What do Protestants have to say about this?
>>18494048They did bad things in history?
The other 'apostolic' churches not viewing the pope as the lord and master of all christendom (ex cathedrically speaking) is the bigger problem
>>18494054No, it isn't.They all still accept the catholicity of one true church that Jesus founded, as visibly and authoritatively defined at Nicaea by the host of bishops, even if they maintain others in that church are now in err.Protestants don't even agree among themselves about that.
>>18494048the catholic church was not founded by jesus christ, and efforts to connect it to Jesus are specious
>>18494068HOW WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOT FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO YOU?
>>18494069Go back to worshipping the Coca Cola bear, tostiloco.
>>18494079?ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>>18494060>>18494054Peter was the first PopeHe is not the master; he is the Prime Minister in absence of the King
>>18494081there are no primary sources showing an unbroken line of popes to Jesus and the idea of a neat teacher-student lineage of the early church fathers is a later fiction
If Protestants had any research into History, they wouldn't be ProtestantsIt's all just a little book club, at best. Not a Church
>>18494085????The Apostolic Succession lines all the way to Moses, you dolt!It is called Semicha and Jesus himself had to obtain it from John the Baptist before becoming a RabbiIf Jesus himself had it, then it was never broken then and it won't be broken now
>>18494084So why do the other apostolic churches not recognise peter's authority as expressed by the papacy
>>18494090>>18494087dumb tranime pedophile
>>18494085THE PAPAL LINEAGE IS TRACEABLE TO SAINT PETER, DESPITE CHRONOLOGICAL MURKINESS; IF CURRENT POPES WERE NOT DESCENDED SAINT PETER, THEY WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY, AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZED CHURCH WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED CENTURIES AGO.EVEN IF THE ARGUMENT OF PAPAL DISCONTINUITY WERE A VALID ONE, THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST.IF JESUS CHRIST DID NOT FOUND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHAT CHURCH DID HE FOUND? IS THAT CHURCH IN EXISTENCE TODAY, OR DID IT BECOME EXTINGUISHED? IF IS EXTINCT, THEN, IT WAS NOT THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS ETERNAL AND PERPETUAL.WHAT OTHER CHURCH IS THERE, IF NOT THE CATHOLICAL ONE?
>>18494092They doThey found letters from Pope Clement of Rome (100AA) giving orders for *all* Churches First Epistle to the Corinthians even blatantly orders the Corinthians to reinstate their deposed leaders, submit to their respective shepherds, and unify the ChurchesSince the start, the Chruch doesn't entertain the idea of divided interpretations
>Spends 1500 years engaging in all manner of corruption and debauchery >Acts surprised when somebody stands up to itPapists are some of most pathetic bitches on earth.
>>18494113My dear, everything is corruptedIn fact, The Church was corrupted since the ApostlesIt was corrupted since the First TempleIt was corrupted since EdenOnly the Church managed to remain standing despite it all.P.SLuther venerates Mary
>>18494090as I said, specious. You can't actually prove any of this.
>>18494117Is Jesus partaking in it really not enough evidence for you?
>>18494100>IF JESUS CHRIST DID NOT FOUND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHAT CHURCH DID HE FOUND? IS THAT CHURCH IN EXISTENCE TODAY, OR DID IT BECOME EXTINGUISHED? IF IS EXTINCT, THEN, IT WAS NOT THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS ETERNAL AND PERPETUAL.How are we supposed to have a genuine discussion when you just resort to a providential view of history rather than a logical one?You are saying the catholic church must be linked to Jesus because if it wasn't linked to Jesus then the church that was would have survived and become the catholic church due to jesus magic. That is not a meaningful rational argument. There is, after all, no evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
>>18494124>no evidence for the divinity of Jesus
>>18494118who says that he did? There are no primary sources for the life of Jesus. Even the gospels were not written until that entire generation that knew Jesus was gone.
>>18494126yes, there is no evidence of it other than some words on a paper written 50-100 years after he died. Of his divinity I am very doubtful.
>>18494127It's right here“By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”>>1849412830 years, actuallyAll of them were written within 30 years otherwise it would also mention the destruction of the TempleEverything in the ancient world was written decades after it happenedIf you want to accuse the Bible as unreliable, you also have to do the same to every single document written before the Printing press
>>18494124YOU ARE NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN; WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED ABOUT THESE TOPICS; YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVEN SOUND.
>>18494130the gospels are not a primary source, but a secondary source and certainly not an unbiased one. You should go back and read Herodotus, he explains source criticism well. Primary sources are more important than secondary sources, and especially those that are recounted by eyewitnesses who have a reputation for truthfulness and do not have a reason to be biased. Additionally you should use common sense and healthy skepticism when those people report things that in your experience seem implausible.That is the compass I use, and by those standards the gospels are not to be taken as reliable records of actual events of things that do not seem possible. I will not just accept them on faith alone.
>>18494134who are you to declare who is and who is not christian? By what authority do you claim this? I notice you also resorted to this statement instead of responding on point.
>>18494140Ok, coolHere's one:Talmud confirms that God stopped accepting sacrifices after 30AD
>>18494144>>18494124>[...] jesus magic.>There is, after all, no evidence for the divinity of Jesus.YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
>>18494144Its a 70IQ spic, don't except anything of value to come out of its mouth.
>>18494156>TalmudIn what book and what page?
>>18494156The Talmud does not say that. It says that the last time a string on the head of a scapegoat turned white was forty years before the temple was destroyed. It also links this to a long period of spiritual deterioration lasting hundreds of years since the High Priest Ezra, with miracles becoming less and less common over time. The Talmud also gives some fairly robust reasons for why that might've stopped during this time.P.S: Are you so bankrupt you need to plagiarize protestants for your apologia now?
>>18494054The Pope is a sinner and not one step closer to God's glory than any other. Jesus removed the need for an intermediary and offers a direct connection to God. Fuck the chomo banker Pope and the whole Catholic synagogue of Satan.
>>18494048>>18494087The church is the human body (heart specifically). Simple
>>18494100They aren't necessarily descended from Peter specifically, properly speaking.They simply inherit his office.Ecclesial descent from the laying of hands could be derived from any one of the apostles, and they could still be elected.The Pope ordinarily doesn't personally consecrate or choose his successor.Same deal with every other bishop. They ordain people sure, that's how apostolic succession is preserved, but actually being elected to a particular see isn't necessarily part of that process.Like, the Pope can ordain people, but that doesn't mean they become the Pope later. You see?
>>18494614>They aren't necessarily descended from Peter specifically, properly speaking.>They simply inherit his office.That's obviously what he meant, retard. Look what "to descend" means in the dictionary.
>>18494625People have confusion as to what apostolic succession even means. I've seen people who think the bishops handpick their successors. Maybe that has happened in some cases idk, but it's not the norm in church history.I saw a journalist article about the SSPX controversy recently in which the low information journalist wrote that the reason bishops have to submit their ordinations to Rome is to protect apostolic succession.As if it were the approval of the Pope alone from which apostolic succession is derived.But that's simply not true, it's not what the church has ever taught. Apostolic succession is maintained even if the ordination is illicit because it's built into the sacrament itself.Illicit ordinations may not be authorized, and hence carry with them a canonical penalty, but they're still valid because of the sacramental character invests someone with the actual power to perform it regardless.Anyways it's really strange to me that the Vatican hierarchy is so keen on forcing the SSPX into either extinction or excommunication. They've been very patient and attempted to dialogue, but Fernandez is just stonewalling them. Not a great example of charity at all, giving children stones instead of bread as it were. There's no good reason at all for it either, other societies don't face problems securing routine consecrations which are necessary for growth. But because they're conservatives, and conservatism is unpopular with the cadre ensconced in the Vatican, they have a hard time. You'd think suppressing the Latin mass would be pretty low on the to do list considering all the other horrible things happening, but plenty of bishops seem to go out of their way to break up or penalize parishes who want it. Like in Charlottesville, for example and elsewhere.These heavy handed and inexplicable restrictions are a dangerous source of disunity in the church, and sap the confidence of large portions of the laity in church leadership. It's really bad policy.
Here, let me do my best impression of the Vatican."Oh the Chinese Communist Party wants to arbitrarily select their agents to be Catholic bishops for China? Right this way Mr General Secretary, of course we'll totally respect your decision and the great will of the party in this matter. Here at the Vatican, we just love it when secular states historically opposed to Christianity interfere directly in church affairs. State church? What does that matter anyways, it's more important that we have unity with the CCP.""Well, well, someone wants to say mass in Latin? Sorry, I'm afraid there will be no bishops allowed for you today. If you try anything funny that's an automatic excommunication."
>Because all church properties were taken over by the state in the 1950s, the CCPA receives direct government financial subsidies, and its clergy are treated as state-salaried workers. In exchange for this financial support, the CCPA requires priests and bishops to pledge allegiance to the CCP, adhere to government mandates, and promote state ideology.This is fine.Ignore Cardinal Zen, he's just out of touch and old fashioned. Francis definitely knew best, we can definitely trust the communists.Who were the Uyghurs and Falun Gong again? Eh, that kind of advocacy isn't really in the Vatican's wheelhouse anyways. Human dignity occasionally just needs to take a backseat to political expediency. That's something worth compromising on.If the Vatican simply must acknowledge literal CCP employees of the state are legitimate bishops, then they'll just have to accept a little dirty laundry that state just happens to be involved with. The price of unity, sad but true.But the SSPX? That's a bridge too far.
>>1849436440 years before the Temple's destruction is literally the day Jesus was baptized and given Semicha.Yes, yes it says that God stopped accepting sacrifices for 40 years straightThe scapegoat never turned whiteThe western temple lamp diedAnd the doors to the Holiest of Holies, which require large amount of men to open, kept on opening by itselfYes, the Talmud would speak of every single excuse. But never admit the most obvious one
>>18494901>Who were the Uyghurs and Falun Gong again? Is your argument that the Vatican should oppose the Chinese government because they persecute heretics and Muslims? When the church had political power, they did much worse to both Muslims in Europe and weird Falun Gong like sects.
>>18494156>>18495632The Talmud never says God stopped accepting sacrifices. Sacrifices continued daily until the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.
>>18495632It doesn't describe a sudden change that overnight happened specifically in 30 AD. Instead, it describes a long, multi-generational spiritual decline:>It says that during the lifetime of Shimon HaTzaddik (centuries earlier), the miracles happened every single year.>After his death, the miracles happened only occasionally.>Finally, in the last 40 years before the destruction, they ceased entirely.If this were a sign marking the exact moment of the crucifixion, the miracles would have worked perfectly right up until 30 AD and then abruptly stopped. Instead, the Talmud mentions a slow, gradual withdrawal of the Divine Presence due to centuries of mounting moral decay.Another monumental event happened exactly 40 years before the Temple’s destruction (around 30 AD). In Talmud Avodah Zarah 8b, it is recorded that the Sanhedrin voluntarily vacated their official chamber inside the Temple.Because the Roman-appointed authorities and local factions were committing so many unchecked murders, the Sanhedrin chose to move away so they would no longer be legally obligated to try capital cases. In Jewish theology, when the high court separated from the altar, the spiritual sanctity of the Temple's daily operations fell significantly. This severe breakdown of law and societal justice is the direct catalyst for the cessation of the miracles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Post-publication_popes_(1590–present)Ratzinger was the last pope before the church is persecuted and "Peter the Roman" who doesn't seem to have any links to Francis or Leo XIV. We can assume they are fake Popes utterly bereft of any connection to the core teachings of Christ. Arguably this was true as early as John XXIII, but it is well and truly true now.
>>18494048Why would God found a church that preaches heresy? Sounds like nonsense to me. Thus God couldn't have founded the Catholic Church.
>>18494130>30 years, actuallyThe earliest gospel (Mark) was written around 90 AD, fuck off
>>18495665All the spiritual corruption that happened prior is nowhere near the spiritual corruption that happened during the First Temple.Hosea saw outright how God's glory left the temple, then the city, then the nation.Followed shortly by the Babylonian invasionAnd yet, their punishment ended after just 70 years. After which, God rebuild them anewToday, the temple did not just remain unbuilt, God has also denied them any further prophecies and miracles.Which means that the sin must be something even greater. Much MUCH Greater.I can only whatever what>>18495681How can it when it mentioned nothing about the Great Jewish Revolt - the biggest event in Jewish History
>>18495677/threadThe medieval Roman Catholic Church was based, the current cucktholic """church""", not so much.
>Which means that the sin must be something even greater. Much MUCH Greater.Or better yet, it’s all complete bullshit and there were never any miracles. The historicity of the Hebrew Bible was disproved, so why should I believe anything in the gospels?>>18495694>How can it when it mentioned nothing about the Great Jewish Revolt - the biggest event in Jewish HistoryBecause it was trying to give a false impression that it was written earlier than it really was.
>>18494090The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat, so I'm not sure you want to make that comparison.>But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, bear fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.Following God's commandments is more important than a chain of succession. And while I do like the contemporary Roman Catholic Church, its historic propensity to war shows that it has certainly not always been following God's commandments.
>>18495709It is not about being "more important", this is about *Legitimacy*Like it or not, when God grants a title, he grants it for eternity.Lucifer was granted the title of being second in command and he still remains as it until the ends of times.God is a King who follows his own Law and the Law requires proper order. The fact that someone is more righteous or more skilled will not qualify them for a role that he never gave the title to.Hence why you cannot be a Messiah if you are not under the line of David (royal lineage)Note that this is also why Lucifer rebelledHe is the highest of all the angels. And yet, it was humans (the lowest of the choir) who recieved both his image and dominion over the physical world
>>18495719>when God grants a title, he grants it for eternityBased dispensationalist. It's nice to know that ethnic Jews are still exclusively the chosen people. >He is the highest of all the angels. And yet, it was humans (the lowest of the choir) who recieved both his image and dominion over the physical worldGod can and has chosen a new line of succession? I fully agree.
>>18495701The medieval Catholic church was probably the least pious iteration of the organization up to date. Especially during the later early-middle ages, the church was possibly in the worst state it would ever be. It was hall of fame worthy. Not that it was all that pious afterward but it did get better.
>>18495735The Jews were *chosen to lead the world to GodYes, they were chosen then and they are chosen now.They were chosen to be God's priests who would set the moral example that everyone must live by. And it is precisely the fact that they kept on neglecting and perversing that role that God kept on destroying them over and over.>God can and has chosen a new line of succession?He didn't and he never will.Why? Because he is the one behind it all in the first place.He decides when someone will live or die and he will not give the authroity to a line that will die
>>18494048Catholics are a bunch of weirdo boyfuckers.How the fuck can you give relationship advice if you are a closeted fag who never had a family yourself?
>>18495742A universal god would not have a chosen peopleIs it really believable, reasonable, or logicalthat a universal Godwould have a chosen people ....that they would then "unchoose"?Is it really believablethat they would only communicatewith a small group of peopleand give specific duties, privileges, laws, and commandmentsonly for this people?The questions are rhetorical.It is not believable or reasonable.It obviously started with Judaism.Christianity came along and the chosen people became anyone who accepts Jesus as the Messiah.Islam then came on the scene and the new chosen people became those who submit to the will of Allah.In modern times, the chosen ones became the choosy mothers who choose Jiff.The idea of a chosen people and the competing definitions of who is chosen have all the qualities of human constructs.The Abrahamic religions are certainly not indicative of something that could be expected from an intelligent designer of the universe.
>>18495763Yes he will and yes he did. It all started with Abraham.PSChosen by God is NOT a title of glory but of responsibilityGod's chosen were made to carry burdens that would break an ordinary man. Every single prophet were dragged to the muck and the Messiah himself is right on the crossWhat's more is that, the closer you are to God, the harsher your judgement will be because he who was given much, much is expected in returnIf you wanted to be fellated just because the boss likes you, then God is not your boss
>>18495736Only in the decades leading up to the reformation, before then it was medieval kino like Sylvester II restoring Greco-Roman science, launching crusades, founding military orders, the Pope humbled by Francis of Assisi's humility, setting Kings to peace and laying them supplicant.Unfortunately times long since passed.
>>18495677Is it really that simple.
>>18495796Why does the answer need to be complicated?
>>18494406No. Otherwise there would be no need for Apostles
>>18495795Sylvester II is contemporary with the pornocracy though. And I'm not denying it's kino, the medieval church had a lot of kino. But if 'kino' is the metric we are using,the renaissance popes are kino as fuck, and so are Jesuits/counter-reformers, etc.They just weren't very good churchmen.
Let's imagine hypothetically, tomorrow Trump demands the Pope sign off on the men he personally chooses to be bishops in America. With the threat, that he will direct the FBI to investigate Catholics as terrorists again like what happened under Biden, which Francis never did or said anything about. It makes one think, maybe he secretly approved.Everyone would lose their fucking minds.But when China does that very thing, business as usual. Not a peep, move along, nothing to see here. In the words of Parolin, "What persecution? You have to be careful how you use these words."For all the horrible things Trump has done and continues to do, at least he had enough stones to call China out on what they're doing in Xinjiang.The Vatican hasn't once condemned the Chinese state for it, and that is a shameful embarrassment for the entire church. Francis set a very poor example when it came to that. In fact he specifically acted like a strongman when it came to Catholics with less power in the church, defrocking popular conservative bishops for very inconsequential criticisms of him, but when it comes to standing up to anyone bigger than he was and willing to do horrible acts violence to pressure him into submission he was certainly no David vis a vis Goliath. It's the policy of appeasement, and we see them already flaunting the empty "agreement" he signed off on.Did everyone in Rome simply forget about the investiture controversy, Avingon papacy, bolshevization of the Russian Orthodox Church, the CoE with More and other figures like Becket, etc etc very many such cases?When did they decide it was simply easier to surrender their spiritual authority to secular powers?It's hypocritical, to put it frankly. Historians of the future, supposing any record of this era even survived, will not remember this with kind of thing without asking exactly why these important principles were shelved and which forces were responsible.
>>18495767Abraham never existed bud. Claiming that “God chose us” automatically disproves your faith and everything it’s built off of. A truly universal god would NEVER favor any one group over others.
>>18497022He doesn'tGod choosing someone is not favoritism but an assigned task.Everyone has a specific taskOnly a few actually puts effort into it
>>18494048>organization makes self-aggrandizing baseless claims>"whAt Do prOteStaNts hAvE to saY aBouT tHis?"
>>18494100Writing you in caps just makes you look unhinged. No one is going to read that.
>>18497611He is an obnoxious larper which is why he doesn't use minuscules. Not Roman enough.
>>18494048The Church wasn't founded by Jesus Christ, it was founded by the Nicene Creed long after Jesus died.
>>18497624The Nicene Creed was about settling dispute between the Trinitarian and Arian church.The Trinitarian Church won and everything else was declared hereticsThe Trinitarian Church split into Ortho and Catho
>>18494048>Jesus Christ (supposedly) founded this church, therefore I'm allowed to defile it however I like, such as raping little boys up the ass, and you have to accept it.Powerful.
>>18495817The Medicis were kino, the Papacy became a joke.
>>18497671The papacy was a joke for most of the middle ages. Also:>The Borgia aren't kino>Julius II isn't kino
>>18497624That's about the dumbest thing I'm going to read today. Whoever taught you this is a liar.Bishops were invited to the council because it was collectively recognized they represented the church around the world *as it already existed*. And because they had apostolic succession, which is why they called themselves apostolic. To differentiate themselves from those *heretics* who claimed to teach the "true gospel" but *never* had the apostolic blessing of ministry and taught things like the refusing to celebrate the Eucharist because they denied it is the body of Christ, one example as Ignatius identified.
>>18497654Also, I should mention that Constantine was himself an Arian, he was most sympathetic towards Arianism and was baptized by Eusebius the Arian.If Constantine actually created the Catholic Church or had influence over their decision-making, then it would have been Arian. The fact that Arianism is deemed a heresy is proof Constantine didn’t create the Catholic Church.
>>18498100retard
>>18498352the art of debate, folks.
