Thread 18145377

So, i decided i want to become a Christian but i dont know which church to go.
Catholic or Evangelical? And why?

>>18145377 (OP)
You're asking a board of schizophrenic retards on 4chan what religion to join?

Do zoomers really?

>>18145381
/his/ is the sanest board imo

>>18145377 (OP)
Catholic if u wanna go to churches within every country and have good marriages
Evangelical if u want to meet facebook boomers and join random groups
>>18145387
no the slower ones are better

>>18145377 (OP)
The Catholic Church has some advantages over the Protestant ones (and so does the Orthodox Church).
They have the legacy of the Apostles.

Jesus didn't left a book. Jesus left a community of disciples, who were charged with teaching, spreading the Gospels and sacraments.

I'm >>18145407
That's not to say Evangelicals are terrible or anything of the kind. There are good Evangelical people who try their best to follow the Bible.
But the sacraments and the apostolic succession are a big thing.

>>18145377 (OP)
Catholic. They have actual theology instead of choose-your-adventure storytime.

Catholics are idolaters, just go inside a church and you will see

>>18145390
My aunt and uncle hated each other, but were Catholic so couldn't divorce. She's cheating on him as he dies in hospital. Great marriages.

I went to a Catholic service and they brought out a GOLDEN IDOL purportedly containing the blood of "Saint" Pope John Paul II. Everyone worshipped it and touched religious items to it in order to imbue them with the relic's power. It was weird as fuck.

Evangelical isn't the only other option and I'd argue it is worse than Catholicism. But we had this thing called the Reformation which curbed much of the excesses that the Roman church had decided to engage in. Any mainline Protestant church will be better than some nondescript "non-denominational" church hiding their Baptist/Pentecostal identity.

Personally I'm a Presbyterian and subscribe to Reformed theology. My church isn't perfect, too liberal, but this can be fixed and I plan to be a part of it. Not running away to form a rump conservative church, I'm going to stay and fight.

>>18145479
>they brought out a GOLDEN IDOL purportedly containing the blood of "Saint" Pope John Paul II. Everyone worshipped it and touched religious items to it in order to imbue them with the relic's power. It was weird as fuck.

Dont they read the Bible? The 10 commandments.

>>18145479
>My aunt and uncle hated each other, but were Catholic so couldn't divorce. She's cheating on him as he dies in hospital. Great marriages.
I'm sure mainline Protestants are perfect people and that no mainline Protestant has ever cheated on his/her spouse.

>>18145479
What shape was the golden idol? Which pagan god did it resemble?

>>18145498
It was gold with spokes almost like a stylized version of a sun. Might have been this one, or very similar.

>>18145495
They should have divorced years ago. But they couldn't get an annulment so they were just nasty to each other for decades.

>>18145377 (OP)
There's more than these two, but if those are the only two you want to consider go with Evangelical. The Catholic Church's leadership is constantly flirting with Universalism, and let's not even get started about their cultish behavior around Mary.

>>18145377 (OP)
White identity Christian trinitarian. Watch out for glowies though, they are hell bent on destroying the light.

>>18145520
That's a monstrance, not an idol. It demonstrates the splendor of God through Christ.

>>18145582
Yeah Catholics like using different words for the same thing thinking it changes the situation.

>>18145377 (OP)
If you want to learn about Catholicism (at least to get our point of view, rather than "they are Papist Pagan cultists", I would advise you to read:

>New Testament Basics for Catholics
By John Bergsma. He is a good, respectable scholar and this book is for people who want to learn the faith. This is the easiest book for people who are new

>Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Church Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church
By Peter Kreeft. A reputable scholar. This book uses the Catechism as a basis and translate to plain English. I think it is a very complete introduction.

>The Jesus of Nazareth trilogy
by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Well, he was the Pope and was actually a famous theologian before becoming Pope. Some people claim it is a hard book, but I didn't think it was. Not exactly my cup of tea for other reasons, but a good introduction.

Any of the 3 will help you get a grasp of what we believe and why.

>>18145585
An idol is an image or representation of a false god. For example, making a golden cross is not an idol. Making a golden image of a calf as a representation of a pagan god is an idol.

I'm >>18145587
I think Kreeft's book is the most complete one. If you could read at least 2 it would help a lot, but if only one, for time constraints, Kreeft is the best.

>>18145593
And praying to and worshipping a dead human being is "veneration" which is totally fine.

Guess God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit were just too busy to hear your prayers....

>>18145377 (OP)
Are you middle eastern? Why join a sand land religion?

>>18145377 (OP)
Both faiths claim to be apostolic in belief. If you start at the apostolic age as the standard (like anyone who does history), you would conclude that Roman Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox) is product of development diverting from their claimed origins.
Even their scholars admit Catholic practices like cults of the saints, veneration of icons, transubstantiation, monasticism, Marian dogmas, etc. as we understand them today are developed hundreds of years after the apostles. Not to mention the fact that Roman Catholics (particularly the laymen) are quite gullible to forgeries such as; pseudo isidorian decretals, Codex Calixtinus, the donation of Constantine, a trillion copies of relics, etc. because of their constant appeal to authority lefted unchecked.

At least Protestants as a revivalist moment try to believe like what the apostles actually believed as they use the historical-contextual method, unlike Roman Catholic who are more like Irenaeus' understanding of Carpocrates (Book I, Chapter 25) reimagined.

>>18145377 (OP)
All, listen to all of them and draw your own conclusions. In the end it's always a personal bet.

>>18145377 (OP)
What for? We won :D
We're installing Hell already, hold tight :D

>>18145599
Those dead humans are family, don't you have ceremonies and memorabilia for your departed ones? Don't you honor their deeds and hope when the time is right you may meet them and they will recognize your own good and dedication just as the Creator recognizes them, won't you want to help and guide those who come after you and are yours even beyond death? A chain of good transcending space and time with God Himself at the center, a community for all times and places.
A Church.
I don't consider myself a catholic but I can see their point to not insult them as idol worshippers.

>>18145642
>If you start at the apostolic age as the standard (like anyone who does history), you would conclude that Roman Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox) is product of development diverting from their claimed origins.
Interestingly, Catholics and Orthodox Christians say the complete opposite.

More than that, "Tradition" is a really big part of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs and they hold the Apostolic Fathers in far higher regard than Protestants.

Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus considered Transubstantiation in the Eucharist to be a core, unnegotiable part of faith and worship.
Protestants don't.

>>18145377 (OP)
haha OP I love froggo XD

Stop asking, stop wondering, just let God show you everything. (The answer is Catholic tho)

>>18145742
By the way, here are quotes that show the early Church did believe in transubstiation

Ignatius of Antioch, direct disciple of John the Apostle
>They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes

Notice that denying this is considered heresy.

Justin Martyr
>For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Irenaeus of Lyon, disciple of Polycarp (a direct disciple of John the Apostle)
>He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”

Notice "When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ"

This is transubstantiation.
"But scholars say the term only came later"
The meaning of the term is already present from the start.

>>18145673
>Oh Grandma who has fallen asleep in the Lord, please help me find my keys!
You are not just honoring your dead loved ones or the saints, you are praying to them. The Rosary has you do this dozens of times to Mary. Giving to a mortal what is due God alone (prayer). This is idol worship and the Reformers were right to critique this practice.

I'm not insulting them, I am offering a sincere reprimand for what I see as idolatry - worship of the dead, however holy they may have been, instead of worship of God.

>but God wasn't going to let me find my keys but my prayer to Saint Anthony had him intercede on my behalf and changed the unchanging God's mind and I found them
Absolute absurdity, and not the good kind.

>>18145813
So, tl;dr
The claim that "the Catholic practice of transubstantiation" was not present in the Early Church and was only created centuries after the era of the Apostles is not correct.

Also, beware of atheists trying to say what early Christians believed. It is just guesswork.

>>18145813
You are reading transubstantiation into these passages, by people who could be wrong in their ideas or even had their words changed or mistranslated later on. I don't see anything that screams "the accidents stay the same but the bread and wine are actually Jesus" vs an interpretation of spiritual presence. Do you take everything that Origen says as Gospel?

The Church Fathers are great, don't get me wrong- I'm reading a book by one at the moment, but these are the words of men. If they were writing scripture, their letters would be in the Bible.

>choosing between covert vs overt gay pedophiles instead of orthodoxy
It was over for you before it even began.

>>18145599
Catholics don't worship dead human beings. The holy men and women we call "saints" are alive through Christ.

>>18145836
At this moment I'm not arguing if they are right or wrong. I'm arguing against the claim they didn't believe in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ). Of course they didn't write in scholastic language but they did mean the same thing using other terms.

Take Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 AD.
>Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul

I just disliked that other post that is probably from an Atheist.

>>18145843
Oh so you worship and pray to the saints, giving to them what is only due to God. Aka idolatry.

>>18145868
No, we don't worship the Saints, only Christ. We only ask the saints to pray for us because they are alive through Christ and are with Christ right now.

>>18145867
>something spiritual
Ok I will continue to do that, not believe that saying a prayer over wafers and watered down wine resacrifices Jesus every time a Mass is done.

>>18145873
I hope you know that saying this is tantamount to blasphemy and calling Jesus a liar.

>>18145872
Why? Is God too busy to answer your prayers? Jesus is on vacation? Do you think you will get a different answer praying to a saint no one has heard of vs praying directly to God?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

>>18145377 (OP)
this is not your blog dumbass

>>18145879
Really? Which verse in the Bible do you interpret as Jesus explicitly endorsing transubstantiation?

>>18145873
>Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ.

>>18145882
The prayers of the righteous are more effective than the prayers of sinners. We here on Earth are mired in sin and far from God. Those already in Heaven are near to God and already sealed in righteousness. Asking other holy men and women to pray for us is literally what the Bible tells us to do.

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)

>>18145886
"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

>>18145887
Oh yes from Cyril, not the Bible. It can be interpreted as spiritual presence as well. Transubstantiation is an innovation formally introduced as a doctrine in 1215.

>>18145896
You are not always asking them to pray for you, often you are praying TO them. It's a weird practice.

>>18145902
Spiritual presence goes brrrrr

>>18145882
I'm not that Anon. The Catholic belief is that God is responsible for everything, but that God wants the creation to be used as instruments for that.
Take the case of Augustine, who I believe, Protestants like. His mother prayed for his conversion. The grace came from God, God was responsible even for Monica wanting to pray. But God used Monica as a means for Augustine conversion.

>>18145905
Even the Hail Mary says "pray for us".

>>18145905
>Oh yes from Cyril, not the Bible.
The argument is about what the Church Fathers believed. They clearly believed the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ.
They were extremely explicit about that. You might claim they are wrong as you did in the beginning. But quite clearly they believed in transubstantiation

>>18145377 (OP)
>in today's christcuck discord dilation session, OP, he is a new joiner, please all dilate with the cross

>>18145912
>Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all of the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen

Where is the invocation to prayer by the Archangel (who is also a saint for some reason?)

>>18145916
Not necessarily. I don't see how you get the doctrine of transubstantiation from those quotes. I feel it is a 13th Century anachronism you are projecting onto way earlier theologians.

>>18145933
>by the power of God

>>18145943
Yeah, we are being trolled.

>I decided to be an abrahamic judeo slave retard

good goy

be sure to donate to israel and help them build the third temple. rabbi yeshua can't come back until jews are victorious ehehe

>>18145943
Why are you praying to an angel then? Why not directly to God?

>>18145973
Because God uses angels to protect people and fight against evil.

>>18145974
Angels do the will of God, pray to God not angels.

>>18145979
>pray to angel to protect you from evil by the power of God
>you get protected by one of God's angels

>pray directly to God for protection from evil
>you get protected by one of God's angels

It's literally the same outcome.

>>18145986
Except one is praying (giving worship) to a creature not the creator.

>>18145974
both demons and angels are commanded by your "god"

stop worshiping the demiurge

>>18145993
In both cases you are praying to God. You're not praying to the angel as if the angel has power to act independently outside of God.

>>18145998
Then why are you doing it?

>>18146003
Because it's literally the same thing.

>>18146011
No it very obviously isn't. Praying to saints and angels and angel saints is not praying to God, Muslims would call it shirk. I would call it idolatry.

>>18146017
You're like one of those Karens who demands to speak directly to the manager after a low level employee tells you "No", and then the manager tells you the exact same thing, except 15 seconds later.

>>18146020
No, you are like a Karen who demands something from a low level employee when the boss who could actually grant your request is right there. The boss is God btw.

>>18145993
NTA.
It would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting Catholics. You end up looking as a malicious asshole when you do this. I ended up with a more negative view of Protestants after this thread than before.

We are not worshiping a saint when we ask for his intercession. A saint is just a creature like the rest of us, with no power of his own. But a creature God wants to be in communion with us here on Earth and with ties of friendship.
When a saint is used as an instrument, even with no power of his own, there is a closeness that is created. A closeness that leads to God.

Consider the Wedding at Cana. Mary interceded. And Jesus asked servants to bring water, meaning they cooperated.
Jesus could have just filled the wine without Mary interceding or the servants being obedient and bringing water. But he preferred to work that way.

>>18146033
Yes, and God specifically empowers the angels to protect us from evil. That's what he uses them for. It's like saying "Why take a car when you could just go directly to work?" The car is the means by which you get to work. You don't get to work faster by avoiding the car.

>>18146035
I'm not misrepresenting your idolatry. I don't think Catholics are evil or necessarily not saved, just that this practice is heretical. You are praying to creatures, not the creator. Good luck with that.

>>18146040
Ok so you pray to Bob to make it to work safely. Why Bob? He was a very good man, very good with cars in his life. Praying to God? That's just silly!

>>18145823
You don't sound particularlt christian, you aound like a discount genetical deadend atheist.

>>18146050
By this same logic, why do you even bother pray at all? Doesn't God already know what you need? Why do you have to say words out loud for him to know what you need?

>>18146053
Oh I'm sure you get pissed off when Protestants say Catholics aren't Christian. Then say stuff like this lmao.

>>18146050
I guess Paul is heretic for our pure Protestant friends


> I urge you, [brothers,] by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf,

>With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones 19 and also for me, that speech may be given me to open my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, so that I may have the courage to speak as I must.

>Persevere in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving; 3 at the same time, pray for us, too, that God may open a door to us for the word, to speak of the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison, 4 that I may make it clear, as I must speak.

Shouldn't be asking for the prayers of creatures.

>>18145381
Enjoy hell.

>>18146069
So he was speaking to the dead?

>>18146075
Saints are alive through Christ.

>>18146075
He was asking for the intercession of creatures. Is that Idolatry? Was Paul worshipping them? Was Paul being heretic?

>>18146091
Was he praying to them?

>>18146097
He was asking for their intercession. This is the same thing as prayers to saints. Let's use your standards to Paul's asking for prayers >>18145882

>Why? Is God too busy to answer Paul's prayers? Jesus is on vacation?
>I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

Why is Paul asking others to pray for him?

>>18146107
Because he wasn't praying TO them, nor worshipping their blood in a golden idol.

>>18146117
He was asking for their intercessory prayer. That is the same thing as praying to a saint.
Someone once said:
>Why? Is God too busy to answer Paul's prayers? Jesus is on vacation?
>I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

Would you tell Paul that if you met him? Why is he asking other people to pray for him? Maybe you should teach him some theology.

>>18146132
They weren't dead... he wasn't praying TO them but asking them to pray FOR him.

You can conflate the two all you like.

>>18145377 (OP)
Both are false, so just choose whichever one you would least regret spending your time on once you realize this. I think in the US catholics seem to have the better art and architecture typically, so I think I'd go with them, though my only proper experience has been with the Evangelicals.

>>18146138
The saints are not dead either, they are alive in heaven and what Paul did is exactly what is done when people ask for the intercession of saints.
That said, could you explain what Paul is doing? Could you answer those questions you made?
>Why? Is God too busy to answer Paul's prayers? Jesus is on vacation?
>I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

>>18146152
Yes, you don't pray TO people CAN you ask for them to pray FOR you. I don't know why you can't understand this.

Now defend worshipping a dead pope's blood in a golden idol. I'll wait.

>>18146157
An intercessory prayer is literally asking for some person to pray for you. We are telling you this is what we do. Why do you want to misrepresent us?

And you argued this doesn't work, even. Paul asked for the people to pray for him. I repeat here your questions and I'm curious about this.

>Why? Is God too busy to answer Paul's prayers? Jesus is on vacation?
>I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

Should you teach Paul?

>>18146053
>You don't want to pray to your dead ancestors? You aren't Christian!

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

>>18146178
It's ancestor worship, syncretism has wedged itself into Catholicism. Sad!

>>18145377 (OP)
the one with the best exorcists.

>>18146178
>>18146157
Matthew 22:31-32

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Luke 20:38

"For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."

Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, literally told you that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who had been "dead" for centuries ARE ALIVE.

What do you think the "great cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 is? A fog machine? You low tier Protestant?

What do you think the souls of the martyrs are doing in Revelation 6:9-10? They're under the altar, conscious, and crying out to God.

"...they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

They are more alive than you will ever be. They are in the presence of God. Asking them to pray for you (intercession) is no different than asking your "living" friend on earth to pray for you.

I bet you go around during and after funerals telling your family we should stop saying Grandma is looking down in heaven because shes dead and rotting in the ground. You are an actual son of Satan.

>>18145813
>Ignatius of Antioch, direct disciple of John the Apostle
Within the same letter to the Romans he called Jesus' blood 'love' and his flesh 'faith'.

> from which our blood and flesh by transmutation
>which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When
Our blood and flesh are transmuted by the Eucharist, not the bread and the wine.

To say that the substances are changed based on these letters with any level of contextual reading comprehension is a retrojection.

>>18146569
>>18146569
You're not just wrong, you're functionally illiterate. You're committing a basic, retarded "either/or" fallacy.

Your entire "argument" is: "Ignatius used 'flesh' as a metaphor once, so he must always mean it as a metaphor."

This is biblically illiterate. Scripture and the Fathers use "both/and" logic all the time. The same word means different things in different contexts, you absolute moron. Ignatius is writing a poetic letter about his desire for martyrdom. "I desire the bread of God... which is the flesh of Jesus Christ... and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love..." He's not defining the blood's substance as "love." He's saying the result of partaking in it is "incorruptible love."

In Smyrnaeans 7 ignatius is writing a polemical letter against the Gnostic heretics. He's condemning them because "they do not confess that the Eucharist IS THE FLESH of our Savior Jesus Christ, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS..." He's literally linking the physical Eucharist to the physical Incarnation to refute the heretics who denied both.

Let's use your own "either/or" logic and see how stupid it sounds.
>John 2:19: Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
>John 2:21: John clarifies, "But he spake of the temple of his body."
>1 Corinthians 3:16: Paul asks, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God...?"

So which is it anon? Is the Temple only a building? Or only Christ's body? Or only us? Or, and this might be too complex for you, does the word "temple" have multiple, real meanings (a literal building and a theological reality) depending on the context?

>>18146584
The fact you tried to censored out the so called 'metaphors' says that no honest person would ever agree with your little ideology,

Is that why you didn't mention the Didache view of the Eurcharist too because it refers it as 'spiritual food?

Sad, just sad, from a sad little man on his sad little hill.

>>18146593
>"The fact you tried to censored out the so called 'metaphors' says that no honest person would ever agree with your little ideology"

I literally quoted the letters passage and explained it (>>18146584). This is a pathetic attempt to dodge. You got refuted and now you're just making things up.

>"Is that why you didn't mention the Didache view of the Eurcharist too because it refers it as 'spiritual food?"

You're moving the goalposts, and you've just run face-first into the exact same "either/or" fallacy as last time.

You think "spiritual food" means "not real food." let's use the Bible, since you seem to have never read it. What did St. Paul call the manna in the desert? 1 Corinthians 10:3-4: "And did all eat the same spiritual food; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Was the manna not real, physical food? Did the Israelites not really drink physical water from the rock? Of course they did.

Paul calls it "spiritual" because it was a supernatural gift from God and a type of Christ.

The Didache is using the exact same logic. The Eucharist is the ultimate "spiritual food" precISsely because it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ THE fulfillment of the manna. It's not mere bread BECAUSE it's supernatural, spiritual, real food.

You're hopelessly stuck in a false "either/or" binary. The Fathers and the Bible operate on "both/and." Your entire method of reading is a Protestant anachronism.

Try again.

>>18146567
>You low tier Protestant?
I am now. I left the church because of this exact issue. I understand the (supposed) difference between veneration, intercession, and worship. What I'll ask you is this, can a man get to Heaven without ever invoking any of the saints?

>>18146629
Yes he can. Next question

>>18146649
Then why bother with the saints at all? Even the church acknowledges that veneration can easily drift into idolatry if you're not careful. Why even take the risk?

>>18146670
Because we're a family (the Communion of Saints), not a collection of isolated individuals. You ask your sinful buddy on earth to pray for you. Against all logic would you not ask a perfected saint in heaven, who is literally standing in God's presence, to pray for you? Refusing to is just pride.

>Why even take the risk [of idolatry]?
This is a cope. By that logic, you should stop eating or stop browsing the internet because you might commit gluttony or run falling into lust by the many thirst traps posted on the internet. You should stop reading the Bible because you might fall into heresy (2 Peter 3:16). Honoring God's masterpiece (a saint) gives glory to God, the artist. Learn the difference between honor (veneration) and sacrifice (worship). It's not hard.

>>18145479
cheaters should identify publicly and have 50% discount with hookers on the first date
Just put the cheating status on the driving license

>>18146673
> Against all logic would you not ask a perfected saint in heaven, who is literally standing in God's presence, to pray for you?
And I need the fancy statues and flowery, borderline worshipful language to do all that? You compared the saints to grandma earlier. The difference is I don't have a statue of her in my house and tell it how wonderful and pious she was every day. If I did I think even most Catholics would find that (rightly) pretty creepy.

>By that logic, you should stop eating or stop browsing the internet because you might commit gluttony or run falling into lust by the many thirst traps posted on the internet.
Apples and oranges. I have to eat to live, and the church doesn't actively encourage me to browse the internet. In fact, most priests would be happier if you did less of it. Veneration of the saints is a central part of the church, though by your own admission it does nothing for your salvation. Why would the church encourage you to do something that can cause you to stumble that provides no benefit? That's like saying, "I keep this can of gas next to the breaker box in my house. Not for any particular reason, I just like it there."

>>18146694
>and I need the fancy statues and flowery, borderline worshipful language to do all that?
You're confusing the sign for the thing signified. Do you have photos of your family? Do you kiss a picture of your wife? Are you worshiping the paper? No, you're showing love for the person it represents.

God commanded the making of images (cherubim on the Ark in Exodus 25:18-20; the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:8-9). He forbade worshiping them as gods.

>If I did have a grandma statue
You mean like having a photo of a dead relative on the mantel? Or visiting a gravestone? Or building the Lincoln Memorial? It's honor, not worship. Your appeal to emotion is a cope.

>by your own admission it does nothing for your salvation.
This is a pathetic strawman. I said it's not absolutely necessary for salvation, not that it provides "no benefit."

The "benefit" is the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man" (James 5:16). Who is more righteous than a perfected saint in the direct presence of God?

>Why would the church encourage you to do something that can cause you to stumble that provides no benefit?
Your gas can analogy is false.

Here's a correct analogy: The Bible itself is a "can of gas." St. Peter says the "ignorant and unstable twist (Scripture) to their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:16).

By your logic, we should ban reading the Bible because it "provides no benefit" (since you believe in sola fide anyway, right?) and clearly "can cause you to stumble" (in other words fall into heresy).

The Church doesn't ban the Bible. It teaches you how to read it (Tradition, Magisterium). The Church doesn't ban honoring saints. It teaches the difference between honor (veneration) and worship (latria).

You don't ban food because of gluttony because you teach temperance. Your entire argument is a "risk of abuse" fallacy when you break it down.

>>18146715
>Do you have photos of your family? Do you kiss a picture of your wife?
There is a difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I don't kiss photos of family that I've never met. I don't regularly talk to them lovingly on bended knee. That's strange.

>Or building the Lincoln Memorial?
Again, honor and veneration are practiced in two entirely different ways. I've been to the Lincoln Memorial, but it never crossed my mind to talk to the guy. If you saw somebody kneeling at the feet of Lincoln in the memorial, asking him to ask God to help our country, you would think he was a nut.

> I said it's not absolutely necessary for salvation, not that it provides "no benefit."
Salvation isn't a quest in a video game. There aren't optional objectives scattered around the map. Either you have it or you don't. If you're already in the church deep enough to know about proper veneration you should already have salvation, and if you don't, it's not going to help you.

>The "benefit" is the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man" (James 5:16).
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6) They that have already passed have no more to do with this world.

>Here's a correct analogy
I need the Word for my salvation. I don't need the saints. I'll give you this, plenty of false shepherds have twisted Scripture to wicked ends. That being said, the Scripture is still absolutely vital for salvation. I could go my entire life without breathing a word to the saints and still be fine. So I'll say again, it's like keeping a gas can next to your breaker box. It's in no way vital to the functioning of your house, but it absolutely can be the reason said house burns to the ground.

>>18146757
We don't "kiss photos of family we've never met" SIMPLY we venerate family members who are confirmed to be in Christ's presence. You're confusing an idol (a statue worshiped as a god) with an icon (a representation used to focus prayer toward a saint). The feeling of kneeling isn't the issue since the intent is. When you kneel at an altar, you aren't worshiping the wood. Abraham kneeled to the angel and wasnt rebuked for it unlike John of Patmos because the intent matters. Abraham kneeled to kings of other nations too, not out of worship because reality is nuanced, intent matters.

>If you saw somebody kneeling at the feet of Lincoln... you would think he was a nut.

That's because Lincoln is not alive in Christ and cannot intercede. The Communion of Saints is the fundamental difference. The saints are not statues because they are friends closer to God than we are. Your analogy fails because you reject the New Covenant reality that the saints are alive and active.

>Salvation isn't a quest in a video game...

Salvation is a process ("work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" - Philippians 2:12). Grace is the benefit, and grace comes through cooperation with God's will and the help of others.

Cont;

>>18146757
Is asking a friend on Earth to pray for you "optional content" that provides "no benefit"? No, it's cooperation in the body of Christ. The Saints' prayers are simply the most powerful form of this cooperation.

>Ecclesiastes 9:5-6... The dead know not any thing... have no more to do with this world.

You are quoting the Old Testament understanding of Sheol (the grave) BEFORE Christ's EMPTYING OF SHEOL and GIVING OF LIFE and trying to override Christ's teaching on the Resurrection fails because:
>Christ refutes this directly "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32).
>The Martyrs are crying out in heaven since the dead are clearly conscious, active, and praying (Revelation 6:9-10).
>The Great Cloud of Witnesses are those we are surrounded by those in heaven (Hebrews 12:1).

>I could go my entire life without breathing a word to the saints and still be fine. So I'll say again, it's like keeping a gas can next to your breaker box.

You can go your entire life without ever asking your fellow church members to pray for you and still be saved. That doesn't make their prayers a "gas can." It means you've chosen to fight the good fight alone, which is perfectly permissible, but spiritually foolish.
The dead in Christ are more alive than you or I.

Cont;

>>18146757
see >>18146796

We honor them because God wants us to be a family (Communion of Saints), not a collection of isolated individuals. The most direct expressions of this concept come from the Gospels.
>Matthew 6:10
"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
This is the core prayer asking for the perfect order and will of God's heavenly realm to be made manifest on Earth through our actions and God's intervention.

Revelation 5:8 states these bowls "are the prayers of the saints."

Amos 7, Amos, while alive on earth, intercedes, and God relents. The speaker argues this shows the power of intercession, and therefore, how much more powerful would the intercession of those in God's direct presence be.

Psalm 148, David speaks to angels, liturgically inviting them to praise God. This demonstrates communication and shared worship across the veil.

In 2 Kings 6:8-12 the Prophet Elisha demonstrates clairvoyance of private conversations happening many miles away. Also in 5:25-27.

In 1 Samuel 9:15-20 Samuel shows this too. 1 Kings 13:2-3 Josiah did too.

Youre totally find with Satan, a creature, oppressing 9+ billion people on earth at once, exerting obvious amounts of abilities, a fallen angel; but a glorified triumphant saint, who made it face to face to God (as psalms says he who is face to face with God sees light); how much more would this saint have the grace of God to be capable of hearing prayers?

The most direct visual of a connection point between heaven and earth occurs in Jacob's dream.

"And he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!" Genesis 28:12

A direct connection between earth and heaven isnt a catholic invention. In Christ this line is blurred.

>>18146757
Luke 23:43, "today you will be with me in Paradise

100 replies wtf
OP here, ill try a baptist church, thank you very much.

>>18145387
kek no, ask /x/ at least they can give you spiritual advice

Paganism

>>18147157
>baptist
The israeli shills got to him fellas

>>18146795
>You're confusing...
I understand the difference between idols and icons, dulia and latria and all the other little distinctions you'd like to make perfectly well. I know this is the go-to Catholic argument, but my opposition is not one of misunderstanding terms. As I've said before, I used to be a member of the church. This isn't something I picked up from Pastor Joe-Bob. I've lived it, I understand it enough to know it's wrong. It isn't Protestant cope, the Orthodox had a civil war about this all the way back in the 7 and 800's.

The Bible warns us repeatedly that attempted communication with the dead is a sin in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. There is no distinction made about whether the person who died is righteous or not. There is no clarification in the NT that says "Actually, that doesn't apply to the saints.". Communicating with the spirits is forbidden. Period. Even if you want to apply a whole bunch of technicalities so you can say it's technically not forbidden, why on earth would you want to take that risk? Why would you want to take the risk of sliding into idolatry? It's a gigantic risk for a tiny reward, and I don't think any responsible church would encourage the practice. The Church has had to constantly and repeatedly suppress cults (the Church's term, not mine) that cross the line from dulia to latria. If you truly care about the souls of your flock why on earth would you not only permit, but encourage, a practice that is both non-essential and so often leads the faithful to stumble?

>>18148093
You can be a Baptist and dislike Israel. You just have to ignore the boomers who think whatever Fox News tells them to.

>>18145377 (OP)
Islam
Muhammad triumphs over the kike on a stick

>>18148179
>I understand the difference between idols and icons, dulia and latria and all the other little distinctions you'd like to make perfectly well. I know this is the go-to Catholic argument, but my opposition is not one of misunderstanding terms. As I've said before, I used to be a member of the church.
NTA, but given your previous posts in this thread you are clearly lying.

>>18147157
Try them all out.
Catholic is still the best, either Latin Mass for beauty or English Mass for ease of understanding.

>>18148179
You are right, God absolutely forbids necromancy. But we must define what that is, as understood by the ancient Jews and even by modern secular scholarship of the Ancient Near East. Necromancy (like the Witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28) was the act of conjuring or summoning a spirit from the underworld (Sheol). The purpose was divination which to gain HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE, POWER OR FORETELL THE FUTURE FROM A SOURCE OTHER THAN GOD. It was an occult practice rooted in paganism, attempting to control the spirit and extract information.
Now, look at Catholic intercession:
We do not summon or conjure anyone.

We do not ask for hidden knowledge or occult power.

We do not control the saint.

We humbly ask a family member, who is alive and in the presence of God, to pray to God on our behalf.
You claim the New Testament never clarifies this. It does, repeatedly, by redefining what "dead" means. Without our teaching, YOU HAVE NO COHERENT INTERPRETATION FOR THESE VERSES:

"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32). He said this about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had been physically dead for centuries.

"I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain... they cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long...?'" (Revelation 6:9-10). They are not unconscious. They are aware, conscious, and actively praying to God.

We are surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1). A witness is, by definition, one who is conscious and aware.

Continued in my most important point next post:

>>18148179


"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

(Matthew 27:52-53)

What is the point of this miracle? Is it a temporary parlor trick? Did Jesus raise these saints, prove His power over death, and then just kill them off again to sleep unconsciously in the dust?

Of course not. It was the ultimate sign that His Resurrection opened the gates of heaven and brought His holy ones into a new, living communion. Your view makes this miracle a bizarre, temporary stage play. The Catholic view sees it as the first fruits of the Communion of Saints. They are alive.
Therewas a civil war. And the Church solved it. The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD) condemned iconoclasm and reaffirmed the distinction between veneration (dulia) and worship (latria). You are citing a problem the Church fixed as if it's a fatal flaw.
This comes down to the Holy Spirit promising the church into truth always, Jesus guiding the church even into the end of age. The church isn't some unnamed remnant that not a single historian can find. The church is Catholic Orthodox Church that has apostolic succession, which pastor bob doesnt have.

>>18145377 (OP)
The one that lets you get away with as much as possible, serious level 215 Christian answer.

>>18148221
Protip, Marcion was level 215. Those in communion with the Catholic Church are over 9000.

>>18145377 (OP)
>Catholic or Evangelical
Both are bad in their own ways but Catholicism is at least less stupid.

I would recommend being non-denominational and knowing as little as possible about church canon, and instead reading the Bible with an open mind and distilling your own lessons from it.

>>18148431
>non-denominational
You're definitely a denomination, it's just you're hiding it likely because you are ashamed. Most of the time it's Baptist or Pentecostal, depending on the type of baptism used and if people scream gibberish during the services making a mockery of the miracle of Pentecost.

It's people like the latter that actually need to read their Bibles and could use the help of pastors and scholars. The apostles didn't just babble nonsense, they spoke in such a way that the people from diverse countries all heard them testifying in their own language. Not guttural grunting and random syllables that make sense in no language.

>>18145582
>>18145593
>>18145843
>>18145872
lol the "nuh-uh its different" mental gymnastics cathfags take part in is laughable

>>18148213
>reaffirmed the distinction between veneration (dulia) and worship (latria). You are citing a problem the Church fixed as if it's a fatal flaw.
It isn’t fixed. The church is still fighting a constant war against venerations that turn into idol worship. If anything, the past 1000 years have proved the iconoclasts correct. The church actively encourages an activity that is a major source of idolatry. Why would the true church do this? It’s not required for salvation, you can get to heaven without ever having done it, yet it is the source of so many idolatries that condemned people to Hell. A church that truly cared about the spiritual wellbeing of the faithful would at least condemn it out of an abundance of caution if not for the fact it’s unbiblical.

>The church is Catholic Orthodox Church that has apostolic succession
Is it the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church? Because even amongst yourselves you can’t agree. Even amongst the churches which have apostolic succession there is no shortage of conflict in doctrine.

How come everyone either says "Prot, Catholic or Ortho" how come nobody even mentions the Church of the East? Father Mar Mari's sermons seem pretty good.

>>18149046
You are demanding that the Church be managed by rigorism, that we ban a spiritual good because some unstable people abuse it or become too scrupolous. This is condemned. The True Church is not a spiritual safety deposit box taking the most extreme practices every time to virtually eradicate any risk of destruction, in that case, we'd be monks/nuns and cover our womens faced like muslims; it is the Mystical Body of Christ, a family that lives by faith, not by eliminating all risk of sin.

It is ONE BODY.

Charity is not required for salvation (faith is). But if I give money to a beggar, he might spend it on wine and get drunk, committing a sin that could "condemn him to Hell." Should I stop giving to the poor?

Marriage is not required for salvation. But it is the source of countless sins, adultery, hatred, abuse, which could "condemn people to Hell." Should the Church abolish the Sacrament of Matrimony?

The saints are alive, conscious, and interceding. Asking them to pray for us is not "communication with the dead." It is communion with the living.

>Catholic or Orthodox
The only division relevant to your argument is the one between the Church founded by Christ and the Protestant novelty founded by men 1,500 years later.

If you acknowledge apostolic succession, you admit that the faith must be transmitted in its fullness. The division between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is a tragedy based on jurisdictional, cultural, and political differences (example being the authority of the Pope above other bishops and the Filioque clause which even eastern orthodox church fathers taught) not on the central, critical doctrines you object to (like the Real Presence in the Eucharist or the Intercession of Saints).

>>18149050
mar mari has been excomm'd from the church of the east and runs his own now lol

>>18145377 (OP)
Just choose the LARP that you find most aesthetic.

>>18149169
choose the LARP that has the oldest church in your hometown that your parents/grandparents/grandgrandparents attended*

>>18149172
Unless the aesthetic is not kino, then pick one that is. I couldn't LARP with an American protestant church.

>>18149181
sure but it can be kino and not for you, for example americans can't LARP as orthos, that's extremely gay

>>18145377 (OP)
I grew up in a southern-baptist church and I hate how the walls are all white the floors are grey and there's barely any beauty. Like a church designed by a millinieal.

>>18149201
come home

>>18148212
My impression is that the difference between Catholics and Orthodox in one hand and Protestants in the other is that Protestants don't exactly understand some of the terms, since they read the Bible by themselves without the guide of a 2,000 years old institution.

So, we end up with this confusion where Protestants don't understand issues like this and also don't understand the issue of what worship is (a discussion that seems to have taken most of the thread).I wonder if there are more issues like this, that arise from Protestants not understanding the real meaning but having a "plain read" without context of a 2,000 years old text.

This makes the advice "read the Bible by yourself" kind of bad, since I imagine it is easy to misunderstand tons of things.

>>18149187
Orthodox is the most kino imo but yeah unfortunately for burgers, I agree.

>>18149269
As St. Peter warned (2 Peter 3:16), it is easy for the "ignorant and unstable to twist" the Scriptures "to their own destruction." That is why Christ left a visible, teaching authority (the Church), not a book alone, to be the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Protestants will claim, at least somewhat educated protestants (especially mainline reformer protestants), will claim this is true, but the Church was lead into a Great Apostasy.

This leads to contradictions as I outlined above in the thread, and of course, a very depressing pessimistic view of Gods providence ensuring hell's gates never prevails against His church.

>>18149303
Hell's gates never prevailed against the invisible church, but the Roman Church sure as hell was corrupt. Indulgences, even the old story of the new Pope digging up a dead pope and "putting him on trial", dividing the world between Spain and Portugal (???), the Pope claiming he can forgive sins (something only God can do), shaking down poor peasants to pay for construction of St Peter's Basilica when the Pope could afford it himself as an extremely wealthy man... unless you think these are fine and dandy of course. Even the Catholics at the time realized how corrupt they were and attempted to change course.

As a mainline Protestant I agree you need context and guidance on reading the scriptures, I just don't think the Catholic Church is infallible or divinely protected against error any more than Israel in the Old Testament was always faithful. Moses turns his back for 30 seconds and Israel is worshipping a golden calf, Catholics make excuses why their worship of saints and relics are actually these other words which are like a wizard's incantation that make it not idolatry.

>>18149368
>against the invisible church
Documented where? The gnostics? The montatnists? The cathars? Cool story bro. Even if I grant you that the Church aspostasized immediately after the resurrection I would just leave the thread and cease being Christian at all, because by your own logic Jesus lied to His Church when He promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church into ALL truth, You claim the Church lacked a clear, visible authority. Then Jesus failed when He made the Apostles and their successors His visible, binding authority on earth (Matthew 18:18).

You claim the Church is not a reliable teacher. Then Jesus lied when He promised to be with His Apostles and their teaching successors always, until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

You claim the Church has been wrong for centuries. Then St. Paul lied when he called the Church, not a book, but the pillar and ground of the truth.

The historical acts of corruption you cite (abuses of indulgences, bad Popes) were sins of men, not errors of official doctrine. Paid indulgences were not even practiced by most clergy, the scandal was widespread but the actions were not. The Lord Himself gave a parable of servants He leaves in charge and what He would do were they to be corrupt, proving they have authority and not only that but fallibility in action, not teaching of doctrine or morals of faith; by your own logic we invalidate Peters ministry because he practiced ethnic division of which Peter rebuked him of.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Corruption proves the presence of sinners, not the failure of Christ's divine promise.

Cont;

>>18149368
The claim that the Pope or a priest "claims he can forgive sins" ignores that Christ explicitly gave this power to His Apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:22-23).

Then you lot will often claim priests replace jesus as the mediator but this is a massive misreading of scripture.

In 2 Corinthians we see Paul acknowledge the ministry of reconciliation that Jesus started;
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 states that Christ has given the "ministry of reconciliation" to His Apostles (and their successors/priests). Paul writes: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation... We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us."

Notice how Paul refers to "us" elders of the church, and the ministers in the Apostolic office, a specific, delegated authority, distinct from the baptized Christian. You will often bring up the teaching of the "Priesthood of All Believers" The Catholic Church affirms this teaching. However, the Church teaches that there is an essential difference between the two forms of participation: To offer spiritual sacrifices (prayer, witness, good works) and to live a life of holiness (common) and ministerial priesthood, To serve the Common Priesthood by acting in the Person of Christ (in persona Christi), administering the Sacraments (like the Eucharist and Confession), and leading the Mass.

Cont;

>>18149368
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."

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."

The selling of indulgences (the abuse) was indeed a grave scandal and was later condemned and rectified by the Church at the Council of Trent. But an indulgence itself (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt has been forgiven) is a valid theological concept rooted in the Communion of Saints and the spiritual treasury of Christ's merits.

Even in Luthers original nailed theses he acknowledges papal indulgences as a truth (otherwise you are anathema).

>>18149368
Your repeated appeal to the Golden Calf analogy and "wizard's incantations" is a willful misrepresentation. We went over this: the Israelites worshipped the calf as a god. Catholics and Orthodox venerate saints (Dulia) and worship God (Latria). It is the same distinction you make when you honor your flag (not worship) versus the worship you give to God.

The Church teaches that a saint's relic or an icon are simply a physical focal point to direct your prayer to a person who is alive in Christ (Matt. 22:32; Rev. 6:9). If you reject this, you must reject Christ's words on the living status of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who bowed down to kings and angels.

>>18149398
edit correction; by your own logic we invalidate Peters ministry because he practiced ethnic division of which Paul* rebuked him of.

>>18149406
Paying money to get out of an invented state of suffering in the afterlife is legitimate? Wow, something something rich man camel eye of needle being totally wrong.

>>18149409
Pic related. The magic spells make the worship of the golden calf all right.

>>18149422
Thats not how paid indulgences worked at all lil bro. Not even the leading protestant apologists lead with these debate tactics. Its retarded and low tier.

>>18145377 (OP)
Just become an anglican puritan like the pilgrim fathers, it allows you to shit on everyone you don't like and blame all the problems on the catholics.

My impression from this thread is that Protestants tend to doubt the supernatural

>>18149435
Oh so they didn't promise to get your dead loved ones out of "purgatory" for a little bit of coin? Please, tell me how Tetzel was just a lone wolf with no backing from the Pope (who was made aware of his claims and did NOTHING because he wanted money).

>As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs

>>18149448
A crying statue, a pancake that sorta looks like a depiction of our Lord (mmmm sacrilicious), a few kids claiming to see an apparition of Mary that no one else can see. Supernatural is one thing, superstitious is another. Jesus conquered death, he doesn't need cheap parlor tricks. A savior not a magician.

>>18149464
>Jesus conquered death
The evidence for this is just about as good as the evidence for Marian apparitions, meaning not very good at all.

>>18149464
I have seen claims that the transubstantiation is a "fake magic spell" and that believing the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error "is magic belief".

>>18149510
Oh? The Popish church has never made an error?

Guess shuffling those child rapist priests around to new locations to offend again was the right thing to do.

>>18145377 (OP)
Go to all of them. You have time. Pick the one you find less bullshitrous.

>>18149514
>The Popish church has never made an error?
Not in Doctrine, no.

Individual Bishops made mistakes in governance, but in terms of doctrine, the Church is protected from errors.

>>18149574
So is the death penalty good or bad? Seems they flip flopped on this matter of morals.

>>18145377 (OP)
Go to a catholic mass. The center of the mass is Jesus, the altar, and scripture. The center of evangelical churches is some guy with his niche Bible interpretations. Go to the historic church anon, you won’t be disappointed.

All Churches founded before 1500 venerate saints. The Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Saint Thomas Christians in India. The Churches founded by Apostles.

But some people 1500 years later believed they knew better. Protestants act as if Catholics are the oddities when they clearly are.

>>18149775
>So is the death penalty good or bad?
Depends on the circumstances. It is an issue of prudential judgement.
There is no dogmatic definition either way.

>>18149800
>we worship saints who would be aghast at our praying to them and using their name to commit idolatry as a tradition of men therefore it is a good thing. Ooops I mean venerate which is a distinction without difference.

>>18149835
All Churches founded before 1500 understand the difference between worship and veneration.

>>18149852
You say you do, but you use different words for the same thing as a magical ward against idolatry. It doesn't work.

Worship God, pray to God, not humans (besides Jesus, who is God) no matter how good of an example they were. Would you want people to commit idolatry and "venerate" aka "worship" you if you became a martyr? Personally I would not.

>>18149863
>veneration
>worship
>different words for the same thing
If you merely venerate God, run to the Church asap and pray.

>>18149863
>you use different words for the same thing
No, we don't.
We use different words for different things.

>>18149866
Yes I know, you think they mean different things and that using the word "veneration" excuses your worship of mere mortal men and women.

>St Anthony I pray to you to please help me find my keys
>Mary I pray to you to change God's mind because he won't deny his mom
I think just have a higher view of God's Sovereignty than you I guess. Prayer is more for the person praying than to effect change in the unchanging God. If God decrees something, praying to every human who has ever lived on Earth isn't going to change it.

>>18149889
You'd like to think that.

>>18149895
>I think just have a higher view of God's Sovereignty than you I guess.
Strange that you only venerate Him then. It's a real issue.

>>18149895
Here is Paul
> I urge you, [brothers,] by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf,

>With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones 19 and also for me, that speech may be given me to open my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, so that I may have the courage to speak as I must.

>Persevere in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving; 3 at the same time, pray for us, too, that God may open a door to us for the word, to speak of the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison, 4 that I may make it clear, as I must speak.

Someone asked
>Why? Is God too busy to answer Paul's prayers? Jesus is on vacation?
>I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it doesn't seem logical. Like my analogy, you pray to God to find your keys, he says "no", so you pray to Anthony and this changes God's mind???

Could you explain this? Why did he do it?

>>18149896
No I worship God, you worship men. You call it something else, but it's the same thing.

>>18149895
Anon, worship and veneration are really two different things.

>>18149900
Again, no. Everyone knows veneration. Not everyone knows worship. If they're the same to you, then you merely venerate God. You'll exhaust your coping with this at some point, have no doubts.

"You worship saints"
"No, we don't. We respect saints and..."
"You worship saints"
"But we don't, in our practice we-..."
"This is worship, worship lalala"

>>18149902
>>18149904
>>18149906
>"Look, I am not petting my cat, Fluffy."
>"You're... literally stroking his fur right now."
>"You don't understand. Petting is the simple, common affection I show to my neighbor's dog. It's just a friendly gesture."
>"So what are you doing to Fluffy?"
>"I am engaging in 'Feline Reverence.'
>It might look like petting, but because Fluffy is my cat—the most perfect, supreme, and glorious cat in the neighborhood—my action is entirely different. It's an act of high honor and profound acknowledgment of his superior status. The dog only gets pets; Fluffy gets reverence."

>>18145377 (OP)
Convert to Islam, judeochristianity is a necrophile shabbos goy cult

>>18149922
But veneration and worship are extremely different.
Viewing a saint as a friend and as a model and asking the saint to pray to God for us is very different to the worshipping we have of God.
If you think those are the same, you do have a very low view of what worshipping is.

>>18149922
>pets a cat
>semantically elevates it with words like "most perfect, supreme, profound..."
>still merely petting
Kinda like you are merely venerating God despite calling it something higher - worship.
Even your subconscious is giving up.

>>18149928
There isnt a big muslim community where i live

>>18149899
He wont answer you because he has no answer besides pivots.

>>18149906
>in our practice we-
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 hast 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 for ever 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.

>>18149899
>>18150557
Prayers to whom again?

>>18149800
A name and a location do not make a church, but what makes the church are its faith, practice and structure; now, the faith, practice and structure of the modern church of Rome were utterly unknown until the middle ages, therefore it is not the Reformed churches which must excuse their novelty but the Roman church, for as Clement's church was in every way the same in faith, practice and structure as our churches and the modern Roman church is utterly unrecognizable as it, therefore Clement's church today is not the Roman church but the Reformed church.

>>18150782
Prayers to God THROUGH the members of the Church, interceding for Paul.

>>18150822
see >>>18150612

>>18150798
If this is all a medieval invention of the "Roman Church", why do the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Saint Thomas Indians have the same thing? Are they "Papists in Disguise"?

Isn't it weird that all Churches with apostolic succession are the same but you somehow got things right 1,500 years later? Very weird.

>>18150798
>now, the faith, practice and structure of the modern church of Rome were utterly unknown until the middle ages
completely false.
>for as Clement's church was in every way the same in faith, practice and structure
no it wasnt lol.
> therefore Clement's church today is not the Roman church but the Reformed church.
/pol/tier schizo nonsense.

>>18145377 (OP)
Choose Catholic