Thread 18138666

Why have prots historically been like this?

>>18138666 (OP)
Is this an AI version of the original image?

I don't think you can feign incredulity that anyone familiar with the English language would mistake the use of the co- prefix as indicating anything other than some form of joint/equal relationship.

>>18138689
what are you even talking about anon. its not a joint/equal relationship

>>18138705
>feigns incredulity again
Yes, who on earth would ever interpret the use of the co- prefix to indicate a relationship of joint/equal nature other than an ESL

Is this one of those breakfast question moments lol
>"Yes, but how would you interpret the term 'co-redemptrix' if you WEREN'T Catholic, Pedro?"
>"...but I am Catholic, señor"
>"But what if you WEREN'T? What would the "co-" prefix mean if you WEREN'T"
>"...but I am Catholic, señor"

>>18138720
Wine moms and X retards.

>>18139006
>feigns incredulity once more

>>18138666 (OP)
I went to a catholic school and honestly no one ever discussed protestants at all. I was probably a teen before I even really knew what they were.
Do protestants think about catholics often?

>>18139008
>incredulity x3
anon lerned new werd today!

>>18139045
my catholic fiance also has no clue what protestants were until my reversion recently. but yes, as a protestant my fellows would talk about catholics

>>18139076
>werd
senhor

>>18139081
wow you are really autistic. high functioning or low functioning?

>>18139095
>spelling 'word' correctly indicates autism
senhor

>thread about actual history: religious spergs refuse to discuss history and argue theology
>thread about theology: regular spergs refuse to discuss theology, argue about spelling and autism
Great board. Wonderful use of everyone's time.

>>18139102
I was mocking you, and you missed the joke completely.

My "lerned new werd" post was parody. You were the one repeating "incredulity" over and over like a child, so I used "baby talk" to mock your babiness.

You were too dense to get it, thought I was actually ESL, and replied with "senhor." That's why I called you autistic because you're incapable of understanding basic parody.

>>18139110
>sees bait thread
>"why aren't the participants arguing over the hermeneutics of saint augustine's the city of god

>>18139122
Still waiting for that explanation of why co-redemptrix was intentionally chosen as a title while simultaneously denying that the "co-" prefix implies there is an any equal relationship

Well, short of catholic theologians being embarrassed and insisting there's a different meaning (don't want to give the prottoids ammunition about that mary worsh-veneration stuff o algo)

>>18139123
And yet every other thread does turn in to that.

>>18139126
You were being unironic the whole time? Co is a modern etymological step from 'cum' which essentially translates to "with" in a general sense it does not mean "equal to" and never has. A co-worker is someone you work with, not someone who is your equal. A co-author is someone who wrote with another, not necessarily an equal contributor.

Co-Redemptrix means she cooperates with the Redeemer, subordinate to Him. This isn't some embarrassing secret. You're not even here to learn to discuss anything you're concern trolling.

Catholics are the jews of Christianity

>>18139523
Christians are the jews of christianity in general
It's an inherent zionist shabbos goy faith

>>18139148
>A co-redemptrix s someone who provides redemption with another

>>18139579
You are intentionally confusing "cooperating with the Redeemer" (Mary's role) with "co-redeeming as a Redeemer" (a heresy).

A surgical nurse cooperates with the surgeon in an operation. She is not the surgeon. Denying this distinction isn't a serious argument; it's just a refusal to understand basic etymology.

Worshiping jewish vagina is a devil's poison.

>>18140249
We don't call operating room nurses 'co-surgeons' now do we

>>18140382
That's because the nurse just hands the surgeon a tool. She's external and replaceable. whereas Mary provided the actual human body for the sacrifice. She gave Christ the very flesh and blood He used to redeem the world.

Her cooperation was intrinsic, not external. It's a one-time, unique role in history, so it gets a unique title. You're just getting filtered by a Latin prefix. "Co-" means "with," not "equal." A co-pilot is still subordinate to the pilot.

>>18141019
>more hairsplitting

>>18140249
First of all, "co-redemptrix" literally, grammatically identifies Mary as a redeemer. "Redemptrix" is merely a feminized form of redeemer.
Secondly, when papists say "you just don't understand it" that is pure cope. You have no excuse. I do understand, you're saying she is subordinate and saves because of Christ. It's still damnable heresy and you will, I assure you you *will* burn in hell if you believe this. There is nobody and no thing which contributes one iota to our salvation aside from Christ. He alone procured everything for the salvation of the elect, to Him alone do we approach to reconcile with God. If you in any sense have a savior other than Christ you are not a Christian.

>>18138666 (OP)
I don't get it. Is he portraying himself/catholics in general as the wojak in the corner? I mean, that would track with the text and meme format. He does know that's the guy we're supposed to be making fun of in this format, right?

Once again cathgroids show their retardation. Time to take a siesta, pendejo.

>>18141067
I know this is hard for you. Thats why Mater Populi Fidelis was written.

protestants are too busy holding up the entire industry of the whole western world on their back to care about reading some religious documents

>>18141164
These guys would like a word with you

>>18141094
>It's still damnable heresy
No its not. Christians save others and yet are subordinate to Jesus at the same time, nearly all the time in the evangelization.

This is shown in scripture numerous times too:
1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

1 Timothy 4:16 "Take heed to yourself and to the teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."

Romans 11:13-14"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them."

James 5:19-20 "My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

Jude 1:22-23 "And convince some, who doubt; save others, by snatching them out of the fire; on still others have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

1 Corinthians 7:16 "Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?"

Acts 16:30-31 "And [the jailer] brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

>, I assure you you *will* burn in hell if you believe this. There is nobody and no thing which contributes one iota to our salvation aside from Christ. He alone procured everything for the salvation of the elect, to Him alone do we approach to reconcile with God. If you in any sense have a savior other than Christ you are not a Christian.
And there he is. I'm actually surprised you tried to make an argument this time instead of just resorting to the usual Enjoy Hell script.

>>18141171
>no exhortations regarding mary's role in co-operating with jesus to provide redemption
are you sure you're not quoting from the KJV?

>>18141164
The 20th and 21st-century conservative intellectual movement was built by Catholics (William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk), influenced by them (G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien), or now led by them (Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, Sohrab Ahmari).

Pic related is the single most powerful and successful conservative social movement of the last 50 years. It was started by Catholics, funded by Catholics (like the Knights of Columbus), and its theological reasoning (personhood at conception) is Catholic. The Dobbs decision was a Catholic victory. While mainline Protestantism has collapsed on issues of marriage and gender, the Catholic Church remains the largest and most unyielding global institution defending the traditional family.

The Catholic Church runs the largest non-governmental school system in the world and the largest non-governmental healthcare network in the world. They are literally building and maintaining society, hospitals, and schools, especially in poor communities.

When every other corporation, university, and "conservative" church bends the knee to progressive ideology, the Catholic Church is the only institution with the size, history, and centralized authority to actually resist. It's the only institution that can (and does) go head-to-head with the UN, the EU, and the US government on abortion, euthanasia, and gender ideology, and win.

The "Woke Capital" they worship is a direct result of the Protestant ethic being stripped of its Christian morality, leaving only a "gospel" of profit and self-creation. Catholic Social Teaching (Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno) provides the only coherent conservative critique of both socialism and predatory capitalism.

>>18141173
You're dodging. The anon I replied to (>>18141094) made the claim that "nobody... contributes one iota." I just posted 7 verses proving St. Paul, St. James, and other Christians do cooperate in "saving" others. You can't refute the *biblical principle*, so you're moving the goalposts to "b-but where's Mary?" My verses prove the principle. Mary is just the most perfect and unique application of that principle. You lost the original argument because you conceded the principle. Thanks.

>>18141183
But why don't we have any of this Marian stuff in the New Testament? Why did Catholic theologians have to invent tortuous logical justifications in the absence of Jesus reiterating at every step the role that Mary played in his own existence?

>>18141171
>No its not. Christians save others
Yes it is and no they don't. Christians are said to save others in nothing like the sense in which the Romanists believe Mary saves, for never are Christians said to contribute anything to salvation, nor to merit anything for anyone, nor to mediate between men and God in any sense. Word games shall do you no good, what Romanists mean can be clearly seen in the blasphemous prayers of Alphonsus Liguori. You are refuted by your own prooftexts, what we must do to be saved is pray to Mary? No, to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus alone procured spiritual gifts for us by the merits of His life and death, which are sufficient of themselves to save each and every man if God is willing. Not the tiniest iota is contributed by anyone else, but every spiritual gift was purchased by the blood of Christ. Nor is any human being able to co-operate with the grace of God by their own power, least of all Mary.
>And there he is
Please don't give yourself an excuse by pretending I'm some spammer, it will do you know good before God. I do not want that for you, but if you do not reconcile with God through the perfect work of Christ you will die in your sins.

>>18141177
This is a longwinded propaganda post you probably copied from facebook, but here's a conclusive refutation.

>>18141177
Roe v. Wade was overturned because a Protestant president managed to tip the scales at the Supreme Court. The only states open to exploiting the overturn of Roe v. Wade to implement or outright ban abortions are "Protestant" ones. The state with the highest percentage of Catholics has shown no inclination to using the overturn of Roe v. Wade to aggressively move against abortion clinics, neither have any of the other heavily-Catholic states in the US.

Catholic priests don't even restrict the eurcharist from openly pro-abortion politicians.

In what conceivable world is the overturn of Roe v. Wade a "catholic victory"?

>>18141186
You are literally just denying the plain text of Scripture. I posted 7 verses. Let's use two. James 5:20: "whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death." 1 Timothy 4:16: "Take heed to yourself and to the teaching... by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."

Your claim that "not the tiniest iota is contributed by anyone else" is directly refuted by the Bible. You are placing your Sola Fide tradition above the inspired text. These verses don't say "it will look like you're saving them"; they say you will "save" them.

>"nor to mediate between men and God in any sense"
This is just false. What do you think intercessory prayer is? 1 Timothy 2:1: "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men."

When you pray for your friend, you are mediating on their behalf. Christ is the one mediator of redemption (1 Tim 2:5), which no Catholic denies. But all Christians are called to be subordinate mediators of intercession in Him. Your argument would make all intercessory prayer impossible.

>"Nor is any human being able to co-operate with the grace of God by their own power"
This is your biggest mistake. You're arguing against Pelagianism, not Catholicism. No Catholic believes we cooperate "by our own power." That is a condemned heresy.

The Catholic teaching is that our cooperation is itself a gift of grace. It is not: (My Power + God's Power) It is: (God's Grace) -> (My free "Yes," which is also enabled by God's Grace) This is backed by that verse where it says we are His worksmanship forgot the exact verse you can look it up.

>St. Alphonsus
This is a pathetic pivot and a straw man. I never said we "must pray to Mary" to be saved.
You lost the central argument.You claimed "nobody and no thing" contributes to salvation. I proved this was unbiblical using 7 verses showing Christians cooperate.You can't refute the biblical principle of cooperation so its strawmanning

>>18141187
Your "Come out of her my people" caption is a catastrophic misreading of Scripture. You're confusing the Whore (Apostate Jerusalem) with the Beast (Pagan Rome) and the Kingdom (the Church).

The "people of the prince (Messiah)" (Daniel 9:26) will destroy the city. The Romans (Beast) destroyed Jerusalem (Whore) in 70 AD. The Church IN Rome had nothing to do with that. The Church OF Rome got policital power well after pagan Rome fell.

Rome is the Fifth Kingdom from Daniel 2, the Katechon and restrainer of the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2.

>>18141189
his is a massive cope. You are confusing the failures of weak, unfaithful men with the source of the victory itself.

>a Protestant president tipped the scales Irrelevant.
The president was the agent, but the legal philosophy that won was Catholic. The intellectual backbone of originalism was built by Catholics (Scalia) and the majority of justices who signed the Dobbs opinion that overturned Roe are Catholic (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett).

>The only states... are "Protestant" ones
This is the proof of the Catholic victory, not its refutation SINCE pro-life movement's core argument is that personhood begins at conception and abortion is a grave sin BECAUSE IT IS a Catholic natural law argument. Mainline Protestantism folded on this decades ago.

The "Catholic states" you mention (New England) are full of secular, non-practicing cultural Catholics. The "Protestant states" (the Bible Belt) are full of practicing Evangelicals who adopted the Catholic theological position on life.

The fact that the Bible Belt is implementing Catholic teaching is the very definition of a cultural victory.

>Catholic priests don't even restrict the eurcharist
This is a scandal but no one is "scandalized" when a Protestant pastor gives communion to a pro-abortion politician because everyone knows their churches have no consistent theology.

>>18141210
this*

>>18141210
The simple fact is the only political cohort that gives a fuck about abortion to the point getting an anti-abortion politician on the supreme court is considered a political masterstroke...are evangelicals

You can cope and um akthually all you want, the very obvious fact is that catholics in the US don't really care - if they ever did - about Roe v. Wade.

Just as an aside, how many catholic bishops endorsed Trump o algo

>>18141190
>You are literally just denying the plain text of Scripture
I realize this is not something Rome has taught you to do, but this is not how you read the bible. The bible is a book, not a set of unrelated verses. You read one passage at a time and you begin from verse 1. You have proven nothing. I am not saying how I know this because I do not wish to embarrass you, but it is apparent to me you have never held a bible in your hands and studied it, your knowledge of scripture is primarily derived from looking at various prooftexts on the internet. I was the same way when I was a Romanist.

Now, the sense in which these scriptures say they "save" is not as contributing to salvation (which is tortured eisegesis) but because they bore the message of repentance through which alone men are saved. The sole meritorious cause of any man's salvation is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and nobody else contributes an iota to it. These preachers did not even cause their listeners to believe, and in any sense in which they could be said to be a cause is as the material cause in bearing the word of salvation through which God works. Even a person's own faith is not contributed by themselves because apart from Christ purchasing for them the right to believe nobody would believe.
>This is just false
When it is said Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man this is according to His office as priest, as the priests of Aaron according to their ministry were the go-between for God. If you desired to approach God, you had to go through the priest. Likewise, we go through Christ to approach God, no man goes to the Father except by Him. This is the sense in which Christ is the sole mediator, obviously this is not what's going on in intercessory prayer, yet this is what Rome teaches of Mary and is by that condemned. They who go to Mary to get to God and beg her for mercy have never known Christ.
(1/2)

>>18141190
>You're arguing against Pelagianism, not Catholicism
I know very well what I am arguing against, it is Semi-Pelagianism. In your church God's grace is necessary because it enables and makes salvation available. Not so of biblical grace. Natural man is not merely sick, wounded and imprisoned, but stark dead, so that if the jailor were to release him from his shackles he would not move unless he was also given life. There exists in fallen man no kernel of goodness which would enable him to freely will to co-operate with God's grace, he can do no such thing. Obviously, the sinner in his own salvation responds, believes and participates, but he does not do so one bit from his natural will, but only according to the will as he has been given in being raised spiritually from the dead. It is not God's grace working with my free will choice to believe (of which man has none), but God's grace working in me every part of my salvation, even that I should will.
> I never said we "must pray to Mary" to be saved.
I never said you did.

>>18141222
You're not getting the point. You're confusing political voting blocs with the theological and historical origin of the movement.

>only evangelicals give a fuck
But this is historically false. The pro-life movement was started by Catholics, is funded by Catholics (like the Knights of Columbus), and is based 100% on Catholic Natural Law theology (personhood at conception).

Evangelicals are (thankfully) allies, but they adopted the Catholic position. Mainline Protestantism, as my post said, folded on these issues decades ago.

>catholics in the US don't really care
You're confusing cultural Catholics in blue states with the Church. The Church's teaching is the reason the movement exists.

>how many catholic bishops endorsed Trump
This has gotta be your most ignorant point lol. Catholic bishops are legally prohibited by US tax law from endorsing political candidates.

>>18141229
>"evangelicals are theologically catholic when it suits me"
Thank you for playing

>>18141203
No, Babylon is not Jerusalem. Babylon is seated on seven hills, which is a famous distinctive of Rome. This Babylon is a false church and directly antithetically parallel in several ways to the true Church. It is the beast's seat which in no way could be said between Rome and Jerusalem. The beast is worshipped as a god above all that which is called God, which is not so of the empire (the emperor was worshipped, but not the empire). The beast is a false Christ who substitutes in Christ's place in the false church of the whore. There is no other candidate for the beast than the pope of Rome and no other candidate for Babylon than the church of Rome, for it is unthinkable for all that happened to have happened and yet not be the fulfillment of the prophecy. The command of Revelation 18:4 was fulfilled in the Reformation.

Tradlarping is so fucking cringe, holy shit

>>18141210
>The "Catholic states" you mention (New England) are full of secular, non-practicing cultural Catholics. The "Protestant states" (the Bible Belt) are full of practicing Evangelicals who adopted the Catholic theological position on life.
So in summation, when Evangelicals do something good it's actually because of Rome, and liberal Protestants are real Protestants but liberal papists aren't real papists

>>18141252
Reminder that the bishop of San Francisco excommunicated Nancy Pelosi, and she flew to Rome and Francis communed her

>>18141259
Yeah but that was just part of a 4-d chess move to...uh...

>>18141227
>>18141228
Your entire post is a Gish Gallop of straw men. You're not arguing against Catholicism; you're arguing against the 16th-century Calvinist caricature of it.
>your knowledge of scripture is... prooftexts

The irony is staggering. I post 7 different verses from 5 different authors (Paul, James, Jude, Luke) all using the word "save," and you dismiss them as "unrelated prooftexts."

You are the one doing "tortured eisegesis" by redefining the word "save" to mean "not really save" just because it violates your man-made tradition. You are placing your sola scriptura tradition above the plain text of Scripture.

>This is the sense in which Christ is the sole mediator... this is what Rome teaches of Mary
This is your most massive straw man. No Catholic believes Mary is a mediator in the same way Christ is.

Mary, like Paul, or like your own pastor, is a subordinate mediator of intercession. Let's use your own logic. When you ask your pastor to pray for you, are you "going to your pastor to get to God"? When you ask your "prayer warrior" friends to intercede for you, have you "never known Christ"? u're fine with subordinate mediation when it's your pastor, but you scream "heresy" when we apply the exact same principle to the Mother of God, who Scripture calls "full of grace."

>I know very well what I am arguing against, it is Semi-Pelagianism
You still don't get it. The Catholic Church condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange. We condemn the idea that man has a "kernel of goodness" that can will to cooperate on its own. Catholic teaching (which you clearly never learned) is that our cooperation is itself a gift of God's grace. God's prevenient grace gives us life (raising us from "stark dead"), and that new life is then able to freely assent (cooperate) with further grace.

You're stuck in a false binary since either man is a "stark dead" robot (your view) or he's a Pelagian. The Church rejected both of those heresies 1,500 years ago.

>>18141234
Mainline Protestantism collapsed on these issues. Earlier up in the chain of replies anon said Protestants here in >>18141164 not solely evangelicals. This distinction is important because mainline Protestants EARN MORE than evangelicals and by your own measures "contribute more to society" since you want to judge virtue by money ergo contribution to the industry.

Either way your argument falls flat since Catholics earn more than Evangelicals anyway.

>>18141271
>my post mentions evangelicals
>the mainline protties doe
Are you alright? I mean mentally

>>1814127 here, apologies, I forgot this board has a lot of low IQ mestizos that think everyone that disagrees with them (online) is the same person

>>18141271
No, I wasn't the poster behind >>18141164

>>18141244
I never said that. I said the Whore IS Apostate Jerusalem. Try reading the post before you reply to it. Revelation 11:8 identifies the "great city" (the Whore) as the exact place "where also their Lord was crucified." That is Jerusalem. I'll take the Bible's own definition over your superficial geography.

The Beast (Pagan Rome) and the Whore (Apostate Jerusalem) are not the same. The Bible says the Beast DESTROYS the Whore. Revelation 17:16: "the beast... will hate the whore... and burn her up with fire." This was fulfilled literally in 70 AD when the Roman (Beast) armies destroyed Jerusalem (the Whore). They are not allies.

"Come out of her, my people" (Rev 18:4) was the 1st-century command for Christians to flee Jerusalem before its 70 AD destruction. The historian Eusebius confirms they obeyed and fled to Pella. Your "fulfillment" is 1,500 years too late.

>>18141266
>Your entire post is a Gish Gallop of straw men
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
>You're not arguing against Catholicism; you're arguing against the 16th-century Calvinist caricature of it.
"Nuh uh" is not an argument, sir. It is really embarrassing when I accurately represent Romanism and the defense is to pretend that's not really what Rome believes. Martin Luther knew what Rome taught, John Calvin knew what Rome taught, and I think it's fair to say Eck and Bellarmine knew what Rome taught. I know what Rome teaches. The only one who might be out of the loop here is you.
>The irony is staggering.
>I post 7 different verses from 5 different authors
The lack of self-awareness is staggering
>You are the one doing "tortured eisegesis" by redefining the word "save" to mean "not really save"
Matthew 27:5 "Judas hanged himself"
Luke 10:37 "Go and do likewise"
Now, are you going to just deny the clear meaning of these prooftexts like that?
>No Catholic believes Mary is a mediator in the same way Christ is.
Do you therefore condemn the heresy of Liguori when he wrote "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"?
>Mary, like Paul, or like your own pastor
I do not know what I could say that would not be merely identical to what I already said. Did you even bother to read it? This mediation has nothing in common with intercessory prayer, as has been established. The mediation which Rome ascribes to Mary is the kind which is exclusive to Christ. Do you seriously think we would tolerate someone saying to his pastor "I place in Thee all my hopes for salvation"?

>>18141281
This is the most pathetic cope I've ever seen. You're lashing out with insults because you got caught in a contradiction, and now you're trying to disown your own argument.

You're the one who can't read 4chan.
Post >>18141164 made a claim about "protestants."

You, in post >>18141189, jumped in to defend that claim by bringing up the "Protestant president" and "Protestant states."

You chose to pick up that argument. You own it.
The second I proved that the theology of the pro-life movement is Catholic (>>18141210), you tried to narrow your own argument to just "Evangelicals" (>>18141222).

My post (>>18141271) correctly pointed out that your original, broad "Protestant" argument (which you defended) is incoherent, because it includes Mainliners.

Crying "I'm not that guy!" now is a cowardly attempt to memory-hole the thread. You defended the claim, you narrowed the claim, and you lost the claim.

>>18141277
I simply pointed out that the original, broader term ("protestants") also includes Mainliners, who are rich but completely liberal, proving the original point (>>18141164) was incoherent.

>>18141266
>The Catholic Church condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange.
Romanism did not exist until centuries after when the council of Orange was held, yours is a very medieval heresy. The fact it is contradicted by an ancient council which preceded its existence hardly proves it is not Semi-Pelagian. This is like a Jehovah's Witness saying they aren't an Arian because the Watchtower Society condemned Arianism at the council of Nicaea.
>We condemn the idea that man has a "kernel of goodness" that can will to cooperate on its own
Someone should have let all those medieval Romanist theologians know that, especially Erasmus who made precisely this point against Luther.
>God's prevenient grace gives us life (raising us from "stark dead"), and that new life is then able to freely assent (cooperate) with further grace.
This would be what I am denying. Man is not able to cooperate with grace unless he is caused to do so. A "prevenient grace" would be sufficient to save no man, and would ensure the damnation of each and every man, for man is so corrupt in his nature that he will never cooperate with God's grace unless he is raised from the dead such that he could not choose to do otherwise.

>>18141303
The simple fact is actual catholic don't give a fuck about this. Bitch and whine all you want, it's not the Southern Baptist Convention telling people to knock it off with the criticism of anti-abortion politicians >>18141252

>>18141308
Wrong. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

For example, when you combine all major Protestant groups, approximately 42% of all U.S. Protestants are pro-abortion.

Thanks for playing.

>>18141317
>The Vatican itself tells US catholics to stop trolling Biden about his support for abortion
>YEAH BUT-
cope

>>18141287
>I never said that.
You never said what? I can't comprehend what you think you're responding to
>Revelation 11:8 identifies the "great city" (the Whore) as the exact place "where also their Lord was crucified."
It also says that place is Sodom and Egypt, let us recall Revelation is a prophetic allegory.
>The Beast (Pagan Rome) and the Whore (Apostate Jerusalem) are not the same
Yes, the pope is not the church of Rome
>The Bible says the Beast DESTROYS the Whore
The beast hates the whore and brought destruction to it many times, such as when the pope provoked the queen of England to kill many papists by issuing the bull Regnans in Excelcis. Understand that the pope hates you, for there is nothing more hateful than subjecting you to spiritual lies.
>They are not allies
The woman rides the beast (17:3)
>The historian Eusebius confirms they obeyed
They obeyed the command of Christ in Matthew 24. The Revelation was addressed to no one in Judea, for it was sent only to seven churches in Asia. Furthermore, Irenaeus (who learned from Polycarp) relates that it was written in the last years of Domitian, which places it in the mid 90s AD.

>>18141308
>>18141252
>>18141259
We're all in a state of moral collapse just as the Bible predicted there would be as we draw nearer to His return, so theres' no argument here either.

Anyways Archbishop Cordileone did not "excommunicate" her. He barred her from Communion in his archdiocese (San Francisco), in accordance with Canon 915. Other bishops, like Cardinal Gregory in D.C., signaled they would not follow his lead.

My whole argument is that there is a massive divide between the Church's infallible 2,000-year-old teaching and the scandalous failures of unfaithful men who refuse to enforce it.

>>18141321
That is a pathetic tu quoque fallacy. It's a non sequitur and proves you have no response.

Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are **few**." (Matthew 7:13-1)

Both of our groups have moral shortcomings.

>>18141317
>liberal Protestants are real Protestants but liberal papists aren't real papists

>>18141331
>Anyways Archbishop Cordileone did not "excommunicate" her. He barred her from Communion in his archdiocese (San Francisco), in accordance with Canon 915. Other bishops, like Cardinal Gregory in D.C., signaled they would not follow his lead.
Wow, you convinced me, communing an excommunicant child killer is the height of conservatism

>>18141332
You've just accidentally figured it out.

"Protestantism" has no unified, infallible dogma, so a "liberal Protestant" (like the 64% who are pro-abortion) is just as "real" as a conservative one.

The 51% of "Catholics" who "approve abortion" are objectively heretics who reject defined Church teaching. They aren't "liberal Catholics"; they are apostates.

Your system has no way to filter out Protestants who disagree on matters as grave as these. She was not excommunicated btw.

>>18141333
see >>18141339

>>18141339
No, you got it backwards. Words have meaning and they don't need a bunch of elderly simonists playing dressup in funny hats to give them meaning. It is much easier to argue liberal papists are real papists than to argue liberal Protestants are real Protestants. We define a true Christian in two ways, visibly and invisibly. One is a member of the visible Church when he credibly professes faith (or is a child of a believer, too young to do so) and a member of the invisible Church when he actually has faith. On the other hand, the papists define their church by submission to the Roman pontiff, which liberals are apparently quite capable of doing. So if you would have me believe Nancy Pelosi isn't a model papist you'll have to explain why the pope of Rome would not.

Thank you for openly admitting you're special pleading though.

>>18141341
Let's play pretend and run with that for a moment: why wasn't she excommunicated? If she was a member of my church you better believe she would be excommunicated.

>>18141331
>>18141317
The psychotic derangement it takes to interpret the head of the catholic church telling anti-abortion types to knock it off a as a victory for anti-abortion catholicis truly something else

>>18141322
>It also says that place is Sodom and Egypt, let us recall Revelation is a prophetic allegory.
You're trying to use poetic labels to erase an explicit geographical pin. The verse says it is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, but it is literally the place "where also their Lord was crucified" (Rev 11:8). That is Jerusalem, not Rome. You are denying the plain text of Scripture.

>Yes, the pope is not the church of Rome
Correct. The Beast (Pagan Rome) and the Whore (Apostate Jerusalem) are also not the same.

>The woman rides the beast (17:3)
Yes, she's a temporary, wicked ally (like the Sadducees telling Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar"). You conveniently ignored the end of the story.

Revelation 17:16: "the beast... will hate the whore... and burn her up with fire."

The Beast (Pagan Rome) DESTROYS the Whore (Apostate Jerusalem). This was fulfilled in 70 AD. They are not the same entity.

>Irenaeus... places it in the mid 90s AD
Irrelevant.

Prophecy can be a theological interpretation of a past event. Revelation 11:8 still identifies the Whore as Jerusalem.

The "Beast = Pope" theory is still impossible because it contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2. The unanimous Patristic consensus (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom) is that the Roman Empire is the Katechon (Restrainer) that holds back the Antichrist.

But you have to ignore Revelation 11:8 and Revelation 17:16 to make your theory work.

My argument from Daniel 9:26 (the Romans are the "people of the prince") and Revelation 11:8 (Jerusalem is the "Whore") is 100% scriptural. Yours is not.

>>18141300
>>18141305
>"Nuh uh" is not an argument, sir
Your entire two-post Gish Gallop is just "nuh uh" to 1,500 years of Catholic theology you've never read.

>Matthew 27:5 "Judas hanged himself" Luke 10:37 "Go and do likewise" You just proved my point. You took two "unrelated verses" out of context to create a "tortured eisegesis." That's exactly what you're doing to my 7 verses on "saving." You are ignoring their plain context (Paul saying "I save," James saying "you will save") because it violates your man-made sola fide tradition.

>Do you therefore condemn the heresy of Liguori
You're confusing poetic, devotional language ("I place in Thee all my hopes") with a dogmatic formula. Liguori's hope in Mary is because she is the Mother of God, the ultimate intercessor who brings us to Christ. No Catholic believes Mary saves by her own power.

>Romanism did not exist until centuries after... Orange
This is an absurd, unhistorical "invention" myth. The Council of Orange (529 AD) was the Catholic Church condemning the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism. You're trying to draw an imaginary line in history to protect your claim.

>Erasmus who made precisely this point Erasmus wasn't "medieval."
He was a Renaissance contemporary of Luther. You don't even know what you're arguing against.

>Man is not able to cooperate with grace unless he is caused to do so You still don't understand Catholic teaching on grace. We agree.

We agree man is "stark dead" in sin and can do nothing on his own. Prevenient Grace (or "operative grace") is the grace that "raises him from the dead." It is the grace that "gives him life" and creates the "new will."

The "cooperation" (cooperative grace) happens after that. It's the new, living will (created entirely by God's grace) assenting to further grace.

You're stuck in a false Calvinist binary: either man is a Pelagian or he's a robot. The Church rejected both.

>>18141357
>an explicit geographical pin
You mean like "Sodom and Egypt"?
>The verse says it is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, but it is literally the place "where also their Lord was crucified"
You corrupt scripture like the devil, it says nothing of its sense being literal, and because it is mentioned in the same breath as it being Sodom and Egypt there is very good reason to believe it is not.
>You conveniently ignored the end of the story.
I directly addressed it. You however ignore the fact the same verse says the ten kings also hate and destroy it, which is very true of the medieval kings who chafed under the pope's domination, but not at all true of the fall of Jerusalem.
>Prophecy can be a theological interpretation of a past event
This is backpedaling, a moment ago you were saying the Christian Jews acted out of obedience to Rev 18:4
>The "Beast = Pope" theory is still impossible because it contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2
This is actually its strongest proof.
>The unanimous Patristic consensus (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom) is that the Roman Empire is the Katechon (Restrainer) that holds back the Antichrist.
Amen, our reformers affirmed it and used it to prove the pope is the Antichrist, since the papacy first appeared very briefly after the empire's demise, being firmly established in the early 7th century. However this makes your interpretation unfathomable: the appearance of the Antichrist was restrained by the presence of the Antichrist?
>100% scriptural
Declaring yourself to be correct is very different from being correct

>>18141372
>Your entire two-post Gish Gallop
Again, that doesn't mean what you think it means
>That's exactly what you're doing to my 7 verses
No sir that's what *you're* doing to your 7 verses none of which you can even pretend to exegete for this.
>Paul saying "I save," James saying "you will save"
That is not the context, that is precisely the words you are taking out of context
>You're confusing poetic, devotional language ("I place in Thee all my hopes") with a dogmatic formula
Enough with the smokescreen, is the prayer heretical or is it not?
>No Catholic believes Mary saves by her own power.
Apparently you're confused, my objection has never been to Mary saving from her own power but to Mary being savior at all. That is damnable heresy which one cannot be saved and hold.
>This is an absurd, unhistorical "invention" myth
It is in fact uncontroversial historical fact which nobody besides traditionalist Romanists is confused by. Nobody in 529 believed in transubstantiation or the sacrifice of the mass, nobody in 529 believed in papal supremacy, nobody in 529 believed in mortal sins and sacraments of penance. Your heresy is an innovation of the high middle ages and could not without error be said to have existed before then.
>He was a Renaissance contemporary of Luther
This isn't a gotcha, I said he argued against Luther.
>It is the grace that "gives him life" and creates the "new will."
But it does not, for not all who receive it receive eternal life. If this grace raises him to life, why is he not risen to life? For grace to be prevenient in this way it must interact with something in man himself, or else it could not fail to save all men. But there is nothing in man to interact with it, therefore this cheap grace would save nobody. Either grace is efficacious or else it fails.
>You're stuck in a false Calvinist binary
You're stuck in a false gospel

>>18141380
>You corrupt scripture like the devil
Your reading comprehension is the only thing being corrupted. The text itself tells you how to read it.

Revelation 11:8: "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified."

The Bible literally tells you "Sodom and Egypt" are the spiritual labels, and "where their Lord was crucified" is the literal, geographical pin.

That place is Jerusalem.

>seven hills?
The Whore is the "great city" (Rev 17:18) that "sits on seven hills."

So, does Jerusalem sit on 7 hills? Yes. It always has.

Mount of Olives

Mount Scopus

Mount of Corruption

Mount Ophel

Temple Mount (Original Zion)

Western Hill (New Mount Zion)

Antonia Fortress Hill

Your entire "seven hills = Rome" argument is dead. The Bible's own definitions (Rev 11:8 & Rev 17) prove the Whore is Jerusalem.

>not at all true of the fall of Jerusalem.
It is perfectly true of the fall of Jerusalem. You are confusing the Whore and the Beast again.

The Whore (Apostate Jerusalem) was a temporary, wicked ally of the Beast (Pagan Rome) when they crucified Christ ("We have no king but Caesar").

Revelation 17:16 (which you ignored) says the Beast and its horns "will hate the whore... and burn her up with fire."

This is a perfect description of the Roman-Jewish War, which ended with the Romans (Beast) burning Jerusalem (Whore) to the ground in 70 AD.

Cont;

>>18141380
>This is backpedaling, a moment ago you were saying... Rev 18:4
This is called "reading." The Christians who fled Jerusalem before 70 AD (as Eusebius confirms) were obeying Christ's literal command in Matthew 24 / Luke 21 ("flee to the mountains").

Revelation 18:4 (written later, as Irenaeus says) is the theological explanation of that event, a spiritual call to "come out" of the world-system (Babylon/Whore).

>Amen, our reformers affirmed it [the Katechon = Roman Empire]... since the papacy first appeared... after the empire's demise
This is the central, fatal error of your entire tradition.

Your argument rests on a historical "gap theory" in which the Roman Empire "demised" and the Papacy (a new, false entity) "appeared" centuries later.

This is historically illiterate. The Papacy (the "sacerdotal chair" of Peter) was in Rome from the 1st century.

St. Thomas Aquinas (and St. Leo, and Newman) write that the Roman Empire "has not perished, but passed from the temporal to the spiritual order".

The Catholic Church IS the spiritual continuation of the Roman Katechon.

Your question, "the Antichrist was restrained by the Antichrist?" is incoherent nonsense. The correct, Patristic reading is that the Antichrist is restrained by the Holy Roman Church.

P.S. The first group to call the Church the "Whore of Babylon" wasn't your reformers. It was the Albigensians a 13th-century Gnostic death cult that said all material things were created by an evil god. You're borrowing your eschatology from heretics.

>>18141409
>The Bible literally tells you "Sodom and Egypt" are the spiritual labels, and "where their Lord was crucified" is the literal, geographical pin.
Again, it says absolutely nothing about it being literal. This is unwelcomely shoved in by your vain imagination.
>So, does Jerusalem sit on 7 hills?
Rome is known as the city on 7 hills, and was called the great city, "eternal city" etc. On the other hand Jerusalem is not known as these things, least of all by the Christians of Asia who never set foot in Judea. Consider also that Rome and not Jerusalem is a fitting analog to Babylon, and was explicitly referred to as such by the early Christians (1 Pet 5:13).
>This is a perfect description of the Roman-Jewish War
In your reading there were not 10 kings who hated Babylon, since there were not 10 kings who participated in the destruction of Jerusalem but only the Romans.

(cont.)

>>18141412
>This is historically illiterate
This is historical fact.
>The Papacy (the "sacerdotal chair" of Peter) was in Rome from the 1st century.
This lie from hell could not possibly be defended on scripture and history, the sole reason any believe it is circularly the claims of Rome itself. There was not even an episcopacy in the first century, as in the New Testament and into the 2nd century there were only two offices, elder and deacon. Ignatius developed the office of bishop probably to combat the Gnostics, but even his episcopacy was very limited, being limited to only one congregation and not extended over a diocese. So in the 1st century there was not even something which could develop into a papacy, let alone the papacy itself. Your argument relies on genuinely illiterate fiction.
>St. Thomas Aquinas (and St. Leo, and Newman
1. They were all after the fact, and seeking to justify the papacy such as in frauds like the Donation of Constantine, and thus anachronistic 2. The fact papist Rome claims to continue pagan Rome is detrimental to its claims and confirms its prophetic identity. The papacy filled the power vacuum left by the empire's fall, and in this way the empire was the restrainer, because the Antichrist could not appear while it was in the way. Again, to say "the Roman Empire was the restrainer and the Roman Empire was the Antichrist" is completely incoherent.
>You're borrowing your eschatology from heretics.
I get my eschatology from the bible

>>18141403
>>18141403
Your entire post is a Gish Gallop, and I'll prove it.

>That is not the context, that is precisely the words you are taking out of context
You've provided zero exegesis. You just keep saying "nuh uh." The context of 1 Timothy 4:16 is Paul telling Timothy, "by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." The context of James 5:20 is "whoever brings back a sinner... will save his soul from death." The plain, literal meaning is that human cooperation saves. You are the one doing "tortured eisegesis" by redefining "save" to mean "not really save" because it violates your man-made sola fide tradition.

>Enough with the smokescreen, is the prayer heretical or is it not?
It is not heretical, because you are reading it with a heretical (Calvinist) lens. You're still dodging my response from >>18141266. You're fine with subordinate intercession from a pastor. You're fine with Paul saying he "saves." But you scream "heresy" when that same principle is applied to the Mother of God. This is a double standard, not an argument.

>It is in fact uncontroversial historical fact... Nobody in 529 believed in transubstantiation or... papal supremacy
This is the most ignorant part of your post. You're just making things up.

As a FEW examples of MANY..for papal supremacy (pre-529) we have St. Irenaeus wrote that all churches must agree with Rome "on account of its preeminent authority".

St. Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus, "I am linked in communion with your holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon this rock... He who does not gather with you, scatters."

In Council of Chalcedon when Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome was read, the bishops cried out, "Peter has spoken through Leo."

For the Eucharist we have St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) who called the Eucharist the "medicine of immortality" and the "flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins".

Cont;

>>18141403

St. Justin Martyr (150 AD) taught that the consecrated food is "the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh"

I could fill the whole thread to bump limit just giving you examples. You're historically illiterate. There is no point continuing forward here if you don't even know what Google is. I'm on /his/ not /pol/. If I wanted to talk with imbeciles I'd be over there.

Your entire "medieval heresy" argument is a fantasy.

>Man is not able to cooperate with grace unless he is caused to do so
You still don't understand Catholic teaching on grace. We agree man is "stark dead" and can do nothing on his own.

>>18141437
>it says nothing about it being literal. This is... your vain imagination.

Your reading comprehension is nonexistent. The text itself tells you how to read it.

Revelation 11:8: "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified."

The Bible literally tells you "Sodom and Egypt" are the spiritual labels, and "where their Lord was crucified" is the literal, geographical pin.

That place is Jerusalem. You are denying the plain text of Scripture to protect your 16th-century tradition.

>Rome is known as the city on 7 hills... Jerusalem is not
This is a pathetic and ignorant talking point. Jerusalem is famously a city on 7 hills (Zion, Olives, Scopus, Ophel, etc.). Jewish sources, like the 8th-century Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, state plainly: "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills". This was a well-known fact.
Your "Rome" argument is a superficial nickname that ignores the Bible's explicit definition in Rev 11:8.

>there were not 10 kings who hated Babylon... but only the Romans.
You're historically illiterate. The Roman army (the Beast) that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD was not just "the Romans." It was an army of multiple legions and allied "kings" (like Agrippa II, Sohaemus, and Antiochus IV) who "hated the whore" (Apostate Jerusalem) and joined the Romans to "burn her with fire" (Rev 17:16).


It is a perfect fulfillment.

>>18141438
>This lie from hell... There was not even an episcopacy in the first century
This is the "lie from hell" your entire schism is built on. You have to deny all history and the Bible itself.
>only two offices, elder and deacon
False. The New Testament clearly shows the three-tiered structure. Who do you think Timothy was? He wasn't just an "elder" (presbyter). He was the one who:

Judged elders (1 Tim 5:19)

Rebuked elders (1 Tim 5:20)

Paid elders (1 Tim 5:17)

Ordained elders (1 Tim 5:22)

Nobody can see a way to read this and say Timothy is just one of the co-ruling elders... the elders are accountable to Timothy. That is the office of a Bishop. This is why St. Ignatius (St. John's disciple) wrote just years later that "Apart from these [Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons], there is no church."

>The Papacy... circularly... claims of Rome itself
More historical ignorance.

St. Clement 96 AD): The Bishop of Rome, writing with authority to Corinth while the Apostle John was still alive.

St. Irenaeus 180 AD): Said all churches must agree with Rome "on account of its preeminent authority".

St. Jerome (376 AD): "I am linked... with the chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon this rock."

>Donation of Constantine
The "Donation" is an 8th/9th-century fraud. My sources (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jerome) predate it by 500-700 years. You're attacking a straw man.

>"Roman Empire = Katechon" AND "Roman Church = Antichrist" is "incoherent."
I agree. It is incoherent. It's the straw man you invented.

>I get my eschatology from the bible
No, you get it from a 16th-century tradition that forces you to deny the plain text of Rev 11:8, Rev 17:16, 1 Timothy 5, and the entire unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers on 2 Thess. 2. That is illiterate fiction.

bump

>>18141501
>Your entire post is a Gish Gallop
>because it's long
>also here's 4 posts
You clearly don't know what it means or trolling
>You've provided zero exegesis
That's true because neither did you. I told you what the meaning is which if anyone reads the text according to its context and the analogy of faith he will see is true. The meaning is not that we are performing some work of merit which contributes to the salvation of the other person, that is absurd, the meaning is that we "save" them only in bringing them the word of truth through which alone anybody is saved.
>It is not heretical
Yes it is, there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. You have conceded that what divides is not what I am ignorant of but what I know of your belief. I tell you again that which you actually believe and not what you pretend to be some misrepresentation by me is damnable heresy and I warn you that you cannot be saved as long as you believe it. The canard about intercessory prayer I think we have sufficiently killed enough times to safely ignore.
>This is the most ignorant part of your post
Calling facts "ignorant" before spamming a bunch more cherrypicked prooftexts does not make you look smart. Again, what I am saying here is completely uncontroversial and acknowledged even by your own church's historians. It is you against the entire world, except the world did not receive its knowledge of history by reading articles on catholic.com.

>>18141501
>As a FEW examples of MANY
Ironically in light of your repeated ignorant accusations this is actual gish galloping, and this post would be a dozen long if I replied to every cherry pick. So I'll settle for a few
Irenaeus refers not to a papacy (which is a mere anachronism, as also the episcopacy had only been adopted in Rome a few decades earlier) but to its preeminence within the empire, that is, a geographical preeminence. As they say all roads lead to Rome, so every Christian who passed from one side of the empire to the other passed through this church and was personally familiar with it, and consequently it also held the most resources.
Ignatius and Justin as well as other fathers who are abused to become witnesses of the myth of transubstantiation are quoted merely as saying "the bread is Christ's body", which is in essence identical to the words of institution, and just as there is no reason to believe Christ was speaking literally there is also no reason to believe they were speaking literally. Nobody dreamed of transubstantiation before Paschasius Radbertus in the early 800s, and then as was often the case with the innovations of Romanism only with pushback from the Church. The fathers did not believe in transubstantiation as is apparent not only from their statements which contradict it but their practices in failing to worship the sacrament, and burning it after use, among other things.

I don't have time to reply to the Revelation stuff at the moment.

>>18139045
They didn't used to. Growing up I didn't know any and the one time I heard one of my super chrstian friends mention them his phrasing was "christians and catholics". They were this weird foreign thing. Nowadays with the world being more interconnected people talk about them more.

bump

>>18141303
>>18141317
Dude, who cares? You are going to burn in Hell, FOREVER. Is this "win" going to soothe the flames as they torment you?

>>18141210
>The fact that the Bible Belt is implementing Catholic teaching is the very definition of a cultural victory.

This was the Protestant position for centuries until leftists hijacked our institutions.

Not just about abortion (which was unlawful in Protestant Britain: the "1861 Offenses Against the Person Act" could land a woman in prison for life), but even our old position on contraception was the same as the RCC; the author of Robinson Crusoe of all people once wrote a tract against it (""Conjugal Lewdness or, Matrimonial Whoredom" (later retitled "A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed" for propriety" by Daniel Defoe) and Queen Victoria rather infamously ended all relations for health reasons (despite being in love with her husband) as her doctor recommended no further pregnancies.

>>18143044
there he is

>>18143173
the man the myth

>>18141094
This is wrong. Catholics do not believe that Mary is a comediatrix this is not doctrine, just the opinions of random fellows.

I love Mary, she’s the mother of Christ. But to infer that she saves in equal to Christ is in my opinion untrue

>>18142329
>>18142331
The absolute state of Protestant "history." You accuse me of a "Gish Gallop" and then proceed to vomit up a multi-post Gish Gallop of your own that's so historically illiterate it's staggering.

>Irenaeus refers not to a papacy... but to its preeminence within the empire, that is, a geographical preeminence.

This is the most pathetic, delusional cope I've ever seen. Irenaeus doesn't say "because it's the capital" or "because all roads lead there," you amateur. He gives a theological reason WHICH IS "on account of its preeminent authority (potiorem principalitatem)" and because the apostolic tradition "has been preserved" there by the successors of Peter and Paul.

Your secular "it's just geographical" revisionism is a cowardly attempt to ignore the plain text.

>Ignatius and Justin... just as there is no reason to believe Christ was speaking literally there is also no reason to believe they were speaking literally.

You're not just wrong, you're the exact opposite of the truth. St. Ignatius was attacking the Gnostics precisely because they denied the Real Presence. He called them out: "They abstain from the Eucharist... because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ..." (Smyrnaeans 7). He was attacking your symbolic-only position. St. Justin Martyr literally compares the Real Presence to the Incarnation: "...we have been taught that the food... is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (First Apology 66).

>Nobody dreamed of transubstantiation before Paschasius Radbertus

This is the most ignorant Protestant talking point of them all. That's like saying "nobody believed in the Trinity before 'homoousios' was coined at Nicaea." The doctrine (the Real Presence) was always there. "Transubstantiation" is the theological term developed later to explain how it's true, just as the Church defined the Trinity. You're confusing a belief with its philosophical explanation.

Cont;

>>18142329
>>18144132

>failing to worship the sacrament, and burning it after use

This proves you have no idea what you're talking about. They burned the leftover Hosts because they believed it was Christ's body. It was an act of extreme reverence to prevent it from being profaned, trampled, or eaten by animals, just as we would reverently dispose of a desecrated relic. You've just proven my point, you absolute muppet.

>The meaning is not that we are performing some work of merit

Another straw man. I already told you (>>18141266) we condemn Pelagianism. Our cooperation is itself a gift of grace. You are the one doing "tortured eisegesis" by redefining the word "save" to mean "not really save" just because it violates your 16th-century man-made tradition.

You've lost every single point. All you have left is denying the plain text of Scripture and the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. Cope.

>>18141177
aerospace industry - founded and manned by protestants
automotive industry - founded and manned by protestants
chipmaking industry - founded and manned by protestants
medicine industry - founded and manned by protestants
steel industry - founded and manned by protestants
shipbuilding industry - founded and manned by protestants
do i need to go on?

>>18144132
>This is the most pathetic, delusional cope I've ever seen.
Is this rhetoric impressive to people? Is it impressive to you? It is not impressive to rational people who read books
>Irenaeus doesn't say "because it's the capital" or "because all roads lead there," you amateur
You have quite little idea what Irenaeus said because you are neither able to read Latin nor Greek nor do we possess the Greek original (you also haven't read the book in any language). Your assertion that this is "secular" is like an announcement "I'm a moron, ignore me". Since you make such a big point of it, let us indeed examine what the theological point is. Irenaeus begins the passage saying it is in the power of *every* church to trace itself back to the apostles. But then because of the impossibility of citing the orthodox history of every single church, he selects one for a particular reason:
>Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its PREEMINENT AUTHORITY [potiorem principalitatem].
Thus it appears your entire argument hinges on a single cherrypicked line out of multiple paragraphs, which it relates to essentially with the character of a footnote.

(1/4)

>>18144132
Now, concerning the translation of the phrase, even the translator of the version you quote notes this: "The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better." It seems a very shaky ground to invest your faith in, this one ambiguous phrase, cherrypicked from its context which does not favor your interpretation. Indeed, Phillip Schaff (actual and eminent church historian, not a blustering fool who knows nothing but what his online propagandists tell him) engages in a full discussion of this phrase and how its context demonstrates Irenaeus knew nothing of a papacy here: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.v.html
And that will be sufficient to clear this from any rational man's mind.

(2/4)

>>18144132
>St. Ignatius was attacking the Gnostics precisely because they denied the Real Presence
Not at all, this is anachronism writ plain. Ignatius attacked the Gnostics because they denied the humanity of Jesus Christ. Not that real presence is the same thing as transubstantiation (I repeat, they aren't the same thing, get it through your head, they aren't the same thing), Schaff commented on this passage of Ignatius "It is impossible to determine from his wording alone if Ignatius held Reformed, Romanist or Lutheran views". I argue that read in its historical and grammatical context it appears Ignatius held the Reformed view. 1. Writers before and after Ignatius have no conception of a change of substance or any local presence, so it would require him to be an island in church history to believe that which his writings do not compel us to believe he believed 2. He attacks the Gnostics for their doctrine that Christ merely seemed to have a body, and not for anything they believed about the Eucharist (which they evidently did not practice). Now, it would have been very advantageous to them if he had said the bread merely seemed to be bread (as the Romanists believe), but his meaning on its face is this: "they do not believe the Eucharist to be the sign representing Christ's body [since they do not confess there to be a body that could be represented in the first place]". And there is nothing more the text compels us to conclude.
>Justin Martyr literally compares the Real Presence to the Incarnation
He does, though not in the words you just isolated from their context, but this is deadly to transubstantiation: for to believe the substance of God the Son was changed into the substance of Jesus Christ is the heresy of Eutyches the Monophysite which the Church condemned. There is no analogy between transubstantiation and the incarnation, therefore Justin did not believe in it.

(3/4)

>>18144132
>This is the most ignorant Protestant talking point of them all
I am confident you never heard of Radbertus before talking to me
>You're confusing a belief with its philosophical explanation.
You are dogmatically required to believe in transubstantiation and anathematize every alternative view, sir. The council of Trent did this. This *is* the belief. Again, transubstantiation and real presence are not the same thing. We affirm the real presence, but condemn the perverse superstition of chewing Christ's true body with the teeth.
>>18144137
>They burned the leftover Hosts because they believed it was Christ's body.
OK, then you will have no problem with us gathering the consecrated hosts into great pyres.
>It was an act of extreme reverence
Why didn't the medieval church burn the leftover bread? Why did they instead place them in monstrances, tabernacles etc. and take them on processions? I think it's because they believed in transubstantiation, and the ancient church didn't
>Cope.
Yeah that's what your posts are

bump

>>18144339
>>18144342
>Is this rhetoric impressive to people? It is not impressive to rational people who read books

The irony of you saying this while appealing to a 19th-century Protestant hack like Philip Schaff to tell you what a 2nd-century Father really meant.

>Your assertion that this is "secular" is like an announcement "I'm a moron, ignore me"

You are a moron. You're the one who invented the "geographical" argument (>>18142331). Irenaeus tells you why he's picking Rome, and it's not because "it would be very tedious" to list everyone. That's his excuse for brevity.

His reason for picking Rome as the standard is: "...on account of its preeminent authority (potiorem principalitatem)."

And why does it have that authority? Because it's the capital? No. Because of its apostolic foundation from "the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul."

>your entire argument hinges on a single cherrypicked line

My argument hinges on the line you're terrified to read. You're trying to drown the thesis in the footnote. He's not just picking a "convenient example." He's setting a standard for communion.

He literally says, "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome]."

"Necessity." "Every Church." "Agree with."

That's not an "example," you illiterate pseud. That's a standard. Your "geographical" cope is pathetic, and appealing to Schaff's translator's note about one ambiguous phrase (while ignoring the unambiguous context of the whole passage) is the very definition of cherry-picking.

>>18144344
>>18144346
>Not at all, this is anachronism writ plain. Ignatius attacked the Gnostics because they denied the humanity of Jesus Christ.

You just shot yourself in the foot. You're creating a distinction without a difference.

The reason Ignatius points to their Eucharistic heresy is as proof of their Incarnational heresy. He's linking the two. He's saying "Look, these heretics abstain from the Eucharist... BECAUSE they don't confess it's the flesh of our Savior."

He's attacking their practice (abstaining) which is based on their heretical belief (denying the Real Presence), which stems from their root heresy (denying the Incarnation).

You claiming he held the "Reformed view" (a 16th-century invention) is the single most anachronistic, delusional statement in this entire thread.

>this is deadly to transubstantiation... to believe the substance of God the Son was changed into the substance of Jesus Christ is the heresy of Eutyches

This is the dumbest "gotcha" I've ever seen. You're confusing the basis of an analogy with its metaphysical mechanism.

Justin isn't saying, "The Eucharist happens the exact same way as the Incarnation." He's saying: "If you can believe the greater miracle (God becoming Flesh via the Incarnation), you must also believe this lesser miracle (the bread is His Flesh)."

He's using the fact of the Incarnation as the warrant for believing the fact of the Real Presence. He's not comparing the how. You trying to drop "Monophysite" just proves you're a pseud who read a Wikipedia article.

Cont;

>>18144346
>>18144344
>Again, transubstantiation and real presence are not the same thing. We affirm the real presence

No, you don't. You affirm a "spiritual presence," which is a weasel-word for "real absence." Stop trying to steal our terminology.

>Why didn't the medieval church burn the leftover bread? Why did they instead place them in monstrances, tabernacles etc.

You just stumbled into the concept of Doctrinal Development, you absolute moron.

The belief never changed. The devotional expression of that belief developed in response to heretics like you.

The Ancient Church revered the Host. They took it home for private communion. St. Cyril told people to receive it with more care than gold. The practice of "burning" it was an act of profound reverence to ensure it was never profaned.

The practice of Adoration, tabernacles, and processions developed specifically to defend the ancient, Apostolic belief in the Real Presence against heretics like Berengar of Tours in the 11th century who started peddling your "symbolic" nonsense.

The development of Adoration is the ultimate proof that the Church always held the Catholic belief. Your argument is like saying "The 1st-century Church met in houses, but the 4th-century Church built basilicas, so they must have worshipped a different God."

You have lost every single point. You have no argument, no history, and no understanding of theology. All you have is Philip Schaff. Cope.

>>18144151
wew lad, you actually believe the "Protestant Work Ethic" meme.

Your "founders of industry" (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan) weren't just "Protestant." They were WASPs. The OG "Old Money" elite who already owned everything. They had a 300-year head start.

You claim they "manned" these industries? lol, no anon. The WASPs owned the factories. The Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholic immigrants manned them. Your guys sat in boardrooms. Our guys were the cheap labor in the steel mills, railroads, and coal mines, locked out of the system by nativist laws.

but the best part is you bragging about "Protestant" (Anglican) intellectualism because your flagship institutions, Oxford and Cambridge, were founded by Catholics centuries before your "Reformation" was even a thought.

Your ancestors literally just inherited Catholic universities, banned Catholics from attending them, and then spent 300 years claiming they were smarter.

You're standing on the shoulders of giants.
>Medicine? actually founded by Pasteur (Father of Microbiology), Mendel (Father of Genetics), and Vesalius (Father of Anatomy) were all Catholic. You're welcome for modern medicine.
>aerospace actually founded by Leonardo da Vinci (Catholic) designed the first flying machines. Today, your Boeing's only competitor is Airbus (Catholic heritage).
>shipbuilding? Who are Catholic Venice, Genoa, Portugal, and Spain mapping the entire planet before your religion was even a coherent idea.
>Lemaitre (Big Bang) Catholic tying into pic rel
Automotive industry ? KEK. Ok then who are Fiat, Ferrari, Renault, Peugeot, Lamborghini.
Karl Benz himself was raised Catholic.

Stop embrassing yourself.

>>18138733
Mexicans have an average IQ of 87, roughly the same as Indian people and African Americans.
t. Mexican

bump

saved

>>18138666 (OP)
>Guys, we want you to stop using the term because it sounds like idolatry. It’s not, I swear, it just really, really, really, sounds like it.

>>18146953
Well its not.

>>18144736
and yet protestant countries completely annihilate catholic countries when it comes to industry industry in 2025
hmm

>>18149358
catholics arent money hungry like the modern evangelical church

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/marvin-sapp-close-doors-40000-donations-20

So you go and gain the world bro. we'll see how that works out for you.


Matthew 16:26
>For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

>>18138666 (OP)
>they don't know x
hate what norps have done with this meme, innit.
that phrasing doesn't make any sense.
you don't walk over to a corner and look at a crowd just to announce to yourself what the crowd doesn't know.
it's like they never played with action figures or dolls. instead of giving them dialogue they just describe them. you see it in greentext.
>be me
No, dumbasses, you're already you. You don't need to declare it.
They did the same thing with the "advice dog" spinoffs.

bump

>>18144644
>Protestant hack like Philip Schaff
>still the preeminent patristics scholar to this day
>the papist propaganda blogs he relies on rely on Schaff's compilations of the fathers in English
Lol
>You're the one who invented the "geographical" argument
And yet Schaff who lived in the 19th century made the same point...
>Irenaeus tells you why he's picking Rome, and it's not because "it would be very tedious" to list everyone. That's his excuse for brevity.
This is completely incoherent, and reflects the irrational mind which produced it. "That's not Irenaeus' reason, its just his excuse" is an incredible argument. Again, the reason he is being brief is because he could do this with every church, but that would be excessive. Not because Rome is uniquely authoritative.
>His reason for picking Rome as the standard is: "...on account of its preeminent authority (potiorem principalitatem)."
It is completely remarkable the way you totally ignore absolutely every single thing that was said about that
>Your "geographical" cope is pathetic, and appealing to Schaff's translator's note about one ambiguous phrase (while ignoring the unambiguous context of the whole passage) is the very definition of cherry-picking.
I accept your concession.

>>18144649
>You're creating a distinction without a difference.
Jesus Christ was true man well before He instituted the holy Eucharist, let alone in the near millennium before transubstantiation was invented, so it is apparent that it is not without a difference.
>The reason Ignatius points to their Eucharistic heresy is as proof of their Incarnational heresy.
Yes, now you begin to understand: his argument is not about the nature of the Eucharist, but the nature of Christ.
>He's attacking their practice (abstaining) which is based on their heretical belief (denying the Real Presence)
He marks their practice of abstaining which is based on their heretical denial of Christ's incarnation. The Gnostics evidently had *no* doctrine of the Lord's Supper (let alone mine), since they did not partake of it. Again, his point is they reject the sacrament not because they rejected the figment of medieval men's imaginations, but because they rejected what the sacrament represents.

>>18144649
>a 16th-century invention
Unlike you I can prove the fathers shared my view, e.g. Augustine 26th Tractate on John: "The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof." Now while fools may make many irrelevant citations to bolster their arguments in their own minds, I will let one suffice the more easily to defend the interpretation. I would encourage any to look up and read the entire passage I have cited, whose author you would think was John Calvin if you did not know better. But this particular quote is sufficient to establish my point: it is from this impossible that Augustine believed in transubstantiation or any notion of physical eating, since 1. He distinguishes between the sacrament and "the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament" which strictly is impossible to do in Romanism, and 2. He says the sacrament (or sign) is received by some to life and some to death, but the thing itself (or thing signified) is received only to life. Now, this is completely impossible if Christ is eaten with the mouth, since none can deny many eat the bread and yet are damned, but we say the elect alone receive the true body and blood of the Lord, by faith, and unto eternal life. (Take note that what distinguishes us from the Lutherans is not so much what believers receive but what unbelievers receive)

>>18144649
>You're confusing the basis of an analogy with its metaphysical mechanism.
The basis of the analogy is that they have nothing in common?
>If you can believe the greater miracle
His audience does not believe in the greater miracle, again you prove your actual unawareness of the very things you comment on. Justin's audience was the pagan emperor of Rome (see the beginning of First Apology), not anyone who already understood and believed Christianity. This is also itself proof he did not believe in transubstantiation, since he makes no mention at all of a change of substance but only of how the bread is regarded by the Christian ("we receive this food not as common bread but as the flesh of Jesus Christ"). It is unthinkable that he would casually pass by such a thing which his audience would not be familiar with and would find very strange.
Why are you so clueless about the things you erroneously claim? I think because you have read not a word of any of them

>>18144652
>No, you don't. You affirm a "spiritual presence," which is a weasel-word for "real absence." Stop trying to steal our terminology.
You arrogant fool, there is clearly no fear of God before your eyes to so casually and flagrantly lie about us. I confess it is a kind of real presence which you have never experienced (nor which pleases your flesh), which ought to make you tremble, but it is the only kind of real presence of which the scriptures know. And since your religion is so much younger than mine I say stop stealing our terminology
>Doctrinal Development
And there it is, Newman's surrender. Yes, I agree: nobody in the early church believed in your doctrine, no apostle ever heard of it, it does not come from divine revelation, it had to evolve in the brains of men over centuries. I gladly accept your concession.
>The development of Adoration is the ultimate proof that the Church always held the Catholic belief
A man who can grasp such doublethink truly cannot be reasoned with by any besides the Holy Spirit. I will pray for Him to open your eyes.

>>18149431
>Christ at the center
No, that's bread and a statue at the center, both idols. They drive Christ's presence away by their foulness.

>>18149431
Say it with me:
Enjoy ____!

>>18149431
>>>>>catholics arent money hungry

>>18151018
Your entire argument hinges on appealing to a 19th-century Protestant historian (Schaff) to explain what a 2nd-century Church Father (St. Irenaeus) "really meant." This is a desperate attempt to avoid the plain text.

Irenaeus is explicit: "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its preeminent authority (potiorem principalitatem)."

He then gives the reason for this authority: because it was founded by "the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," and "the apostolic tradition has been preserved" there.

He gives a theological reason (Apostolic succession from Peter and Paul), not a geographical one. Your claim that "geographical" is the "unambiguous context" is a complete invention made to cope.

>>18151020
You're misreading a plaintext over and over anon. St. Ignatius's argument in Smyrnaeans 7 is that the Gnostics' denial of the Incarnation (that Christ had real flesh) is the very reason they "abstain from the Eucharist... because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ."

It's not that hard. He links the two doctrines. They denied the Real Presence precisely because they denied the Incarnation. Claiming he held a symbolic "Reformed view" is a laughable anachronism.

Cont;

>>18151024
You have PROFOUNDLY misunderstood St. Augustine. Quoting Tractate 26 proves my point, not yours. The Catholic Church also distinguishes between the Sacrament (the outward sign, the species) and "the thing itself" (the RES, the actual Body and Blood).

Augustine is not denying the Real Presence; he is explaining the reality of unworthy reception. He is warning that some take the sacrament (the sign) "to destruction" (like Judas), while others take "the thing itself" (the reality, received by faith) "to life." This is a thoroughly Catholic explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:29. It does nothing to support a symbolic-only view.
>29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

>>18151026
The way you use and define "spiritual presence" is a modern term for "real absence." The Catholic Church teaches the Real Presence that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ are truly, really, and substantially present under the species of bread and wine. There are spiritual components involved which is that partaking of the Eucharist adds spiritual graces to you, but that doesn't cancel out the Real Presence theology because it's included in it.

Calling "Doctrinal Development" a "surrender" only proves you do not understand Church history. The Church's understanding of a truth (like the Trinity or the Real Presence) deepens over time, especially when heresies (like yours) arise that require a more precise definition. The definition of "Homoousios" at Nicaea wasn't an "invention" BECAUSE it was a defense of the ancient faith. Likewise, the definition of "Transubstantiation" was a defense of the ancient belief in the Real Presence held by Ignatius, Justin, and Augustine.

The same here could be said for the development of the word TRINITY and the later development of the understanding of TWO NATURES in RESPONSE to rising heresies. These are just one of many examples of valid doctrinal development or the protection of the word "Mother of God" to avoid nestorianism splitting Christ into two persons which is ridiculous.

>I will pray for Him to open your eyes.
Your prayer intention here is exactly the same thing Mormons say when they visit my house or other people's houses saying the same thing, and youd feel the same way too. Cool story bro.

>>18151132
The crucial distinction here is devout Catholics tithe more than Protestants for the glory of God, and thats with being nerfed after 300 years of being banned from educational institutions creating generational poverty of finance and poverty of education. see pic rel to >>18141331

>>18141094
God can redeem any he wants without Christ.

>>18152383
God can do whatever He pleases, the question is not what God can do but what He wills to do and what it was the God-man died to accomplish. These questions are answered by scripture.

The fact that there is no clearly defined christian dogma after 2000 years is pretty telling I think.