the final books of the NT were written, likely the Apocalypse of John. This was closed to remain as teaching as the last of the Apostles passed away.
A 4th century council of Rome is irrelevant and no one cares about it. Even Rome didn't close the canon of the Bible until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Dogmatically they could have added any book they wanted to the Biblical canon before that, because "tradition".
>That was the point, the scripture had been codified long before then so he could cite it and have people know what he's talking about. Otherwise what's the point in quoting something?
That's the point you fucking retard. Scripture had been codified at the time of Christ's ministry. How? Either you believe the Pharisees and Saducees were the infallible canonizers of their tradition, or the Scripture that Christ was appealing to was manifestly canonized by their inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
>>17794483
Because the Biblical canon is received at the latest in the Muratorian fragment in the mid 2nd century and is in all of our earliest writings and councils.
This is a completely imbecilic and nihilistic argument. How do you know what counts as divinely inspired tradition? Is there a canon anywhere that you can tell me what is tradition and isn't? Of course not. Does that mean you think appeal to tradition is arbitrary?

>>17794498
Believe the bible? That's worship.
Hike up a hill so you can get on your knees before a Mary statue and chant stuff like this >>17794101? Just veneration, bro

>>17794499
It is precisely the fact that Christian tradition was ordained by God that he has to follow it

The King made his laws and he will never violate them because a King who does not follow his own laws is a tyrant

>>17794498
>The scripture is holy only if
KEK
Romanists really think nothing is sacred, not even the words of Christ, but the Pope. Clown shit. Satanic.

>>17794502
>>17794507
Satan can quote the scriptures, just as he did in the garden

The scriptures are not holy until it was interpreted correctly through tradition and magisterium

>>17794505
>It is precisely the fact that Christian tradition was ordained by God that he has to follow it
Christ is God you heretic. God did not have to follow any thing.
Stop embarrassing yourself on the internet and pray and read Scripture and go to church. Please. I mean this for the sake of your soul.
>>17794508
>Satan can quote the scriptures, just as he did in the garden
And he quoted that which is Holy.
Satan does not make unholy that which is holy simply by his transmitting it.
Evil is the privation of Good, not the unmaking of Good.
This is basic theology.
As I said above, please pray. I will for you, brother.

>>17794493
>So you think that applies to all traditions everywhere?
All traditions of men which are used to nullify the word of God.
>The Catholic church is well aware what is scripture and what is tradition.
If tradition isn't the word of God, then it is inferior to it and subject to reformation by it.

>>17794508
>The scriptures are not holy until it was interpreted correctly through tradition and magisterium
Translation: "the bible has no authority"

>>17794515
Correct

It has no authority to decide what it meant. That authority is for tradition and magisterium

>>17794518
How do you know which tradition and magisterium has the authority to decide what it means?
Where's the infallible canon of tradition and infallible magisterial documents which interpret every word in the Bible infallibly?

>>17794499
>Even Rome didn't close the canon of the Bible until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

You misread the wiki page. That was to re-establish it's translation in face of the reformation.

>The Bible is the word of God and its literary canon was finalized when the final books of the NT were written,

Except the christian community couldn't decide whether books like the Shepherd of Hermes was divinely inspired until the 4th century council.

> Is there a canon anywhere that you can tell me what is tradition and isn't?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

>>17794514
>, then it is inferior to it and subject to reformation by it.

Yes, that's why the church has reformers and councils. To modify tradition to be more in line with proper theology.

>All traditions of men which are used to nullify the word of God.

As no Catholic tradition does.

>>17794521
The Holy Spirit created the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church and maintains it to this day.

>>17794521
Tradition refers to the historical, cultural, linguistic, and theological context

Magisterium refers to the intellectuals who understands those historical, cultural, linguistic, and theological contexts

Having a medical book doesn't make you a doctor. You need experience and a license
The same applies to the Christian belief.

In order for the lot of you to understand where we are coming from, you have to first understand that the most important person in the Vatican is not the Pope

No, the most important ones are the Librarians who are scarecrows (scholar amongst scholars) of ancient history. Many of them can speak languages that are long dead
Each librarian is capable of understanding the scriptures under the right context, and it is them who are truly the lifeblood of the Church, who ensure that each verse does not get taken out of context

The power of the librarian to the Vatican is like the power between the USA president vs the Military

>>17794446
There was this recent discovery, too, an amulet addressed to a St. Titus:
>The grave in which the amulet was found is dated to between 230 and 270 AD. There has never been such early, authentic evidence of pure Christianity north of the Alps.
>A small silver amulet, just 3.5 cm in size, with a thin silver foil with a mysterious incision rolled into it: the „Frankfurt Silver Inscription“. Experts agree that these 18 lines will greatly enrich existing research into the spread of Christianity and the late period of Roman rule on the right bank of the Rhine. The inscription could be deciphered thanks to the latest computer tomography technology.
https://aktuelles.uni-frankfurt.de/en/english/frankfurt-silver-inscription-oldest-christian-testimony-found-north-of-the-alps/

>>17794522
>You misread the wiki page. That was to re-establish it's translation in face of the reformation.
Nowhere was the canon of the Bible closed in Roman ecclesiology before Trent. That is a fact.
>Except the christian community couldn't decide whether books like the Shepherd of Hermes was divinely inspired until the 4th century council.
Except the Muratorion fragment in the mid-2nd century excludes it from the canon, and no one in the church quotes it as Scripture. Weird, huh.
>The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The catechism of the Roman church previously taught the death penalty was licit, and now teaches the death penalty is illicit. If the catechism is claimed to be a pure record of infallible tradition, then the Roman church fails.
Appeal to the catechism is a very bad argument anon. No one, not even Romanist apologists will claim their catechism is infallible tradition.
>>17794526
I agree. And where is the infallible canon of traditions of the Church listed?
>>17794527
You've just quoted a bunch of dictionary definitions and not even responded to the argument you were replying to.

>>17794542
One of those practices died out, the other was fostered by the Holy Spirit.

>>17794545
>Nowhere was the canon of the Bible closed in Roman ecclesiology before Trent. That is a fact.

Read the wiki page. The books of the Bible were first enumerated in their modern form in the Council of Rome. You are simply mistaken, if not willfully ignorant.

> If the catechism is claimed to be a pure record of infallible tradition
Who said that? Not me. You asked where was tradition laid out and described. That's what I posted.

> infallible canon of traditions of the Church listed
You asked where the traditions were listed. I told you. It's not infallible, it's updated as it describes human tradition modified through councils and scholars.

No one claimed tradition was infallible.

>Muratorion fragment
Which doesn't list Hebrews or James or First and Second Peter. Also it recommends the Shepherd of Hermas as to be added to the canon. At least look up this stuff before posting it as a "gotcha".

>>17794521
>>17794545
There is no "other" in tradition.

And there are only 2 magisteriums - Orthodox and Catholic. Both of which follow the exact same dogma, differing only in their political structure

>>17794518
>Correct
Romanism and Christianity are religions in contest

>>17794523
>Yes, that's why the church has reformers and councils.
These are pawns of the pope which do not reform, but protect their own corrupt power.
>As no Catholic tradition does.
All Romish tradition does. Every human tradition which is claimed as grounds for religion nullifies the scripture.

What I find fascinating is how early Church Fathers just insisted on keeping the traditions as they were laid down mainly because it was what all bishops and presbyters everywhere knew to be of utmost importance as instructed by their predecessors, can't be a coincidence and it is the reality of being a clergyman involved in the complex parish life made it obvious to preserve those skip to today and we know their reports back then from being largely accurate were true and our findings of the earliest practices are also showing that traditions were preserved properly.

Now the fun part is that every single aspect of Church-Parish life is a full human experience, engaging the full brain and developing the person to the best living potential, this cannot be a coincidence, a bunch of impoverished fishermen and poor people came up with all this architecture and the intellectual groundwork for political liberation, democracy in Europe, etc.?

It's all Divinely inspired, it's contingent, it's not human deducted or experimented with, and it came down from Heaven for our own sake to preserve something good in humanity and to show early what would be.

>>17794569
Which early church fathers believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?

>>17794563
Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Blessed are 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.

>>17794568
>their own corrupt power.
The church hasn't had Earthly power since the 16th century.

>>17794578
That's also when the Roman church stopped having valid spiritual power.

>>17794579
Still largest "denomination" in Christendom.

>>17794551
>Read the wiki page
THAT is your argument?
>You asked where was tradition laid out and described
No, I asked you for an infallible canon (i.e. list) of infallible tradition.
Since you believe that we can't know what infallible Scripture is without infallible tradition, how do you infallibly know what infallible tradition is? This is a nihilistic atheistic argument.
>No one claimed tradition was infallible.
The Roman Church claims tradition is infallible. If you want to disagree with the Roman church then great, and we can agree.
>Which doesn't list Hebrews or James or First and Second Peter. Also it recommends the Shepherd of Hermas as to be added to the canon. At least look up this stuff before posting it as a "gotcha".
Absence of evidence in a mutilated text is not evidence of absence.
And no, it recommends the Shepherd of Hermas as apocrypha and explicitly NOT as inspired Scripture. Please read stuff before posting it as a gotcha.

>>17794586
>The Roman Church claims tradition is infallible.
No, it doesn't.

>>17794581
Which is defined not by shared belief or practice so much as ticking the right box at census time.

>>17794469
>The reason why Jesus had to be circumcised, wait till he is 30, and receive Baptism from John the Baptist is because these are the qualifications for becoming a Rabbi
1. Baptism didn't exist before John the Baptist.
2. "Rabbi" isn't a position in Old Testament Christianity.
You're now a proven liar. Have fun burning.

>>17794551
>it's updated as it describes human tradition modified through councils and scholars.
So it's not apostolic, it doesn't go back to the apostles, there were no apostles at the Council of Trent. Why would it have authority? Why should I care what fantasies are invented in the minds of modern pagans and passed off as "tradition"? There is no tradition. All of Rome's traditions are novel, all of them can be tracked back to periods of time well after the death of the last apostle. It doesn't matter because so-called "tradition" is not a source, but an excuse, it is not so traditional at all but terribly modern, for "tradition" is only cited as justification for believing things not found and often outright contradicted by holy scripture, which is the very word of God.

>>17794553
>And there are only 2 magisteriums - Orthodox and Catholic
Oh, so you're a larper who adopts belief in Christ as a fashionable accoutrement.
They literally teach that the other is going to hell because the other's magisterial teachings are untrue and deny God.
This probably doesn't mean anything to a functionally atheist 4chan larper though.

>>17793716
Christians had erred since the time Jesus walked the Earth:

>27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
>28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

>>17794553
Enjoy Hell.

>>17794594
Do you want me to quote Vatican II?
>Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles

>>17794649
Where's the word "infallible" in that sentence?

>>17794699
It defines sacred tradition as forming the deposit of the word of God.
Denying the word of God is infallible is blasphemy, btw.

>>17794615
>They literally teach that the other is going to hell
No, we fucking don't
We teaches that no man on Earth have the authority to say who goes where

Ortho and Catho are the same Church, just different leadership role

>>17794603
John the Baptist gave Jesus the Semicha which is needed to become a Rabbi
Jesus was even pressed about his authority in Matthew 21-23

And yes, it is a position since OT. The first Rabbi is Moses and every Rabbi can trace their linage to him.
The Apostolic Succession is older than Christ as it is just a continuation of the Rabbinic succession

>>17794607
>there were no apostles at the Council of Trent.
Not what Apostolic means.

>>17794619
So in your view the Holy Spirit let the one true church falter the moment Jesus ascended? Or did it wait for the bible to be codified? And if so, why did it wait until the 16th Century to bring back the "true" church?

>>17794855
>John the Baptist gave Jesus the Semicha which is needed to become a Rabbi
John the Baptist gave Jesus water baptism. He also did this for many others. He was the voice in the wilderness preparing the way for Yahweh, he was a prophet and not a rabbi (which is an innovation of the pharisees).
>Jesus was even pressed about his authority
You are claiming the authority of *Jesus Christ* was founded in Jewish tradition?
>The first Rabbi is Moses and every Rabbi can trace their linage to him.
>The Apostolic Succession is older than Christ as it is just a continuation of the Rabbinic succession
I am reminded by the way you same people who say this will deride us for dismissing the apocrypha since it was not recognized by the believing Jews who were God's people, meanwhile, you are so desperate to justify Rome's arrogation of divine authority that you will baptize the pharisees who crucified Him. Jesus Christ personally explicitly rejected the traditions of the pharisees in the New Testament. Why do I even need to explain that the pharisees are condemned and opposed by the New Testament?

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matthew 23:8

>>17794619
No.
If you want to go with Sola Scriptura, then no interpretation can ever be wrong

>>17794884
Yes it is.

>>17794601
Just making more things up. From the dominant Roman Catholic to the Eastern Rites, the church is united by beliefs and practices.

>>17794464
Do you think the Bible collected itself?

>>17794896
Can you explain something to me? Why is it impossible to defend Rome without attacking a strawman? If Romanism is true, why are its defenders incapable of being truthful?
Answer me right now, yes or no, is this what you think Protestants believe?

>>17794902
Apostolic means descended directly from the apostles. Which is why we are One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church. We can trace our priests ordination all the way back to the apostles. An unbroken line of tradition handed down from Peter, Paul, James, and the rest.

>>17794903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Martin_(priest)
Is this guy part of that unity? Is this the irreformable magisterium I'm supposed to believe instead of the bible?

>>17794907
>without attacking a strawman

You have constantly misrepresented Catholic beliefs and practices at LITERALLY EVERY TURN. So get the beam out of your own ass before you come for the splinter in mine.

>>17794913
So the church has councils, Appoints new doctorsof the church as time goes by. Even has a counter-reformation. Yet you insist that it's "irreformable".

>>17794913
James Martin still performs the mass. Still believes all the dogmas of the catechism. He just wants the church to be less of a jerk to gay people. No major schism there at all.

>>17793666 (OP)
Mary was a child prostitute. You're breaking blue board rules by posting pornography (depictions of whores).

>>17794907
>Answer me right now, yes or no, is this what you think Protestants believe?

Do I think the question I asked is a declarative statement? No, I was born into English. I know the difference.

>>17794897
No
The entire point of John recognizing Jesus as above him is to confirm that he is giving Jesus his "yoke"
Semikhah requires 2 witnesses (John and the Holy Spirit). And the person declares that "he was once unclean but now he is clean"

Yes, Jesus follows Tradition. He is not a rebel - he follows the laws of the land

The Apocrypha is not canon simply by the fact that it is not mentioned in the authoritative gospels. But it does not necessarily contradict it either.
It cannot be confirmed but it doesn't mean that it is not-canon

>>17794910
>Apostolic means descended directly from the apostles.
So if tradition is from the apostles how is it updated?
>We can trace our priests ordination all the way back to the apostles.
No, you can't. The apostles were not priests, nor did they ordain priests. There's no priests in the New Testament, the only ones called priests are priests of the old law or Jesus Christ, there is no sacrifice offered, nor priestly function. In the New Testament every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9) as we all commune directly with God through our high priest Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:9). The development of priesthood was centuries after the apostles (around the turn of the 3rd century) due to unbiblical development. While this was extremely early by the standards of most of Rome's traditions (though the peculiar trappings of her priesthood would not come for centuries still) it is terminally late for anything which claims to be apostolic. For instance, the oft-cited passages of Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) and Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century) which are anachronistically interpreted by modern Roman Catholics to teach transubstantiation notably make no mention of the priest, something that would be unthinkable in a Romanist understanding of the Eucharist. It reveals the enormous difference in religion between the ancient Christians and the medieval heresy of Rome.

>>17794915
I note that you defend the practice of lying about us, but I have done absolutely no such thing. I have only represented you accurately on this board even backing up what I've said with citations of official church material. In the face of that the claim I've misrepresented you is a desperate cope, you are fearfully hiding from the truth. Mormons do the same thing.
>>17794917
Yes, it is irreformable. She will not subject herself to the tribunal of scripture and neither you nor anyone else has the authority to question the magisterium; these councils and doctors only serve to expand the body of errors. The term Counter-Reformation is a misnomer, it was really an anti-Reformation as Trent being convened by the guilty parties sought only to defend and uphold the corruption which has permeated the Roman church, many times condemning with the anathema any who believe the teachings of scripture (and in so doing severed the church of Rome from the body of Christ forevermore).
>>17794920
Yeah there you go, why should I heed your traditions when you yourself disregard them like this? Cardinal Sarah called this man the most outspoken critic of the church's teaching in sexuality. A few hundred years ago he would have been burned at the stake, but now he is not even defrocked, he is even commended by popes. Ten years from now will you be telling me apostolic tradition is LGBT-affirming? Scripture stands like a rock, but the traditions of men are ever changing.
>>17794923
Then you also realize your questions were purely rhetorical.

>>17795005
>the medieval heresy of Rome
LOL, you think the catholic church didn't exist until the middle ages?

>>17795008
>Then you also realize your questions were purely rhetorical.
No, I really wanna know what a protestant like you believes about the Holy Spirit. Cause you sure do make the Holy Spirit sound impotent to me.

>>17795005
>The apostles were not priests, nor did they ordain priests.
In the bible they're called "presbyters".
The term Priest was used by Clement of Rome and Tertullian.

>>17795031
The point of citing Tertullian and Clement is they were describing already existing traditions around 100AD. Hell, the latest manuscripts of John are from 110.

>>17794920
Massive cope and obfuscation. You are in communion with this person and he is in good standing with the pope and the church. You must believe the same thing as him if the church is united in belief and practice?
It is a rhetorical question because I already know the papist church is not united on any meaningful sense. Only meaningless institutional unity.

>>17795044
He has one minor disagreement with policy. Mountains out of molehills.

He and Sarah still agree on salvation, divinity, truth,metaphysics, etc.

>>17795044
>I already know the papist church is not united on any meaningful sense.
This is all you got? What's next, the German Bishops? A catholic can go to any catholic church on the planet and hear the same mass and recite the same creed.

>>17795050
Worthless. The fact that James Martin, Joe Biden, Cardinal Hollerique, Cardinal Marx, and so many other Cardinals can confess unity and faith with men as Taylor Marshall, bishop Athanasius Schneider and Edward Faser is the product of centuries of ecclesiological regressions. That the same church body can be home to LGBTQ+ Masses and Tridentine Masses is a testament to this surprising history. There is no unity of faith. You might as well say you can believe whatever you want as long as you swear allegiance to the big papa in Rome.
Protestants have more unity of faith than papists. If there is is false teachings they are excommunicated or the true believers leave as scripture commands not to have any semblance of unity with false believers. The papist church ignores this and has full communion with people like James Martin.
>>17795055
Yes and it is the most damning. I can go to a trad Larp Latin mass church that supposedly condemns sodomy and the next weekend go to Father James Martin’s lgbt mass. So no a papist will not hear the same mass all over the world.

>>17795071
>Protestants have more unity of faith than papists.
Sure thing. Whatever you say. I'm sure a snake handler, a mormon, and a Jehova's Witness can go to a Methodist church and not notice any dogmatic differences.

>>17795071
>LGBTQ+ Masses
No such thing. It's the same Mass. What you're describing is, at best, the content of the Homily.

>>17795013
Stop thinking of an institution. Rome is not the catholic church, and has no membership in the catholic church, being a synagogue of Satan. The institution you have been lied to about being the catholic church is a historical ship of Theseus. The only thing the pope has in common with the church Peter once ministered in is his location. He does not teach the same things, he does not hold the same office, his teachings and his office are innovations which appeared over the course of centuries. However, the institution is not what I mean by Romanism, anymore than the Watchtower Society is what I mean by Arianism. And yes, Romanism, as it stands now, is thoroughly medieval.
>>17795017
That brings me back to the question I asked you before, why is it impossible to defend Rome without attacking strawmen? If what we say is the truth, do you not wish to know it? If you ask me a serious question I'll answer it.

>>17795075
Nine of those are prots you moron.
>>17795077
Cope. They are more common than the trad Larp Latin mass. Which the papacy is trying to eliminate.

>>17795031
>In the bible they're called "presbyters".
This is a transliteration and not a translation. The word presbyteros means elder and has no priestly connotation, nor are the presbyteroi described as having a priestly function. The elders are not set apart as a clerical class (as a priest is) but serve as those members of the congregation responsible for leading the whole in faith and practice, teaching from the scriptures, administering the holy sacraments, watching out for wolves, and overseeing the spiritual health of the people. Elder is but one of the words given for this office, alongside overseer and minister.
>The term Priest was used by Clement of Rome
No he doesn't. He used the term only in respect to Levites, Jesus, and the pagans. You're probably thinking of one of the several spurious writings in his name, the only authentic Clementine writing is 1 Clement.
>Tertullian
Tertullian is around the turn of the 3rd century. Show me someone in the 2nd or 1st centuries talking about Christian priests. (also, I again note Tertullian's priesthood is still far from modern Rome).
>>17795075
You are brethren with sodomite apologists and men who refuse to say the filioque, nor can you reject them since they also kneel to the pope of Rome who embraces them. The same people would not be tolerated in our churches. Three of the groups you listed do not even pretend to believe in sola scriptura. Are muslims and atheists Protestants too? It is not Rome vs the world, it's Rome vs the Reformation, and there is far more unity among those who believe in the solas and those whose only "unity" is paying into the vatican's coffers.

>>17795086
There is no such thing as an LGBT mass. There is only THE MASS. The media can call it whatever you want, the contents don't change.

>>17795086
The protestant reformation means putting individual uneducated hot takes about scripture ahead of hundreds of years of tradition and teaching. The inevitable outcome are these excesses, that's what you get. Mormonism and Jehova's Witnesses are the fruit of the reformation tree.

>>17794603
>"Rabbi" isn't a position in Old Testament Christianity
The entirety of Leviticus was for the Levites - all Rabbis are Levites

>>17793948
>Lord” being a Jewish name for God.
Wrong.

>>17794016
>gives a rebuke
Is this what you mean

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

>>17795659
>word of God and obey it.
He means the law doesn't he?

>>17795156
Sophistry won’t get rid of this. Which as another reminder you are in full communion with.
>>17795160
>protestant reformation means putting individual uneducated hot takes about scripture ahead of hundreds of years of tradition and teaching.
No. Read any Protestant church’s confession.
>The inevitable outcome are these excesses, that's what you get. Mormonism and Jehova's Witnesses are the fruit of the reformation tree.
No. They don’t adhere to any Protestant principle like faith alone, scripture alone, or grace alone. They are actually closer to Papism than anything. Both Mormons and JW have their own authoritative teaching elders who interpret scripture for their church. Which is something that is not present in Protestant churches.

>>17794855
You need to be drugged up and put in a cell so that you aren't a danger to the people around you, nutcase.
>>17795283
>The entirety of Leviticus was for the Levites - all Rabbis are Levites
No, the entirety of Leviticus was for Israel. Levites were to be priests, not rabbis. Learn to read.