File: CIA-Emblem-3299900196.png (104 KB, 3840x2160)

104 KB PNG

>Ugh, yo soi no can stand el protestantisimo o algo
>Eh, communista y liberalisimo?
>MIERDA
>Ola my gringo amigo uno coup porfavor

>>18498255
Why can't an omnipotent deity simply divinely inspire his prophets to write the texts in such a way that they are timeless and understandable by all? Why design humans that are incapable of understanding the divine texts?

>>18498338
They are timeless and understandable to all. They’ve lasted thousands of years and been believed by hundreds of cultures. You have free will to reject it.

>>18498338
>Why can't an omnipotent deity simply divinely inspire his prophets to write the texts in such a way that they are timeless and understandable by all?
he can, but he didnt, since there is no such opinion in the first 1k years of the church. (and he didnt because all religions are literally memes that cant be proven.)

>printing press in invented
>takes like three generations for a massive number of people to point out the Roman Catholic Church does not adhere to Scripture
What a coincidence.

>>18498255
If you can quote scripture and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you are automatically a Christian.

>>18498255
>believe whatever you want as long as you still tick the 'catholic' box at census time, bro
vgh...the blessed unity of the one true holy apostolic catholic church....

>>18498255
>the Bible itself has to have divine power that's able to convince anyone who reads it of the truths of Roman Catholicism. 2000 years later that idea is 600 feet under and no one can honestly believe in Latinx popery anymore (except for the greatest of retards) and true TRADITION is RETVRNING
>If assmad Cuckolics want to prove me wrong show me your perfect Bible that gives everyone who reads it saving faith and consistent doctr- oh wait you can't and that's why you had the Reformation LMAO

>>18498893
Ok then. I'll remember the whole Bible by heart,accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and also remember and quote the Book of Mormon by heart. :)

>>18498255
Non sequitur

File: fallen fallen is Babylon (...).jpg (125 KB, 1000x563)

125 KB JPG

>>18499014
Reminder that this guy is still a priest in good standing

>>18498879
They were doing that beforehand too eg John Wycliffe it’s just that Luther enjoyed a perfect storm due to God’s providence of which the printing press was just a piece which enabled him to be uniquely successful.

>>18498338
They are objectively perspicuous, and the fault in man is not by design but by corruption. This is called the noetic effect of sin. To understand scripture unto salvation belongs to grace alone, and so in contrast to OP’s bizarre misrepresentation the bible is not persuasive of itself but only when the Spirit in His ministry works with the word to bring repentance unto life.

>>18498523
If they're understandable by all then why does one need religious professionals to interpret the texts instead of just letting every layperson read it to get a perfect understanding of the faith?
>>18498842
The guy above you says he did, because they are understandable by all. Why are you right?
>>18499269
>They are objectively perspicuous
Then why do people do this day argue when a passage is supposed to be read literally versus allegorically?
>and the fault in man is not by design but by corruption
But God designed man and has infinite knowledge of the future, he designed the world and man knowing full well than in year XXXX man would become corrupted and unable to to read and understand the message he wants them to read and understand?

>>18499327
>The guy above you says he did, because they are understandable by all. Why are you right?
because every verse needs to be interpreted since human language is not programming code.

the fact that there are thousands of "denominations" that disagree even within the "sola scriptura" protestants proves this further.

>>18499327
>one need religious professionals to interpret the texts instead of just letting every layperson read it to get a perfect understanding of the faith?
You don’t need a religious professional (whatever that is) to understand it and we do let every layperson read it
>Then why do people do this day argue when a passage is supposed to be read literally versus allegorically?
Because, 1. Not every passage is equally clear to every other passage, but vary from case to case in degree of clarity, 2. Because not everyone is given an equal measure of grace, some are given great light and shine with the truth, some are bruised reeds and smoldering wicks, and some are abandoned to sin and death.
>But God designed man and has infinite knowledge of the future, he designed the world and man knowing full well than in year XXXX man would become corrupted and unable to to read and understand the message he wants them to read and understand?
At this point the objection is not distinct from the most generic problem of evil argument, “but if God, why bad???” God has wisely ordained all things which come to pass according to His own secret counsel, into which we are not to pry. There is not a single individual whom God intends to come to the knowledge of the truth who fails to come to it, but every seed which falls beside the road and is eaten by the birds was predestined to eternal death.

>>18499331
>because every verse needs to be interpreted since human language is not programming code.
The necessity of interpretation is not inconsistent with sola scriptura nor disputed by us.
>the fact that there are thousands of "denominations" that disagree even within the "sola scriptura" protestants proves this further.
This “fact” is only a fact in your mind. It is untrue.

>>18499333
>The necessity of interpretation is not inconsistent with sola scriptura nor disputed by us.
so then you conceed that there is no such thing as a verse simply being "understandable by all", since it cant both be that and lead to multiple mutually exclusive conclusions within the different denominations.
>>18499333
>This “fact” is only a fact in your mind. It is untrue.
as mentioned, you cant have the same church having mutually exlusive claims be true at the same time. for example is salvation determined by gods sovereign choice or human free will? who should be baptized, and does baptism convey grace? are miraculous gifts for today, or did they cease after the apostolic era? how should the church be organized? is jesus physically, spiritually, or only symbolically present in communion? etc etc etc

>>18499342
>so then you conceed that there is no such thing as a verse simply being "understandable by all"
I deny (and do not “concede”, since it was never an article of disagreement) that there is any scripture which is understandable without interpretation since interpretation is the means by which understanding occurs, but this has nothing to do with sola scriptura or the authority claims of the Roman church.
>you cant have the same church having mutually exlusive claims be true at the same time
So how does that work with the Roman church which both tolerates open unabashed heretics like James Martin who promote sin and ungodly views of human sexuality, and directly contradicts its own previous official dogmatic pronouncements, eg. Pope Francis’ amendment to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to say that the death penalty has always been sinful directly contradicting the papal bull Ex Surge Domine stating that “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” is an error of Martin Luther which is “destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds”?
>for example is salvation determined by gods sovereign choice or human free will? who should be baptized, and does baptism convey grace? are miraculous gifts for today, or did they cease after the apostolic era? how should the church be organized? is jesus physically, spiritually, or only symbolically present in communion? etc etc etc
The answer to these questions, and every other, is to be found in the holy scriptures, which as the very words of God are the final and supreme judge of every controversy, and not in mere men.

>>18499355
>So how does that work with the Roman church which...
aside from this being whataboutism fallacy, im not religious. this is my initial comment >>18498842
i believe all versions of christianity are false, i was just arguing against protestantism specifically since i was responding to
>18499327
>because they are understandable by all
which is a protestant only belief.
>The answer to these questions, and every other, is to be found in the holy scriptures, which as the very words of God are the final and supreme judge of every controversy, and not in mere men.
this is begging the question of the argument, since the point is that the scriptures need to be interpreted to know what they actually mean, and given the imperfect human interpretation, you have different mutually exclusive answers to every question i posed as examples that different denominations believe, so again, they cant all be right.

and its also false in many ways anyway, for example where in the scriptures do you find that matthew wrote "matthew"? nowhere. that comes 100% from church tradition.

>>18499381
>aside from this being whataboutism fallacy
No it’s literally not a fallacy to apply the same logic to the other side
>im not religious. this is my initial comment >>18498842 #
i believe all versions of christianity are false, i was just arguing against protestantism specifically since i was responding to
That’s highly embarrassing and it speaks against Rome to have a heathen defend it.
>this is begging the question of the argument
No it isn’t.
>the point is that the scriptures need to be interpreted to know what they actually mean, and given the imperfect human interpretation, you have different mutually exclusive answers to every question i posed as examples that different denominations believe, so again, they cant all be right
There are several errors here, 1. You conflate subjective belief and objective truth; that so and so believes the bible teaches X does not impugn whether the bible actually teaches X in any way, shape, or form 2. Clarity does not imply universal agreement. If I started misinterpreting your post, it would not necessarily mean it was unclear, especially if I ignored the clear parts in reading the less clear parts. In reality the authority to which a man feels himself the most bound is that which he will willfully twist the most. 3. That the scriptures need to be interpreted to understand what they mean implies only that they are verbal speech, and nothing more. It is also true that the decrees of the pope must be interpreted, and scientific studies, and this very post. Thus the argument that scripture cannot function as the rule of faith for this reason is not so much an argument against sola scriptura as against the possibility of two human beings communicating. Now on the other hand it is very certain that if the scriptures are the word of God they must be the final judge of controversies, since no man can claim to be wiser than God.

>>18499381
>and its also false in many ways anyway, for example where in the scriptures do you find that matthew wrote "matthew"? nowhere. that comes 100% from church tradition.
This is also highly erroneous. The attribution of the Gospel of Matthew is not an article of the faith and is not dogma. Sola scriptura does not preclude the existence of true propositions outside of scripture, it means 1. That there are no infallible or binding authorities outside of scripture 2. That the Church is not to teach anything as dogma except what is taught by scripture 3. That we are not to believe any article of faith which is not taught in scripture. The basis of the authority of the Gospel of Matthew is that it is the word of God, not that the man who wrote it was named Matthew. Now, this being said, it is important to clarify what it means for something to be “taught in scripture”. It does not mean that there must be a verse (which did not exist) laying out in exactly the same words as us (our controversies and concerns also did not exist) the doctrine explicitly. If there is a scripture which teaches a doctrine implicitly, or multiple different passages, even the tenor of the whole bible which, when placed together, necessitate a certain conclusion.

>>18499404
Then that is also taught by scripture, the last line should read.

>>18498523
>they are timeless
Not really, as a timeless text wouldn't need to be revised all he time. The original texts have been so heavily edited that they are unrecognisable to a modern reader.

>>18499501
That never happened in reality so it checks out

>>18499403
>No it’s literally not a fallacy to apply the same logic to the other side
it is when you dont answer a question and ask another question towards the asker first, especially given that you asked about catholicism despite me not being christian at all.

given that you dont understand even this, reading the rest is not worth my time.

>>18498255
Catholicism: the religion of Mexicans and gay pedophilia

>>18498338
That's why God left a CHVRCH with the AVTHORITAS to interpret His text

>>18499264
>Luther enjoyed a perfect storm due to God’s providence
*Satanic temptation

>>18499269
>This is called the noetic effect of sin. To understand scripture unto salvation belongs to grace alone, and so in contrast to OP’s bizarre misrepresentation the bible is not persuasive of itself but only when the Spirit in His ministry works with the word to bring repentance unto life.
Yeah and your sin blinds you to the legitimacy of the Magisterium and the only body of Christ through which God provides salvation the Holy Mother Church

>>18499332
>every seed which falls beside the road and is eaten by the birds was predestined to eternal death.
not gonna act like a religious scholar or whatever but I'd hesitate to say that. i can certainly see how the texts support that, but that also ultimately makes proselytization a pointless effort because any potential converts by your hand would ultimately have been won over by any other means. i am certain that all god decides to save will be saved, but the notion that there's not at least an olive branch offered that others may choose to accept sounds cruel at least and almost seems to condemn god as having chosen to send those to hell, without any chance at redemption. i know Paul posits this but even then it's only as a hypothetical explanation, even he is hesitant to say it as objective fact. for it to be true would mean that god ultimately sends his followers forth on a mission of conversion that is ultimately meaningless and pointless, at best being him forcing others to do his bidding for no real purpose

>>18500819
those priests earned them boys, whats the eternal salvation of hundreds vs some fruity lil cupcake nigga getting turned out

>>18498255
You've never been to mass.