>>18680670
He's correct. There is no definition of idolatry that would include what Romans did with regards to images of Caesar yet exclude what Catholics do towards Mary and other saints.

This is the one thing Protestants, Jews, and Muslims all find common ground on.

>>18680672
Oh yes, surely the Muslims are right and St Augustine is wrong about Christianity.

You don't know anything about what he wrote about relics or care.

GOD ALLOWED HERETICAL SECTS TO SIFT THE CHAFF FROM THE GRAIN: SCHIZOPATHS, AND MISCELLANEOUS WICKED PEOPLE, REJECT THE CHURCH, AND WILLINGLY GO INTO SECTS.

DIVINE AUTOMATIZED SELECTION.

>>18680684
>and St Augustine is wrong

This is another very strange thing Catholics do. Augustine had no special access to information that would make him any sort of authority. He was relying on the same texts that we are. Often he had even fewer.

Early Christians who actually did have access to useful sources of information don't show the slightest hint of seeing Mary as anything besides a regular person. Irenaeus is the most prominent example. He knew men who knew the Apostles. Not a word about Mary being divine, no trace of beseeching dead saints for anything, he didn't even believe they were in heaven yet. He condemned praying to angels.

That is what you get from the Apostles and those who knew them. Either deafening silence about the "Queen of Heaven" you praise every single service or direct condemnation of your ideas.

The Muslims are indeed right on this. Thanks to your idolatry Muhammad had the ammunition to make his own religion calling your idolators. Then later we left and call you the same. Because it's clear to all but yourselves: that is what you are. You with a statue to Mary, a Hindu with a statue of Krishna, a Buddhist with a statue of Sidharta, it is all obviously the same thing. You treat them the same and perform all the same actions for all the same purposes.

>are you disagreeing with my dead church daddy?
>that makes you wrong!
Why are catholics like this?

>NOOO YOURE NOT WORSHIPPING THE RABBI KING OF THE JEWS CORRECTLY
>The rabbi king of the jews who tells you to hate your family and give away all you own would not approve of this bad scary stuff!!!

>>18680670
>catholic ritual
Exactly. Not Christian.

>aaaah where are the strobe lights??? how can they have church without pop music and smoke machines??? I'm going insane aaaaaa

>Their branch of death cult worships death in a different way!
*babbles like an epilectic while manhandling a venomous snake*

*shits pants and starts levitating*
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRZZZZUUUUUM

>>18680670
Because Protestants are uneducated and blinkered morons who don't understand anything.

See: >>18680719

>>18680684
5. Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not. So thoroughly entangled do people become in such superstitions that they often turn their backs on the real sun and pour out their prayers to the statue they call Sun; or again, while the sound of the sea is battering them from behind they batter the statue of Neptune with their sighs as though it were conscious, that statue which they venerate as representative of the actual sea. What causes this error-almost forces the illusion on them, in fact-is the human likeness with all its bodily parts. The minds of the worshippers are accustomed to living with their own bodily senses, and so they judge that a body very similar to their own is more likely to be responsive than the sun’s orb, or the wide waves, or any other object clearly not built on the same plane as the living creatures they are used to seeing.
(1/2)

>>18680684
>>18680821
6. It may be objected that we ourselves have many vessels and other accessories made of similar metals, which we use in the celebration of the sacraments. They are consecrated to divine service and are called holy in honor of him who is worshipped through their use for our salvation. Such vessels and implements are obviously the work of human hands: what else could they be? But do they have mouths that will never speak, or eyes that will never see? And does the fact that we make use of them to offer our supplications to God mean that we are begging anything from them? Of course not.
The principal cause of insane, blasphemous idolatry is this: a form resembling that of a living person- a form that by its lifelike appearance seems to demand worship- is more powerfully persuasive to the emotions of its wretched suppliants than the plain fact that it is not alive and ought to be scorned by anyone who is. The evidence of mouths, eyes, ears, nostrils, hands, and feet in the idols has more power to lead an unhappy soul astray than the evident inability on their part to speak, see, hear, smell, handle things, or walk has power to bring such a soul back to the truth.
7. The inevitable result is the deterioration the psalm goes on to describe: May those who fashion them become like them, and all who put their trust in them. Let people with open and seeing eyes gaze at images that neither see nor live, and let their minds become closed and dead as they worship.
Saint Augustine Exposition on Psalm 115

Does the image enhance the efficacy of my prayers?

what's not of Christ according to amerimutt protestants: millennia old traditions/rituals done by apostles and saints

what is of Christ according to amerimutt protestants: churches in strip malls holding concerts and sending trillions to Israel

>>18680905
>sending trillions
Yes. "They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings." - Romans 15:27

>>18680905
When did Peter wear silk and gold vestments and live in an oppulent Roman palace? Seems Christ was relentless in urging others to follow his example, and he was never one for gaudy displays of wealth or prestige to validate the legitimacy of the Church.

>>18680689
Kys pedo

>>18680684
>St Augustine
Unless he was called Prophet Augustine and spoke words directly dictated by the Word of God himself I don't care what he has to say.

Unless you have a book of a Catholic Father saying: "This is what the LORD says" And then start speaking the message of God in first person then I don't consider any of the words of a Catholic Father to be canon or God inspired.

>>18680912
>The Bible commands us to send trillions to Jews

American protestants are a joke. Actual cuckolds

>>18680931
>“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, “Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you”- Zechariah 8:23
Protestants actually follow the bible that's the difference between us and you so called Christians

File: the-origin-of-the-no-fun-(...).jpg (61 KB, 448x473)

61 KB JPG

>>18680670

>>18680944
Is ritual cannibalism and necromancy fun?

>>18680956
yes.

>>18680958
Do you know what the biblical punishment is for these two things?

>>18680931
They are just taking the Bible to its natural conclusion without post hoc reinterpretations to make it seem more sane than it really is

>>18680967
In Catholicism we have Scripture AND Tradition. And without our Tradition, we actually wouldn't even have the correct canon for Scripture. Therefore, our Traditions are just as binding as anything the Scripture says.

>>18680973
*manmade traditions no different from Pharisaism

>>18680973
All the insane shit that Catholics do always hinges on minor semantic differences.
>we don't WORSHIP saints, we just venerate them ;)

>>18680974
The Catholic Traditions are not manmade:
>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18

>>18680670
Why did you just casually commit blasphemy mockingly calling Christ Himself “Jesusman”? Could it be that the Protties have been right all along, your religion is not of Christ, and His Spirit is not in you?

File: church fathers against images.jpg (1.16 MB, 1866x1780)

1.16 MB JPG

>>18680684
>St Augustine is wrong
?

>>18680977
Where in this verse do you see it saying “Catholic Traditions are not manmade”?

>>18680986
>the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

File: nullifying_idols.jpg (152 KB, 654x900)

152 KB JPG

>>18680684
Yes and so are the early Christians (prior to the Second Council of Nicaea) and Jews.

>>18680989
So your argument is that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” means “whatever happens to be the practice of the church of Rome must be divine”?

I answer: 1. The Church of Jesus Christ is not the church of Rome nor any other particular church, but consists of all professing believers and their children of all times, and in all places. 2. For the gates of hell to prevail would require the Church to cease to exist, but the presence of man-made practices in a particular church (especially one which is heretical and apostate) does not cause the Church to cease to exist 3. The meaning of Christ’s words is not that hell would not conquer the Church, but that it would fail to not be conquered by the Church

On the other hand, Christians were specifically warned against idolatry (1 John 5:21) and the church of Rome was warned that it might be cut off (Romans 11:21), showing that it was neither impossible for churches to become idolatrous nor for the church of Rome to fall away.

>>18680722
>your only options are medieval idolatry or modern idolatry

>>18681002
Jesus says that St. Peter is the rock on which he will build his church. And what church is sitting physically on top of St. Peter now? His Basilica. That is the Church he is talking about. Not everything that Catholics do is necessarily divine, as the Church is composed of humans who are fallible and in sin, but anything that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the seat of Peter of which Christ himself referred, speaking ex cathedra, affirms is necessarily divine.

>>18680670
I'm not even catholic but I feel that protestants and all of its descendant denominations are the most rigidly anti-fun, anti-joy, anti-warmth modern religion available to the masses. Just an intensely, relentlessly miserable orthodoxy.

>>18681029
The joyless Protestant and fiery Catholic stereotypes are rooted in the North/South European cultural and ethnic divide, not the minor religious differences.

>>18681029
Not christian but wouldn't that be Russian Orthodox? Christening missiles to kill white people, building churches to communism, telling you to kill your ethnic brothers in the name of a former atheist communist agent?

>>18680670
On top of that, the pictures appear to be AI generated, which is a bit baffling since the behavior depicted is quite real.

>>18681013
Which of the teachings of Peter is the foundation of the church? To me it seems like the rock is Paul, the whole religion is built on his words.

The words of Peter amount to nothing in them church. They're not important in any way to anyone in the church.

>>18680694
This is a well-written and well-said post, but I would add. When papists try to cite the church fathers and claim that they are the early church, usually one of two things happen: 1. A pure argument of matters of fact, Protestants (usually much better educated than the papist) and papists arguing about the history of what in fact the church fathers believed and practiced 2. A pure argument of matters of law, i.e. Protestants and papists arguing about what the authority of the church fathers is, without the Protestant correcting the factual misuse church history. The papists rarely ever announce, much less defend, their position on the authority of the church fathers, so their appeal to them is formally invalid for that reason alone, since without that information about why we are supposed to care what Augustine said it could not form a coherent syllogism. But I think we should clarify what the “authority” of the church fathers is in this dispute 1. Though the papists’ argument seems to be (if we by inference construct it for them, since they did not see fit to do so) “Whatever this or that father says must be true, that father says X, therefore X is true”, although it is reasoning we obviously must reject, since it is untrue that whatever the fathers say is true, it is also reasoning which *they* must reject, since they invest their ecclesiastical infallibility either in the pope teaching on faith or morals or in prelates gathered in a synod under the authority of the pope, and not in the church fathers, even if they should have a consensus. Hence, their own argument (at least what it seems to be) is false even under their own system. We must believe the fathers only when what they say is true.
(cont.)

>>18680694
2. Our position (despite how they represent it) is not that we are wiser than the fathers nor that we are never to believe them. I do not believe I am wiser than Augustine, I simply believe he was capable of being wrong and I am capable of knowing it, especially if I test him by the holy scriptures (which he himself would have to be wiser than himself). Nor do I hold that the fathers are always to be rejected, because when what they say is full of biblical truth all men ought to believe it. 3. The proper authority of the fathers is (at most) as experts in theology. Hence, one may consider Augustine a true authority in theology in the same way Einstein is a true authority in physics, not as that whatever he says must be true because he said it, and certainly not that his saying it is the cause or sole proof of its being true, but that he is highly qualified in the subject and may be relied upon in general to teach it correctly. But the actual evidence of the field is the holy scriptures alone.

Now, having clarified this, I also point out that the church fathers absolutely were not Romanists and would not have accepted Romanism as their religion. They did not have popes, they did not have the Marian dogmas, they did not have transubstantiation, they did not have icons and statues, they did not have a “sacrament of penance”, mortal and venial sins, temporal punishments, satisfaction in purgatory, or the treasury of merit. Just a small set of examples of why they would not consider medieval or modern Romanism to be Christianity.

>>18681013
>Jesus says that St. Peter is the rock on which he will build his church
No, He does not. Just before this He had asked whom they (i.e. the apostles) said that He was, and Peter, speaking not for himself but for the apostles, said that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is what Christ here calls the rock on which He would build His church, it is Peter as the man confessing that Jesus is the Christ, not Peter as the person of Simon Bar Jonah. After this Christ says that they (i.e. the apostles) will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, which when it is fulfilled in Matthew 18 is given to all the apostles. Peter here is addressed only as the representative of the Church (as he frequently is) and not an individual. Now, the Church is all believers, as I already said, hence that on which it is built is the very foundation of our faith itself, which is not Peter but Christ. So, here are what you must prove from the scriptures before your cause is finished: 1. That to be the rock on which the Church is built and to be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven is to infallible 2. That Peter as an individual alone received this honor 3. That the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter.
(1/3)

>>18681013
>His Basilica. That is the Church he is talking about.
No, that certainly is not the Church He is talking about. 1. This building did not exist for well over one and a half thousand years after this. The construction of your god-king’s golden palace was funded with the sale of indulgences, which was the occasion of the Reformation 2. There is positively no reason for believing Peter’s remains are actually interred there 3. Christ is speaking of *His* Church, i.e. the Catholic Church, which is neither a building nor capable of being confined to a building 4. The word for Church in Greek means assembly or congregation and was used in the Old Testament to refer to the children of Israel in the wilderness. It would not be used to refer to a class of buildings for several centuries after the ministry of Christ. 5. You are probably the first person in history to imagine this interpretation
(2/3)

>>18681013
>anything that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the seat of Peter of which Christ himself referred, speaking ex cathedra, affirms is necessarily divine
First of all, this concept is wholly foreign to scripture. There are no references to the papacy in the bible. We are never told about it. We are never directed to it. It is never referenced, because it did not exist. Paul writes Romans, and does not mention a pope, he writes to Timothy about what will guide him in the last days, and it is not a pope but scripture, Peter writes two epistles, and names himself “a fellow elder”, making no mention whatsoever of his being pope in any way, shape or form, the Book of Acts is written, and makes no mentions of popes or their decrees. If there was a papacy, why is the New Testament utterly silent about it? Second, the fact that your pope makes these claims of himself is to inform us that he was the object of the prophecy, “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it has not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the sanctuary of God, exhibiting himself as being God.” By making himself the foundation of all religion, and making his own decrees irreproachable, infallible and irreformable, he declares himself to be God against the true authority of God. For the true Spirit of God cannot contradict Himself, for which reason prophets have always been tested by the scriptures, but the pope makes himself superior to the scriptures and sets his decrees above them, so that they would be corrected by him instead of him by them, which is to make himself a god above the true God. When Pope Honorius taught the Monothelite heresy, was that divine? When Pope Sixtus V declares his own error-ridden version of the Latin vulgate to be the final, authentic, infallible version of scripture, was that divine?

>>18680670
These sorts of practices really do not seem to be indigenous to 1st and 2nd century Christianity.

>>18680973
1. We have the correct canon of scripture because God has spoken them 2. Tradition (and the Church) only gives us the canon of scripture by actually in time and space delivering the books to us. I.e., because a muslim in India does not have our traditions or our churches, they do not possess our scriptures, while many in the west know what the scriptures are because the Church announces these books to be the authentic scripture. Now it absolutely does not follow that because of the Church I know what the scriptures are, therefore the Church is equal or greater than the scriptures. As though a courier carrying and announcing a king’s decree had equal and greater authority as the king, and could nullify that very decree at his leisure. But while I grant that the Church is beneficial to knowing the scriptures, I deny that it is even necessary. For the muslim in India who does not have the Church or tradition who nevertheless stumbles upon the holy scriptures will know them to be the true word of God if the Holy Spirit works upon his heart.

>>18680825
>>18680821
Literally he endorses the relics (actual bones) of St Stephen in City of God.
You do not care, and do not belong to the same church he does.
It really is that simple.

Pagans had the exact same aversion to relics that you do.

>>18680930
You're proud of being uneducated and scorn the patrimony of western civilization.

>>18681125
>I do not believe I am wiser than Augustine, I simply believe he was capable of being wrong and I am capable of knowing it, especially if I test him by the holy scriptures (which he himself would have to be wiser than himself).
You are saying you are wiser than him but you're denying it with mental gymnastics. You think he didn't read the very same scripture? Of course he did but you also believe your interpretation is superior to his making you wiser
>the actual evidence of the field is the holy scriptures alone
Unless you appeal to the Holy Spirit working through them you depend on the fathers of the Church to even know what that is.

>>18681187
>the patrimony of western civilization
The Churches of the East don't consider Augustine a doctor, of the church, by the way, but anything from a misinformed pseudo-manichean to a full brown heretic

ITT protestants reveal they do not know the difference between icons and relics

>>18681196
Don't care, doesn't matter.
Augustine is a critical witness to the importance of relics and that's why you're deflecting with this divisiveness.

Relics are common both to east and west because of their deep antiquity.
The fact they both agree on this shows the modern era protestant abhorrence of and desecration of relics is a marked aberration and indicates they are broken off from the antique church.

Not a single one of them even knows who the saint is that skull belongs to.
Looking it up would be the very first time any of them has ever heard their name.

>>18681216
>the difference between icons and relics
Tell the class. Also inform us about the tens of relics pretending to be the foreskin of Jesus at the same time

>>18680684
Bodied that freak

>>18680670
Schism is sin and the See of Rome has primacy. I despise many elements of Catholicism but it is the true and visible Apostolic Church and breaking with it is a betrayal of scripture and the written teachings of Christ. There are many rotten elements of the church, some have gotten better over time and many others have gotten even worse, but it is what it is. A corrupt human institution with its own struggles, yet the institution we must fight to preserve and maintain ourselves in communion with

>>18680672
>This is the one thing Protestants, Jews, and Muslims all find common ground on.
What a self undermining statement

What's the dumbest thing Augustine says? I can't recall, but I remember some hilarious takes
Not sure if it even was Christianity related

Hmmm,,,, Maybe I'm thinking of him inventing original sin, as it's thought of today

>>18680670
Both Idolatry and touching dead bodies (makes you ritually unclean for seven days), according to the "Law" which Jesus endorsed.

File: retard.jpg (209 KB, 1024x681)

209 KB JPG

>>18681321
Sin is stored in the balls - "St" Augustine

>>18681292
>Protestants, Jews, and Muslims agree that you shouldn't worship Mary
wow what a self undermining statement

File: santa_muerte_0006_wide-d5(...).jpg (3.83 MB, 2921x1643)

3.83 MB JPG

>>18681292
I'm attempting to show you that everybody but you, no matter how much they vehemently disagree with one another, all agree on this and see it plainly when it comes to you. And it's not like we all conspired to have this view, we all developed it independently. Because it is objective truth that any observer besides the one looking to justify the idolatry will note.

In fact, *you* even acknowledge it! Isn't what's done towards Santa Muerte statues idolatry? Yet the acts are completely identical to what's done towards Santa Maria.

>>18680694
I'm not claiming him as an authority.

I'm invoking him as a witness to testify against your slander of the church he and I belong to and you do not, to corroborate our common understanding of the effect and importance of holy relics.

>Mary being divine
You have absolutely no idea what apostolic Christians actually believe about here, and couldn't define divinity if you tried.

>>18681510
>I'm invoking him as a witness

Well that's exactly my point. Someone's word doesn't carry the weight of a witness if they haven't witnessed anything. He is not an independent source of information. He's merely pondering the same sources that we have (fewer, in fact) and drawing his own conclusions based on his own thoughts.

>and couldn't define divinity if you tried

By Mary being divine I mean your notion of her as a powerful, sinless ruling spirit of the universe which should be routinely beseeched for supernatural assistance

>>18680694
You know what else Jews and Muslims consider idolatry?

Worshipping Jesus as God.
These are the people you say have the right definition.
They do not, if they were all Christians including you would be idolators.
They are not.

You have totally undermined your own position by affiliating it with their denial of Jesus' divinity.

>>18681518
>if they haven't witnessed anything
But he has.
He witnesses to the early church venerating the bones of St Stephen and in one chapter he attributes something like 70 different miracles to them.

You simply do not know what this witness actually signifies here.

>>18681321
>What's the dumbest thing Augustine says?
In City of God book 14 chapter 26 he, for some reason, discusses the mechanics of prelapsarian sex, and says that before the fall Adam had full control over his erections and the penis was no different from any other limb. This is because lust did not yet exist, which took that direct control of the penis away. He also says he and eve could have sex and eve could give birth all without breaking her hymen, as the hymen breaks not due to the application of force, but due to making the vagina impure from male lust. And that is why menstruation doesn't break it but sex does.

I have a late 19th century english translation of the book, and the pastor who translated it left that paragraph in latin. I wonder if he did so out of cringe.

This is the untranslated passage
In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum, absit ut suspicemur, non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo; sed eo voluntatis nutu moverentur illa membra qua cætera, et sine ardoris illecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est; quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet; ita tunc potuisse utero conjugis salva integritate feminei genitalis virile semen immitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salva ex utero virginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe via posset illud injici, qua hoc potest ejici.

Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret: sic ad fetandum et concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, sed voluntarius usus naturam utramque conjungeret.

>>18680670
Because Protestants literally have no spirituality in them and therefore can't receive the Holy Spirit. They are basically atheists. The few times they act "moved" by the Bible its always some type of cringe Baptist booty dance. Its also why why their sermons are done in a coat and tie, their crosses are made of cheap plastic, and they use hotel swimming pool to baptize.

HC Agrippa explains in detail why this happens.

>>18681321
Claiming to have abandoned Manichaeism despite his “city of man vs city of god” very clearly having a Manichaean mindset to it

>>18681521
If they were correct that Jesus isn't God then they would be right that it is idolatry. It wouldn't be any different from the Indian temples where they worship Sai Baba. Jesus is genuinely God, which is why they're wrong.

>>18681524
>He witnesses to the early church venerating the bones of St Stephen

This is nearly four hundred years after Jesus had died. As far from Jesus as Jesus had been from the last of the Old Testament prophets. It tells us nothing about what the Apostles actually said to do. No one who knew them had been alive for hundreds of years

>and in one chapter he attributes something like 70 different miracles to them

Interesting how this stopped happening once we got universal camera ownership

>>18681559
It's funny you should mention that.

In Contra Faustum book 20, he addresses the objection of Faustus the actual Manichean that veneration of the saints constituted idolatry.
You see, that heretic said the same thing that modern heretics repeat ad nauseam to this very day, in this very thread without ever learning better at at least pretending to.

And Augustine refutes him with the exact same fact about latria and dulia which heretics to this day continue to ignore and scoff at.
Some things never change, heretics will always impugn and defame Christ's church.

>>18681585
You already said you agree with their definition of idolatry.
That's a big fat self inflicted L you just ate.

If their definition of idolatry is wrong, so is yours.

>nearly four hundred years after Jesus had died
irrelevant
you clearly aren't aware of even earlier literature detailing relics, but that's besides the point too

also you're a cessationist, that's precious

File: firefox_2026-09-09_13-38-20.png (143 KB, 543x386)

143 KB PNG

>sorry for calling you mean things
>sorry for murdering you

I grew up protestant but why frame it like your side's worst crime was namecalling and that there were no wars caused by the Reformation?

>>18681608
Iron and clay does not mix.

>>18680670
Why are protestants so allergic to true faith?

What's the basis for digging up the corpses of holy people in order to carry around their body parts and display them in churches? Is that a thing in the bible?

>>18681587
Idk I think the radical duality between the city of man (material world) and city of god (spiritual world) is fundamentally Manichaean or at least Gnostic, especially since Augustine viewed the former with contempt. That is what I was addressing.

>>18681608
It's so cute that he thinks "reunion" is even the right word to use here.
But that speaks to his rank confusion and unfounded quiet assumptions.

The protestant churches were fabricated of whole cloth in the modern era, they were never united with Christ's church because they are entirely new religious bodies instituted by men.
These new counter-churches merely induced various apostolic Christians to abandon and attack the true church, after that generation died none of the next generation had any true connection at all to Peter or the other apostles.

No, "reunion" is not possible because they do not have apostolic succession.
All that remains is for individuals within them to leave their respective counter-churches and enter into the one holy Catholic and genuinely apostolic body of faith spoken of in the canons of Nicaea (the same visible entity that visibly issued canon laws and anathematized visible heretics as a stated function of their visible gathering), for the first time.

>>18681710
No, that simply follows themes reiterated in the bible over and over again.

If you want this world you can have it.
Other people want the world to come instead, which was promised to those who love him and walk by his way and example.

File: file.png (189 KB, 430x327)

189 KB PNG

>>18681757
Zoomer is a basketcase who thinks protestant churches are the same thing as national orthodox churches and thinks they all collectively have apostolic succession because Anglicanism does. His views get even more crazy when he tries to force Lutheranism, with closed communion, into this narrative.

He thinks schism is the greatest sin, and wants all Presbyterians to be apart of the PCUSA. Schism is the greatest sin, but when facing with lesbian pastors he'd insists they stay bound to the doomed ship. He completely ignores the fact that his own views on schism refute the Reformation and point towards everyone becoming Catholic.

Apparently he just purged his discord server of LCMS/WELS Lutherans because they dared called the ECLA, the liberal, schismatic lutheran church that was born in the 70s, schismatic and not lutheran. But because the mainline protestants are only in communion with Lutherans through the ECLA (the only major Lutheran body that doesn't practice closed communion), he cannot call them schismatics and thus has to name himself a hypocrite. It doesn't really matter because almost all of these mainline churches will be dead in 30 years and most Christians in the west will become nondenominational or find there way into an apostolic church.

>>18681757
If you went to a church every week and they only spoke to you in latin which you do not understand and they refuse to teach you or let you read the bible by yourself in your language and you can spend 50 years going to that church and not know a single bible story or teaching or know of a single thing that God has said then wtf is the point of that church?

>>18681697
Does the Bible tell you to hold concerts in Church and wave glowsticks around or whatever Protestant Amerimutts do

>>18681853
I'm not a protestant amerimutt, but the whole concept of a church doesn't have any basis in scripture. So they can wave glowsticks around in theirs if they want, for all I care.
Jesus did not preach in churches. He preached on the road, on top of hills and and people's living rooms.

You can share bread and wine in Jesus' honor in a small circle of believers in someone's home and you would be much closer to what early Christians used to do. I don't think a latin chanting pederast in fancy robes is required, who collects your money for the Church^tm

>>18680941
No one under the age of like 50 is on board with this retardation. Boomers days are numbered

>>18681822
>national orthodox churches
Common misconception.
That's not actually how their jurisdiction works.
They never rejected the title of catholic, and they understand it in the exact same way the Latins do.

He desperately wants that to be the case though, because that would lend even the slightest justification to his own schema of the national state church which actually defines his idea of what schism is.
Like, it's so weird now he thinks being excommunicated gives you permission to just start your own church.
Was that true of Arius? No, so why is it suddenly okay when Luther spergs out and publicly burns the entire canon law?
Not even Arius started his own counter-church, his followers just hunkered down and did a little "reconquista" of their own by taking over or cajoling the institutional hierarchy through imperial state influence.

Ambrose famously stood up the the emperor when they sent soldiers to confiscate church property to turn over to the Arians.
His position is incoherent, it's the most basic form of special pleading.

>they all collectively have apostolic succession
they do
>because Anglicanism
debatable
I don't know what your average orthodox thinks about that, they don't weigh in too often.

But if I don't miss my guess I'd say probably not, pretty sure some even deny the Latins have apostolic succession too which is weird.

>schism, the worst sin
no, it's still really bad but definitely forgivable
certainly it's no BATHS

>ECLA
oof, bad look for him
that's news to me
maybe one of these days he'll realize communion requires a common eucharist

>>18681837
Did you know that homilies have always been given in the vernacular?
Moreover, people were intimately familiar with the precepts of the faith because it totally permeated their entire society. Their entire calendar was religious.

The use of Latin actually transcends national language barriers, it was the mutually intelligible form of communication across western Europe for centuries.

File: 1226422512353.jpg (14 KB, 253x253)

14 KB JPG

>>18681853
no altar = not a church

That's why I don't have to get a blessing from my priest to visit a nondenominational church, because it's simply a concert with a bible study.

>>18681822
I'll add this, for what it's worth I don't think he's crazy or unhinged.
He recognizes a serious problem, and wants to help fix it, but can't bring himself to admit where the true root of it lies.

So he has a lot of mental gymnastics to go through to make the square peg fit the round hole.

I actually really like a lot of his early content.
But for a few years now it's really fallen off, and it seems like he has lost sight of the good faith discourse which originally brought him to note in favor of the typical polemics.

Ready for Harvest by contrast as an overviewer of different Christian denominations is far more charitable, even keeled, and I would say comprehensive in his investigations.

>>18681837
https://thepocketscroll.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/vernacular-religion-in-the-latin-middle-ages-1-homilies/

"Anyway, this canon is interesting because it counters two claims sometimes made by some Protestants (not all Protestants, and not all of them all the time). First, that there was no preaching in the Middle Ages. Second, that the vernacular was forbidden from official church activities in the Middle Ages. These are both false. Given that the Dominican order (founded 1216) is even officially called the Order of Preachers, the idea that people didn’t preach in the Middle Ages very easily refuted; just search your local university library catalogue for medieval preaching. Or sit back and enjoy this anthology by J.M. Neale. Nonetheless, some may still imagine that everything was in Latin.

Over a century after Charlemagne’s reform synod in 813 at Tours, in a land beyond Frankish control, we have the homilies of Aelfric of Eynsham, whose Old English homilies survive — you can read modern English translations here, if you wish. We also have the tenth-century Blickling Homilies in Old English ... A lot of these sermons do not survive in the vernacular, though, as discussed at Harvard’s Houghton Library website. Since Latin was the international language of public discourse, most sermons were translated into Latin for dissemination ...

...

Medieval Christianity was not as far removed from ordinary life as you might expect. The church was not, for a full half of its history, dominated by Latin to the exclusion of a language such as the people understands. Yes, the liturgy was in Latin. Yes, the language of high European culture was Latin. Yes, the official pronouncements of the ecclesiastical authorities were in Latin. But the day-to-day preaching to ordinary folk of the Middle Ages was in English, Old French, the old dialects of German, not Latin."


Stop listening to heretics.
What they told you about the medieval church clearly isn't true.

>>18681597
>You already said you agree with their definition of idolatry

Do you understand that there's a difference between definitions and examples? I can agree with someone about the definition of the word "first" but, in a close race, disagree with them about who was first.

>irrelevant

It most emphatically is not irrelevant. This is all essentially a historical claim about what Jesus would have said about Catholic idolatry. You understand the issue citing a 400 year old game of telephone is historically, do you not?

>also you're a cessationist, that's precious

Well yes of course. If Cessationism weren't true then we would see people in modern times being able to cause overt miracles such as healing amputated limbs. This does not happen.

File: firefox_2026-09-09_16-54-14.png (31 KB, 584x448)

31 KB PNG

>>18681884
>Like, it's so weird now he thinks being excommunicated gives you permission to just start your own church.
That's the crux of it. Well said, especially about Arius.
>they do
I don't think Lutherans do because Luther was only a monk, not even a priest. If he was a bishop and did what he did, it'd be a different story.

I'm LCMS->Orthodox
>pretty sure some even deny the Latins have apostolic succession too which is weird.
It's sticky. I think the position is that it's an "invalid succession via schism, but if the schism ended we'd recognize the entire papal line as valid" but there is a clear traceability with RCs that differs from Prots. The Orthodox position would be that there's no valid apostolic succession for schismatics of schismatics. There is no parallel EO patriarch of Rome, because while we aren't in communion, we still recognize Pope Leo XIV as the valid Bishop of Rome. I think our relationship with the Coptic Pope differs though because we recognize our own Patriarch of Alexandria. I'd have to look it up how it actually differs. Most protestants do not have any roots, nor care, and the ones that care about it usually cite succession via the Anglican church which is dubious at best.
>certainly it's no BATHS
You're right, and idk why he chose it as his hill to die on. St. Maximos the Confessor debunks him.
>>18681906
I guess I overstated it in my previous post, I don't think he's crazy; he's just on several layers of cognitive dissonance that I don't think he can resolve unless he becomes catholic or orthodox. But coming from an ex-Lutheran, I think if he could see the scrutiny ECLA gets from LCMS/WELS/AALC is the exact same he gives as a PCUSA to PCA he'd realize that Lutheranism shatters his entire worldview of "Unified Protestantism." He'll probably revise his views, try a couple more times and leave protestantism by 2030.

>Ready to Harvest mentioned
yeah he's based, I love that guy. He actually sticks to his guns on impartiality.

>>18681950
Was this preaching done by the Catholic Fathers and Cardinals and Popes?

File: Der_ungläubige_Thomas_-_M(...).jpg (249 KB, 1280x950)

249 KB JPG

>>18680670
>This is dark, macabre, and sick. This is not of Christ.
You mean the Christ who transubstantiates bread and wine into his own flesh and blood so that his follower can ritually consume him? The Christ who, after his resurrection, dispelled Thomas' doubts by bidding Thomas put his finger into the spear wound in his side?

The macabre has been central to Christian tradition since the very start.

>>18680914
>ignores the trillions to israel
america is how you get "churches" with rainbow flags on them

>>18681188
>You are saying you are wiser than him but you're denying it with mental gymnastics
Ok, so in your mind acknowledging the possibility another person was wrong about something = claiming to be wiser than them?
The ironic thing is not only does your dogma *not* teach that Augustine was infallible but Augustine actually contradicted your present dogmas on dozens of points, so you would have to believe he had many more errors than I do, except you solve this problem by fleeing with all haste from reality into an alternate dimension created by your own imagination where Augustine and every other church father actually were part of a hive mind where nobody dared to have a thought without the pope’s official permission.
>You think he didn't read the very same scripture? Of course he did but you also believe your interpretation is superior to his making you wiser
My interpretation of what, Anon? You didn’t think about this very hard did you. Augustine did read (more or less) the same scripture, and unlike you he did so studiously and faithfully, which is why I grant to him the status of an expert. However, Augustine was still a man, with all the same frailties and susceptibilities to influence as anyone else. If he knew later men would pretend to invest as much authority in him as you do, he would be horrified. Now, I note 1. The holy scriptures are a bottomless ocean in which, as Ambrose said, an elephant can swim and a lamb can walk. So no individual man could achieve the kind of mastery in scripture which you are implying 2. The holy scriptures are abundantly clear, so any man could read it and understand the truth as long as he studies it diligently, correctly and reverently 3. The best interpreter of holy scripture is holy scripture itself, so no human tradition is to be used to gainsay the scripture’s own interpretation of itself. The scriptures are sufficient for both text and gloss.
(cont.)

>>18681188
>Unless you appeal to the Holy Spirit working through them you depend on the fathers of the Church to even know what that is.
First, I addressed this objection here >>18681152

Second, I absolutely do appeal to the Holy Spirit working through them, and more than that I say no man will ever truly believe them to be authentic divine scripture apart from Him working together with them in their heart, as you yourself do not, for is not the very object of all your attacks on scripture to deny its authority and set it aside so that you may silence the tribunal of scripture against your prelates and make them judges in their own cause?
Third, to depend on a thing for knowledge of scripture, and for that thing to have authority over scripture, are very different. I depend on the king’s heralds for knowledge of the king’s decrees, but if the king’s herald claims authority to which the king himself is subject he is put to death as a traitor and usurper. It makes no greater sense to speak particularly of the church fathers in this context than any other link in the chain that is the great tradition of the Church. The Church is only an efficient cause by which God enlightens the elect with a knowledge of scripture, but the formal cause from which holy scripture has binding authority is only the fact God is the author thereof.

>>18681216
>Augustine is a critical witness to the importance of relics
Source?
I highly doubt there’s any truth to this since 1. You people don’t read books 2. You also usually think the Martyrdom of Polycarp is a witness to relics, which is a testimony to your inability to avoid anachronism. I also doubt you know or understand the Protestant objections to relics and the cult of saints in general.

File: God’s infallible word vs (...).gif (16 KB, 533x610)

16 KB GIF

>>18681333
This is something he was clearly right about btw

>>18680670
>Why are protties like this?
Their traditions are different. One of those traditions involves screeching at anything Catholics do for any reason.

>>18681961
Is Jesus' divinity a "close run thing" to you?

>what Jesus would have said about Catholic idolatry
If you can ignore Augustine's highly respected opinion because he lived a few centuries after Christ's earthly ministry, I can ignore you and to the same extent all the so called "reformers" too because they died more than 1000 years after Augustine did.

Again, his distance in time from the birth of Christ has absolutely zero bearing on the truth value of what he says regarding the false imputation of idolatry made by calumnating heretics, in his own day or in ours it is the exact same accusation. The only difference is the label of heresy, one a Manichean and the other a Calvinist.
Each are called after their respective heresiarch, one of the marks that distinguished the early church from heretical counterfeits is that they could be found asking not after the followers by name of a particular heretic but by asking where the Catholic church could be found.

But his early witness to this Christian religious practice is extremely relevant to our conversation because it shows this same practice is more ancient than "protestantism" is easily three times over. And what's more, that this same veneration infuriated contemporary pagans like Julian Apostate among others.

>cessationism
Except lots and lots of "protestants" completely disagree with you.
This is not the only point of disagreement between Protestants.

One of the few things they can actually agree on is the Cathodox church is le bad.
Well, if 20 people can't agree on anything other than this one guy over there is definitely wrong that makes me think he's probably onto something and the reason none of them can get it together is because they don't actually know the truth.
If they all believe a lie or various different lies about something to varying degrees, then the one person who is telling them the truth would be one they would all unanimously agree is definitely wrong.

Just a thought.

He is correct because that is a woman and no one should care that much about a woman's spiritually speaking especially not enough to be doing this whole display in public

Christianity and other abrahamic religions most likely are more pro women than you think and that means is actually not that good to be honest

In real life I'm kind of feministic because real life is real life

Spiritually speaking though women grows me out so

>>18682034
>Each are called after their respective heresiarch
Not him but you are a complete clown. You are insisting that Augustine would approve your practices (without sources), despite the actual sources already posted ITT proving he would in fact call you an idolater, and completely ignoring every argument about the fact Augustine doesn’t get to determine truth and falsity. Now you’re jumping into an argument based on what words something is called. As if “catholic” meant Mary-worshipping bread-worshipping papist in the 5th century, or as though the fact the word “Calvinist” exists is enough to prove it wrong.

>>18682034
>Except lots and lots of "protestants" completely disagree with you.
I don’t accept the superstitious wackos and false teachers you’re referring to as “Protestants”. You’re talking about people who have nothing to do with the Reformation in thought or in history, trying to make them “Protestants” is simply a maliciously dishonest attempt to render words meaningless. While on the other hand, these people exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal and this guy exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Martin_(priest) and you don’t get to say “they don’t count”, because the pope refuses to defrock or excommunicate them. Oh, I guess papists are just 20 people that can only agree those prots over there are wrong!

>>18682056
>>18682028
>muh quotemining of bible commentary though

City of God book 22 chapter 8
he explicitly witnesses to *many* miracles worked through the first class *relics* of St Stephen protomartyr himself
why are you so steadfastly and deliberately blind to what he wrote

like, I don't give a single fuck about your protty apologetics flowchart copypasta infographics
you are simply blindsided by this new information and cannot believe your eyes

this is one of the great all time masterworks of Christian literature and you know next to nothing about it
many such cases
just try actually listening to one of the few existing audios of Ambrose's works sometime, I found "On the death of Satyrus" particularly compelling

>>18682068
Let's dig out St Augustine's corpse, cut his head off and stuff it inside a statue.

18 O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee:

19 And give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made provision.

20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.

21 And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings unto the Lord, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel:

22 And did eat and drink before the Lord on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the Lord to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest.

23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.


Wow, clearly the Israelites were engaging in IDOLATRY when they fell down and *worshipped* the LORD and the king.
I mean, unless the entirely orthodox distinction between latria and dulia make perfect sense and while people *venerated* or paid respect to (dulia) the king they *sacrificed* (latria) to God alone.
But that sounds like the exact same distinction a Catholic like Augustine easily made coherent and explicit while explaining the significance of the altar to the heretic Faustus, so it must be wrong.
The veneration due to king David being the same as veneration due to the saints, while neither constitutes formal adoration? Inconceivable!

>>18682089
Way ahead of you.
Deal with it.

>>18682068
>this is one of the great all time masterworks of Christian literature and you know next to nothing about it
I know it with certainty that you have not read it, clown, because the closest you people come to reading books is reading cherrypicked quotes on twitter, so I also do not believe your claim to have read anything from Ambrose. Your proud, arrogant and disingenuous behavior on display through this thread is sufficient to say what kind of character you have, one unburdened by repentance and fear of God.
The chapter you cite is an example of the seeds of later medieval relic worship in the patristic period. One must note the differences between this and the later superstitions and avoid anachronistically conflating them. For instance, Augustine begins “For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints; but they are not so brilliant and conspicuous as to cause them to be published with such glory as accompanied the former miracles. For the canon of the sacred writings, which behooved to be closed, causes those to be everywhere recited, and to sink into the memory of all the congregations; but these modern miracles are scarcely known even to the whole population in the midst of which they are wrought, and at the best are confined to one spot. For frequently they are known only to a very few persons, while all the rest are ignorant of them, especially if the state is a large one; and when they are reported to other persons in other localities, there is no sufficient authority to give them prompt and unwavering credence, although they are reported to the faithful by the faithful.” Whereas the papists constantly point at their own supposed miracles, and claim the authority of their pope is sufficient to give them prompt and unwavering credence, and often have more familiarity with them than the teachings of scripture.

>>18682093
1. The Israelites did not worship David, but have him secular honor as their king 2. The latria-dulia distinction is entirely heretical rather than orthodox, and is wholly foreign to scripture, and was contrived to justify idolatry. But if we accept your interpretation (i.e., that the Jews fell down to God and to David in the very same way), then either they denied to God His proper worship, or they gave to David what belongs to God alone, either one of which would be condemnable. 3. You make sacrifice to be the only act of worship, but there is no reference to sacrifice in either the first or second commandments
>But that sounds like the exact same distinction a Catholic like Augustine
Where did you see Augustine mentioned in these verses?

>>18680670
Relics historically is a thing that historically were often claimed as an excuse or an idea to go on pilgrimages for and this is hypothesized as part of how hotels got invented

Allow me to preface my irrelevant text wall with petty insults because I am angry at being objectively floored by facts ITT.

*ahem*
I publicly admit St Augustine's testimony proves that relic shrines are, formally speaking, really ancient Christian praxis and true miracles happen there even if people elsewhere haven't heard or seen them happen, all according to faithful report per his testimony.
Nobody actually binds your conscience to accept these things specifically as having happened btw, many such cases. Also muh hecking papist's popery.

>ctrl f
>miracles were wrought
>miracles are wrought
simple as

>>18682127
No, it says they worshipped him in your protestant bible that I quote from all the time.

Oh wait, suddenly that's actually not your bible?
I thought you were protestant, oops my mistake I guess.
How inconvenient, so which translation exactly do you consider to be the real bible?

>they denied to God His proper worship, or they gave to David what belongs to God alone
Haha, wow no.
In the very next verse they sacrifice thousands of animals to IHWH dude.
They don't do anything like that for the king.
You show obeisance before the king as a sign of respect due to his station, not because you consider him to be a God or because that is the highest degree of worship you are capable of rendering.

Worship is just an old English word that means to give someone or something what they're worth.
The only sacrifice truly satisfactory to God is that of his only son, no thousands of bulls can compare.

Adoration is due to God alone, the uncreated divine.
Veneration is appropriate for created beings too.

>where did you see Augustine mentioned in these verses
Did you even bother looking to see if he ever wrote a commentary on it which could inform you on what he thinks it means?

If not, I might be able to supply you with one.
I'll bet it has to do with the word "latria", see?
Might as well take a look for myself now, hold that thought.

>>18682034
>Is Jesus' divinity a "close run thing" to you?

This is a patently bad-faith response that is clearly failing to even attempt to engage with the principle that's being illustrated. You can agree about abstract definitions but disagree about their concrete instantiations.

I can tell that in general you're the sort that will meander so we'll really need to stay tightly focused here. Is your position that, after 400 years, oral traditions generally remain reliable? That "church fathers", as you call them, had access to a solid pool of accurate oral traditions about and from Jesus and the Apostles even down to 400 AD?

>>18682150
It's your choice in words, not mine.
Talk about bad faith responses...

Maybe consider your illustration just isn't good to begin with.
Like, I agree with Jews and Muslims about idolatry on every point EXCEPT THAT ONE.
Just think about it as if it were a footrace and my waffling suddenly makes complete sense.

>abstract definition
How exactly do you worship Jesus as God again?
Let's try to keep this on topic, instead of insinuating the ante-Nicene fathers were all frauds.

>>18680672
Protestantism, Judaism and Islam are all from Satan and are all going to hell so it makes sense that you agree

File: Screenshot 2026-09-10 at (...).png (533 KB, 1197x601)

533 KB PNG

>>18682163
The CCC praises Jews and Muslims you idiot

>>18682179
the Church has withstood Vatican brothels, hereditary popes, indulgences, yet you think in the 21st century new age hippie crap that most Bishops dismiss will take over Christ's Church. Protestants are the most unloyal Essenic "christians" by far. That's why you have wicked pastors like Anderson cursing God.

Quit bickering like Luther. Join the Church.

File: Beeldenstorm-in-een-kerk-(...).jpg (215 KB, 1200x897)

215 KB JPG

KWAB

>>18682163
>>18682207
that's not what vatican II says, cope more

>>18682047
>grows
GROSS ME OUT

File: giphy.gif (107 KB, 300x273)

107 KB GIF

2spooky4me

it's too late
there is already a skeleton inside you

>>18682207
>"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith" - John Paul II, Fidei depositum, part IV
Is your pope wrong when he invoked his apostolic authority here? Yes or No

File: Screenshot_20260910-112431~2.jpg (327 KB, 1096x1392)

327 KB JPG

>>18680694
Which early Christian had more access to texts than any person in history? Was even called a saint and church father for the first 1000 years.

The correct religion is Socinianism.

>>18680694

>Augustine had no special access to information that would make him any sort of authority. He was relying on the same texts that we are.

Hi. St. Augustine was a Bishop, and during his life, he was a very prominent one. On account of this, at the very least, he would have been among the most privileged men in the world in terms of having access to the information of his time. Additionally, you are appealing to a sense of ancient Christian antiquity here, as in, a truer, more ancient version of Christianity that was lost later in time (St. Augustine or later). You actually contradict yourself within a few sentences.

>Augustine had no special access to information that would make him any sort of authority
>He was relying on the same texts that we are
>Early Christians who actually did have access to useful sources of information don't show the slightest hint of seeing Mary as anything besides a regular person

If all three of these statements are taken to be true, then St. Augustine, the Early Christian, and Us today, all have access essentially to the same pool of information. St. Augustine would have had access to "Early Christian" texts, and you claim that his texts are our texts.

As for what you think "Early Christians" did or did not believe, consider the following:

>He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption. (Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me , 3rd century)

>This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.
(Origen, Homily 1, 3rd century)

Each of these are from before the time of St. Augustine or contemporary. As often happens when people try to discredit Catholic tradition, you basically just said a bunch of stuff that can be disproven in a simple google search.

File: mary2.jpg (24 KB, 333x502)

24 KB JPG

>>18681585

,,,,,

>>18681691

The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for our Blessed Lady, endeavouring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her openly or hiddenly, and sometimes under specious pretexts. Alas! God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them, for they are Esaus.
St. Louis De Montfort - True Devotion to Mary, page 29

"Heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and who clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father, but never the Hail Mary; they would rather carry a poisonous snake about them than a rosary."

St. Louis De Montfort in Secret of the Rosary, 17th Rose.

>>18681880

>the whole concept of a church doesn't have any basis in scripture

Matt. 16;18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my !church!

>Jesus did not preach in churches

Luke 4;16
And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the !synagogue!, according to his custom, on the sabbath day; and he rose up to read.

>you would be much closer to what early Christians used to do

Jesus gave a whole parable about how the believers and the Church is supposed to grow over time, like a seed into a giant tree. If Christians today looked like Christians in Nero's Rome, it would just mean they failed. Conversely, the Catholic Church epically evangelized to the entire world.

>>18682290

>14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation
(Lumen Gentium)

File: 1733571878545946.png (1.19 MB, 1448x1290)

1.19 MB PNG

>>18682030
Archaeology has been doing mental gymnastics because the science proves KANGZ N SHEIT

>>18682623
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my !church!
Nice post-hoc bro.
The greek word used in the source text is "ekklēsian" which means an assembly or congregation of people, rather than a physical building. The concept of a church was not invented yet at that point in time.

>and he went into the !synagogue!,
Yes he also preached in Jewish synagogues as well as the places I mentioned.
That's not where early Christians would hold their Lord's Supper or breaking of bread. A Synagogue is for Jewish customs after all, visited by Jews. Synagogues face towards Jersusalem, not towards the east. Definitely not a church. No altar, no cross, non of the other elements required for a church.

>>18682156
...
Alright apparently we need to boil this down even more.

Alice and Bob agree on what the definition of square is. Alice and Bob disagree on whether the old town center was square. Alice heard it had four sides. Bob heard it was round.

>>18682670

"ἐκκλησία" is translated most commonly as Church.. but you are mistaken things which are neccesary and by what means they are neccesary. Something being neccesary by canon law for example or longstanding tradition (Say, there being a present cruxifix) is not the same as something being formally neccesary in every case, such as bread and wine for the mass.

You either moved your goalpost or you said nothing. Your statement "Jesus never preached in a Church", if you just meant he didn't preach in a building with a giant Christian Altar and cross.. yeah great observation

>>18682688
>"ἐκκλησία" is translated most commonly as Church..
Gehenna and Hades also commonly get translated as "Hell". It's not a literal translation. Like I said it's post-hoc. Working backwards, making the words fit the later doctrine/concept.
"The Church" (the organization) was created later and traces its mission statement to that part of Matthew. "On this rock" he was supposed to create the assembly of Christians, the religion itself, which arguably is synonymous with "The Church". But that connection of words did not exist when the text was written.

>You either moved your goalpost or you said nothing. Your statement "Jesus never preached in a Church", if you just meant he didn't preach in a building with a giant Christian Altar and cross.. yeah great observation
Like I said, the concept of a church did not exist yet. If you redefine a synagogue to be a church, then sure he preached in a "church". You are doing semantics.
A Christian church is not the same thing as a Snyagogue or a Mosque or a Zoroastrian Fire Temple. The concept did not exist yet during Jesus time and it is not found in the gospels.

>>18682721
No Christianity before Christ. Thank you for sharing this with us.

>>18682731
The whole topic of debate is whether the Catholic Church invented concepts that are not found in the New Testament, like Christian Churches or parading around body parts of holy people / saints (as per OP).
Stop being disingenuous.

>>18682671
So how do you worship the holy Trinity again?
If you're going to talk about idolatry, you need to define what worship is.

Is the same kind of veneration the Israelites offered to David the way you worship God?
Jews and Muslims say Christians are polytheistic because of the Trinity. You don't even agree with them about divinity, but supposedly you're in complete accord with them on idolatry.

All these concepts, the divine, worship, and idolatry are intrinsically connected and proper understanding of the latter can't be separated from the other two.
Augustine shares my understanding of how latria and dulia are distinguished. You have to provide a strong case that he's wrong, and you have not.

>>18682881
>If you're going to talk about idolatry, you need to define what worship is

Attempted supernatural communication.

If you want a good illustration of the difference between honoring someone and worshipping them take a Burns supper vs. Communion.

A Burns supper isn't an act of worship since you aren't attempting to supernaturally communicate something to the spirit of Robert Burns.

Communion is since you are attempting to supernaturally communicate something to Jesus.

Idols are attempted supernatural communication devices with what they represent.

>>18682913
>Attempted supernatural communication
I think I partly agree with the rest of your post, but I disagree with this definition, because being that loose implies that prayer is worship. It's one rung down from evangelicals who refer to singing praise songs as worship. Prayer and song are a part of worship, but I don't think it's worship in its fullness. Worship is sacrifice, which is typically followed with a shared eating of the sacrifice between the priest, the laity, and the deity. The difference in Christianity is that the elements are provided by the laity and God comes down becomes the sacrifice, so communion occurs via us eating the divinized flesh of God.

>>18683048
>because being that loose implies that prayer is worship

It is. Hence why no righteous man in the Bible prays to anything but God.

>It's one rung down from evangelicals who refer to singing praise songs as worship

Yes? In all religions singing praises of your deity of one of the hallmarks of worship.

The common underlying feature of worship is supernatural communication.

Pop quiz: what's the earliest church father who explicitly attempted to pray to a dead person?

>>18683064

Is it related to autism?

Have you been diagnosed, namefag?

>>18683064
>what's the earliest church father who explicitly attempted to pray to a dead person?

Is this a trick question where the answer is actually Jesus because people thought he was praying to Elijah when he quoted Psalm 22?

No dog in the Catholic-Protestant flamewars myself, but doing stuff with skulls and body parts is pretty much the deifitinion of "dark and macabre."

Is that necessarily bad? I don't know. It seems kind of cool to me, honestly, kind of metal. It doesn't seem all that wacky for people obsessed with the afterlife, and how certain people have died, to invoke symbols of death.

>>18683075
>namefag?

I use names to make it clearer who is who and advocating for what in a line of discussion. Any Protestant anon is a Protestanon. It gets very confusing very fast when multiple people are all in, hence me putting it on later in the conversation to make it clearer who was who

>>18683092
...And they were incorrect? "Eli" is Aramaic for "my God". Elijah's name means "Yah[weh] is my God" so it's easy to mistake them but he was not referring to Elijah, much less invoking him.

>>18682913
Your definition is not sufficient.
Not strictly wrong, communication with God in prayer is a centrally important part of worship, but that's still not the fullness of adoration.

If it were, you could say Saul worshipped Samuel through the witch of Endor in the same sense that worship of God was prescribed by the Mosaic law. That's not accurate. Saul fell down before Samuel's ghost too, that was because Samuel had respect for him not because he was treating him the same way he regards IHWH.
Or that the man with the talking donkey even, there are a few more examples.
Moreover, God reveals things to people in dreams. That is supernatural communication, but nobody would say it constitutes a worshipful act.

Think about Jesus in the garden the night before his crucifixion. He prays to God, worshipfully it's true. But his sacrifice of himself the next day was inestimable in virtue compared to even that prayer.
Paul writes that the church should offer themselves as living sacrifices, that *this* is their spiritual worship.
Psalm 51 I think talks about the kind of sacrifice God esteems more than burnt offerings of bulls too. It's a broken and repentant heart.

What's more, it is actually not possible for you to do supernatural anything by your own power.
Only God can work supernatural things. Your communication with him is accomplished through your own natural abilities.

Communion is not just a prayer.
It is the one final sacrifice of Jesus made really present through his instruments in his church, and communally offered up to the Father which unites those on earth to the saints and angels up in heaven who perpetually celebrate the divine liturgy.
The moment this happens in the mass is pointed to in the Sursum Corda.

>>18683048
Could you maybe not impersonate me?
Say NTA if you want to butt in.

>>18683276
>Say NTA if you want to butt in.
sorry I didn't know the rules and didn't mean to impersonate you, I just saw the post and replied without much thought.

>>18683380
It is confusing, frankly I used to do that all the time and thought it was funny too.

File: stpeterandstpaul.jpg (29 KB, 258x483)

29 KB JPG

>>18680941
That verse is Zechariah is very obviously about the advent of the church, hence why it is the old testament i.e. pre-Christ, not about supporting a vestigial divergent version of Judaism or an abstract secular poliitical philosophy and nation-state that grew out of it
>>18680912
that verse from Paul is about donating to the church, not the temple in Jerusalem or any kind of anti-CHristian Jewish authorities, on account of the fact that all of the first Christians such as the apostles and the church leaders at the time were Jews, that is all
>>18680973
your traditions have changed over time
>>18680977
>>18680989
>>18681013
The first church that St Peter founded was Antioch, not Rome; yes he went on to become the first bishop of Rome, and the early church fathers maintained that Rome was pre-eminent at the time, but it was not in fact the actual first church/bishophric founded. Prove that Rome - even now - is still the leading authority and that is traditions are what the whole church should follow, despite said traditions not being the same as the early church or the rest of the bishophrics (i.e. the Orthodox church)
>>18681196
false, Augustine is still considered a Saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church. He is a witness to the sanctity of relics (scriptural basis for this is prophet Elisha's bones btw) but this is not the same as what Rome is doing now with statues and bronze figures with skeletons inside them.

>>18683276
You're meandering again. Your Saul example just shows how wide the ban on attempted supernatural communication is even if someone wants to fiddle with the definition of "worship". All the other ways you could try to classify supernatural communication are banned as well.

Let me ask you a question anon. What specifically am I allowed, and not allowed, to do with regards to a statue of Buddha? Bear in mind, you don't know whether Buddha was a believer or not, so you can't categorically rule out that he could be a canonized Saint one day (indeed he used to be an official Saint as Saint Bodhisat - er, say, Saint Josaphat, until Catholics realized what they'd done).

Is sacrificing to Buddha the only thing I'm not allowed to do? If I sit in front if it chanting "hear me great Buddha, give me strength", is that permitted, or is it forbidden?

>>18683415
I have a better definition of worship than you because it doesn't begin and end with prayer and physical gestures alone as yours does.
Not only does Augustine corroborate me, the apostle Paul does too, I think David even threw his hat in the ring.

I am not meandering at all.
You evidently have no stated objection at all to what Augustine and I are trying to explain to you about Christian adoration, the altar, and how veneration of Christ's own saints does not employ that furniture.

In fact, you are the one deflecting by trying to bring up all the irrelevant polemics surrounding Josaphat.
From what I have heard of responses to RZ's inflammatory orthodoxy video, which is where you got idea for this gotcha, missionaries framed his story in terms their target audience would readily grasp, and so there are superficial similarities to Buddhism. That's called inculturation, and it does not represent any kind of slam dunk like you think it might.

Why deflect like this?
Posing weird hypotheticals, instead of actually addressing my thesis? I'm inclined to assume you do this because my position is actually airtight.

>>18683412
You have reliquaries too man, I know full well orthodox 2d autism and opposition to statuary or even bas relief.
Like, there are entire churches with walls made of human bones and I think that is rad.

>it was not in fact the actual first church/bishophric founded

That's not strictly relevant.
But if it were, I would point to many examples in scripture where God repeatedly favors the younger brother over the elder.

>>18683443
>Why deflect like this?
Because he’s a Protestant. That’s what they do. It’s all a bunch of heretical sophistry.

>>18680670
Rapture me niggerman I invoke the trinity which some random fag made up ! The trinity the Bible is the only thing I care about except the trinity is not a thing fuck prodestant fucks Catholics fuck all Abrahamic faggots most of all fuck you god do something oh you won't cause you aren't FUCKInG real

File: READ.jpg (68 KB, 387x516)

68 KB JPG

>>18683443
>You have reliquaries too man
the Orthodox aren't making Dark Souls-esque skeleton knights crowned in gold out of Saint's bones or literally praying to statues of Mary for extensive periods of time or parading the things around like Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar borne on a palanquin, as far as I know, nor are they dressing up skeletons in waxwork and clay 'lifelike' shells and claiming it's the incorruptible remains. Icons and relics in a glass case are a far cry from that.
>it was not in fact the actual first church/bishophric founded
>That's not strictly relevant.
your whole claim to the Vatican being the seat of St Peter is the fact that it's the place where he was martyred and because he was the first bishop of Rome, however it was not the first church he founded. Is there anything in the gospel, epistles or early church father writings *before* Rome's bisopric was already established and viewed as pre-eminent that establishes that it is THE sole primary seat and that this one bishopric is what Jesus meant by the church he was founding on Peter?

You also have to answer for the fact that the donation of Constantine document, on which Rome and the papal states claimed further legitimacy and power, was a forged document. And you have to answer for Vatican II which has made it where the laity don't even partake of the wine and, even worse, the blessings said before the Eucharist are inspired by common food blessings before meals from the Talmud (on account of the fact that there were non-Christian Jewish advisers during the Vatican II council).
You also have to answer for the Pope saying that 'muslims worship the same God' and all the ecumenical interfaith doings of the Roman Catholic church in general.

Sure, perhaps the case can be made that the difference between purgatory and Hades/Sheol is nebulous and a case could be made that they are just different descriptions of the same thing or the filioque is quibbling, but the above things are far too egregious

>>18680672
I'm an atheist but the way I understand it is that the use of images by the catholics such as the scenes depicted over cathedral doors are meant to get off their high horses and try to be appealling to commoners, because their pride in a spotless theology is less important to them than inspiring the people and saving them, from their own perspective.
God doesn't exist though and religious people are disingenuous retards

File: idolatry.jpg (1.8 MB, 2410x2073)

1.8 MB JPG

>>18683536
>Icons and relics in a glass case are a far cry from that
Why? Icons are just idols in reality and your relics that consist of decaying human body parts are just as horrific to an outsider I hope you know that. Praying to statues of Mary or saints is also not alien to Orthodox Christianity
>Muslims worship the same God
Can you provide your best argument to prove him wrong?

>>18683536
I do not have to answer to you at all, for anything.
What a sense of entitlement you have, as if you would lay charges at my feet or judge me.

Believe it or not, eastern Orthodox do actually conduct relic processions.
It's weird you didn't know that.

>>18683563
>Muslims worship the same God
>Can you provide your best argument to prove him wrong?
the Christian God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), in one being and essence and essentially offers communion and salvation to humanity through being incarnated as a human by which it can be personally known

whereas the Muslim god is an ultimate simplistic oneness that is completely invisible and unknowable and salvation is only in the form of reaching one of its realms by following the specific idiosyncratic laws of some random Arab guy and bowing down to a cube every day
and said Arab guy's teachings are in direct contradiction with the Christian God and who Jesus is and what this means about said God's nature (i.e. against the Incarnation, Trinity and means of communion and salvation)

>>18683563
>Icons are just idols in reality
they're not. They're handled too casually and the faithful don't treat them as such. They're simply decorative pictures that occasionally have God's grace work through them to perform miracles, like holy water, anointing oil or Saint's relics. They aren't viewed as sacred objects all unto themselves and aren't prayed to as if the person is actually inside the object. Sacrifices are not offered to them.
>just as horrific to an outsider
there are outsiders who find everything about all Christianity cringe and strange, this is a weak argument
>Praying to statues of Mary or saints is also not alien to Orthodox Christianity
proof?
>>18683596
>Believe it or not, eastern Orthodox do actually conduct relic processions.
proof?
they parade them around inside statues? I don't think so

>I do not have to answer to you at all, for anything.
You're the one claiming the Roman Catholic church is THE one ONLY church of Jesus Christ and that the Vatican specifically is what he had in mind and meant when he said those words to St Peter and that all the other bishoprics don't count and that the Orthodox are essentially heretics just like Protestants and all the rest - this is a MUCH stronger and more arrogant claim than you are acting like it is so yes, in light of all the RCC's recent weirdness and flaws, yes you do in fact have to explain yourself.
>What a sense of entitlement you have, as if you would lay charges at my feet or judge me.
if you ever read the early church fathers you'll find out that they talk about people they consider heretics or in error with far harsher and more boldly judgmental and aggressive words than this. I was told you Catholics pride yourself on being rational scholastics; where is the high-minded detachment? Why are you in your feels?

Explain Vatican II and why you are saying common Jewish food blessings from the Talmud over the Eucharist. Explain how your bishopric's authority is founded on fake documents.

>>18683276
>not because he was treating him the same way he regards IHWH
why are you writing the Tetragrammaton like this?

>>18682136
How embarrassing
>>18682142
>No, it says they worshipped him in your protestant bible that I quote from all the time.

>Oh wait, suddenly that's actually not your bible?
>I thought you were protestant, oops my mistake I guess.
>How inconvenient, so which translation exactly do you consider to be the real bible?
Let’s take a step back for a moment, since now any pretense that you could have anything relevant to say has fully evaporated. You have absolutely positively no clue what I believe and your snide arguments seem to be intended to do nothing but prevent you from coming to understand the other side or their arguments. Could it be that your confidence in your beliefs is built on a foundation of ignorance? That the way you give yourself certainty is by concealing the arguments against it from yourself and so do not have so much a knowledge of truth but a fortified delusion?
>In the very next verse they sacrifice thousands of animals to IHWH dude.
Which has nothing to do with the part we’re talking about now.
>You show obeisance before the king as a sign of respect due to his station
Exactly. In other words, there’s nothing religious about it. Thank you, you just refuted yourself.
Now show me where in scripture we find people falling down before the religious images of long dead men with anything but the harshest condemnation.
>Worship is just an old English word that means to give someone or something what they're worth.
No, that’s not what the word “worship” means, and you will find not a single English dictionary that says that. Second, what God “is worth” is to be given to no creature under any circumstances and doing so is an abomination.

(cont.)
>>18682142
>Adoration is due to God alone, the uncreated divine.
>Veneration is appropriate for created beings too.
1. This distinction is recognized nowhere in scripture 2. Nothing could be less true in scripture than that it is appropriate to give veneration to creatures 3. The word “dulia” does not mean veneration, it means servitude. Dulos is the Greek word for slave. Exodus 20:5 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them”. Your “dulia” is in willful defiance of God, do you not think you will be judged?
>Did you even bother looking to see if he ever wrote a commentary on it which could inform you on what he thinks it means?
Anon, this may be shocking to you but some people actually have a knowledge of church history that doesn’t come from epic tradcath memes on twitter. The latria-dulia distinction is something which was invented in order to create an excuse for the worship of images in the early middle ages; it was unknown to the patristic period, which saw the uniform ecclesiastical condemnation of this very image-worship in its nascent form, of which Augustine was an explicit exemplar. If you read Augustine (and we both know you don’t), and you come to the conclusion he recognizes a latria-dulia distinction in this way, it’s called anachronism (assuming the presence of later facts in a period preceding their existence).

>>18680821
>Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not.
Augustine was retarded, and there's little more to add.
Have you ever spoken to the picture of a friend or relative who was far away, or has passed?
It's sappy and melancholy, but you did not fucking expect the picture to answer you back, did you?

>>18683596
>It's weird you didn't know that.
No it isn’t. These American zoomer converts to orthodoxy are just fundies playing dress up.

>>18680670
looks fake. the figures face changes.

>>18680684
Why should any non-Catholic care about Augustine or Aquinas?

>>18683807
>Contra Faustum Book XX
>St Augustine

"It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to you, O Peter! Or O Paul! Or O Cyprian!

The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel.
There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel."

>>18683824
explain Vatican II and how it makes sense and is ok

>>18683806
>No, that’s not what the word “worship” means, and you will find not a single English dictionary that says that

You don't have any idea what etymology is, what an amazing self own.
"Worship" actually is a compound word.

derived from worth and ship literally
it means to render to someone what they are due, to whatever degree it is appropriate
for example, unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's
there are indeed degrees of worship, and a highest most perfect kind which is exemplified in Christ's own offering of himself to the Father

It properly applies both to profane and sacred things, secular and religious station alike.
Your barely contained seething rage is obvious and palpable, and your colloquial vocabulary betrays your superficial grasp of the subject matter at hand.

If I don't know what you "believe", it's because you behave like a nebulous snake in the grass.
Kindly educate yourself.

>>18683883
Why?
You're simply not worth it.

Look at the absolute state you've been reduced to.
Go to bed.

File: icons.png (19 KB, 777x120)

19 KB PNG

>>18683602
>the Christian God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), in one being and essence
The God of the Pharisees was clearly not triune nor does he incarnate and offer salvation through sacrificing himself to himself. And yet Jesus identifies his God to be their God.
>ultimate simplistic oneness that is completely invisible and unknowable and salvation is only in the form of reaching one of its realms by following the specific idiosyncratic laws
Mainstream Sunni Muslims across all creeds reject absolute divine simplicity since God's Essence is not ontologically identical to His eternal attributes, nor are the attributes indistinguishable from one another in their realities. This is conceptually similar to the Essence-Energies distinction you believe in without the problems of polytheism you suffer from. What is universally affirmed is the absolute rejection of any physical composition of divisible parts. In addition the beatific vision in the Hereafter is believed, and so is the ability to understand aspects of God known through reason, revelation, and direct experience via the fitrah. The latter being sort of similar to the nous in your tradition. Ultimate salvation is granted solely through God's mercy, while the obligation to follow divine law is rooted in His wisdom and justice. This renders human accountability meaningful. And as an Orthodox Christian you believe in justification of faith through works so you shouldn't have a problem with this.
>>18683628
>They're simply decorative pictures that occasionally have God's grace work through them to perform miracles
Yeah they are just 2D idols who you believe have special abilities
>They aren't viewed as sacred objects all unto themselves and aren't prayed to as if the person is actually inside the object.
Not too different from many Hindus then. Can you provide an actual distinction between what you believe and pic rel?

Ok but using holy skulls to remind the congregation of our own mortality is pretty fucking METAL

it's embarrassing that unc crashed out so bad when even other protestants know better about the language he probably "believes" himself to be fluent in
time for more new information, open up the tunnel here comes the train

>>18683892
cont
https://worship.calvin.edu/resources/articles/worship

"Worshipful service" is Middle English for something like "noble employment" or "honorable work"--a job fit for someone of good social standing and virtue. This archaic meaning of "worshipful" reminds us that in Middle English, "worship" could still mean "dignity," "honor," or "reputation." These meanings were related to the root of the word "worship," which is still partially visible today--it was the Old English "weorth," meaning "worth." In its earliest days, "weorthscipe" was literally "worthness," the appropriate treatment of something or someone of worth. The meaning of "dignity" for "worship" lasted at least until Shakespeare's time, when "your worship" could be used as a polite term of address, like "your majesty," as in this line from The Merry Wives of Windsor: "Will't please your worship to come in, sir?"

Chaucer's word "worshipful" reminds us that worthiness is a key concept, in etymology and in practice, when it comes to worship. We might even try to speak Middle English for a moment and ask ourselves: is our worship "worshipful?" Does it bring God honor--does it, we might say, enhance God's reputation? This is not to ask whether our worship is dignified--solemn, showy, or sophisticated. But in an era in which therapeutic and marketable models for worship have gained so much popularity and influence--suggesting that worship must please the people rather than God--it may reorient us to ask: is our worship fit for the King?

File: dmitri.jpg (91 KB, 581x980)

91 KB JPG

>>18683628
>there are outsiders who find everything about all Christianity cringe and strange
Right totally the same thing as finding it weird that you people use corpses and body parts in your religious rituals. Come on man you know that if a Hindu did this you would think it's a pagan practice. The only reason you don't is because you believe your tradition has divine backing.

>>18683938
Kek.
It's like you never kept a lock of hair of your beloved, or kept the ashes of your grandpa. Not divine at all.
It's kinda gross, but completely normal human behaviour, nothing worshipful there.
We do that shit constantly, and towards completely human people.

>>18683938
>whataboutism
*from the same chapter as above*

"Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews there is all the difference that there is between a false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise or denounce the virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And, in the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that the Gentiles also had sacrifices.

The difference between the Christian and vestal virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the being to whom the vow is made and paid; and so the difference in the being to whom the sacrifices of the Pagans and Hebrews are made and offered makes a wide difference between them. In the one case they are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in order to be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other case they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true sacrifice, which also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the body and blood of Christ."

...

"... through our Lord Jesus Christ. So Paul, addressing believers, who are made the body of which Christ is the Head, says: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God." Romans 12:1 The Manichæans, on the other hand, say that human bodies are the workmanship of the race of darkness, and the prison in which the captive deity is confined. Thus Faustus' doctrine is very different from Paul's. But since whosover preaches to you another gospel than that you have received must be accursed, what Christ says in Paul is the truth, while Manichæus in Faustus is accursed."

cont

File: orthodox-statuette.jpg (56 KB, 594x397)

56 KB JPG

>>18683628
>>Praying to statues of Mary or saints is also not alien to Orthodox Christianity
>proof?

>>18683961
23. Faustus says also, without knowing what he says, that we have retained the manners of the Gentiles. But seeing that the just lives by faith, and that the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, and that these three, faith, hope, and love, abide to form the life of believers, it is impossible that there should be similarity in the manners of those who differ in these three things. Those who believe differently, and hope differently, and love differently, must also live differently. And if we resemble the Gentiles in our use of such things as food and drink, and houses and clothes and baths, and those of us who marry, in taking and keeping wives, and in begetting and bringing up children as our heirs, there is still a great difference ...

...

"... in the same way we, though we resemble the Gentiles in the use of this and other things, do not resemble them in our life; for while the things are the same, the end is different: for the end we have in view is, according to the just commandment of God, love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; from which some having erred, are turned to vain jangling. In this vain jangling you bear the palm, for you do not attend to the fact that so great is the difference of life produced by a different faith, even when the things in possession and use are the same, that though your followers have wives, and in spite of themselves get children, for whom they gather and store up wealth; though they eat flesh, drink wine, bathe, reap harvests, gather vintages, engage in trade, and occupy high official positions, you nevertheless reckon them as belonging to you, and not to the Gentiles, though in their actions they approach nearer to the Gentiles than to you."

File: spyridon relic.jpg (92 KB, 427x640)

92 KB JPG

>>18683957
>It's like you never kept a lock of hair of your beloved, or kept the ashes of your grandpa.
Yes I have never done such a thing. In addition not burying your beloved and instead resorting to burning them to a crisp is more Hindu behavior
>It's kinda gross, but completely normal human behaviour, nothing worshipful there.
The problem isn't just the weird decaying man being displayed, it's the fact that relics like these are used in worship

The reason I am able to address your pedantic and highly predictable rhetoric just by copypasting Augustine answering the exact same rhetoric (not only in the same work, but in the same book and even concurrent chapters) from a heretic 1600 years ago, is because you're a heretic too and nothing about your identical heretic's accusation is true, then or now.

File: 51839324100_b17a298831_c.jpg (55 KB, 799x533)

55 KB JPG

>>18683961
>whataboutism
Where? You misunderstand I believe this shit to be Satanic idolatry and whoever does it needs to repent

Apologies this is so long, it’s actually under 9,000 characters

>>18682599
>As often happens when people try to discredit Catholic tradition, you basically just said a bunch of stuff that can be disproven in a simple google search.
What he said about early Christians “actually having access to information” was poorly said, and I would want clarification about what he meant by that. However, this is foolish nonsense. What exactly do you think you’ve “disproven” here? Let us go much deeper into this point, because this is emblematic of the abuse and misuse of historical theology among Romanists.

First, Hippolytus and Origen are both fathers of the 3rd century, as you yourself testify, and therefore were 200 years after the ascension of Christ. Now, when the fathers spoke of sacred tradition, they were emphatic that this was not merely their own traditions, but those which were delivered originally by the apostles themselves. Presumably you yourself do not believe you have an earlier citation to give, or else you would give it, since it would be that much weightier. So if we granted every premise the only conclusion that would follow that you have actually proven is that this is not truly catholic, i.e. what was believed always, everywhere, by everyone. This is not sacred tradition (which in truth contains nothing different from the holy scriptures, since the holy scriptures are its seed and origin), this is the traditions of men.
(1/7)

>>18682599
Concerning Hippolytus, the citation is very strange. If one takes your advice and makes a simple google search of “Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me” it becomes clear quickly this citation is one you have uncritically received from papist apologetics sources without bothering to verify their interpretation was correct, considering those are the only sources which appear in the search, and seemingly the only sources which cite it this way (unsurprising because it is Latin). The actual origin of the quote appears to be Hippolytus’ commentary on Psalm 23 as quoted by Theoderet, himself coming centuries later. Those who have experience in rebutting (rather than blindly trusting) the misrepresentation of historical theologians by Romanist apologists will become immediately suspicious by the absence of any explicit reference to Mary in the quoted text, and indeed when one actually checks the fragment from which this comes they find that he is not speaking about Mary *at all* but that this is in fact about the body of Christ Himself. Full text here https://biblehub.com/library/hippolytus/the_extant_works_and_fragments_of_hippolytus/on_psalm_xxii_or_xxiii.htm
And this is in fact very emblematic of the gross anachronistic misuse of historical sources by Romanists with an axe to grind. Presumably, the confusion arose by virtue of the use of the word “tabernacle” in reference to Christ, and because whomever was the origin of this misapplication incorrectly assumed a modern Romanist context of Mary as ark of the new covenant, he also incorrectly assumed this was a reference to Mary.
(2/7)

>>18682599
Concerning Origen, you give a citation of “Homily 1”. I ask, what is that? What in the world is this supposed to be a citation of? Not only have you yet again done nothing but uncritically repeat what you were fed by papist propagandists, but now the citation is completely incorrect, as though all of Origen’s homilies are collected into a single neat set. This is not your fault, it is the fault of the equally clueless propagandists you derived this from; Matt. 15:14 “if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Their source for this seems to be, as one, each other. AI had profound difficulty tracking down any other source at all, the sole exception being the Catholic Encyclopedia which seemed to attribute a form of this to “Homily 1 in diversa” (that is, on various subjects), but AI (and google) was unable to find that either.
(3/7)

>>18682599
Now, let us assume there is actually somewhere a text attributed to Origen containing these words, 1. Origen was by far the least orthodox of all the church fathers, he taught numerous indisputable errors due to the influence of Greek philosophy on him, two later fathers of far superior orthodoxy, namely Jerome and Epiphanius, led a campaign to eradicate his teachings from the Church, and his teachings were condemned by name as heretical by an ecumenical council. All of which has influenced the churches of Rome and Constantinople to withhold from him the title of saint to this day. Therefore, he cannot be considered a representative of catholic orthodoxy. 2. It is highly dubious that this quote can even be considered authentic, for reasons which have been stated already. And as far as that goes it is but one of many examples of Rome relying on fraud to support itself, for from the foundation of the papacy to this very day she has relied on lies, forgeries, and rewriting of history in order to defend herself because Rome is *not the true church*. 2 Pet. 2:1-3 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words, their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 3. Elsewhere, Origen explicitly taught that Mary sinned: “What are we to think—that while the apostles were scandalized, the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. […] Indeed Mary too was scandalized at that time.“ - Homily 17 on Luke
(4/7)

>>18682599
Now that we have refuted your argument and have not seen proof the immaculate conception (which you are required to believe by faith under pain of a curse, although it is found nowhere in the revelation of God) was known in antiquity, I bring forward my own evidence that the matter of this doctrine was denied in antiquity. And as far as Christian antiquity is concerned, we would have sufficient evidence in the sins of Mary described in the New Testament, I challenge any man to bring forth a source more ancient. But although it is not really an authority at all, our opponents always rely completely on human authorities, so they ought to be pressed by them. Tertullian, “On the Flesh of Christ” chapter 7 says “whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work.”
(5/7)

>>18682599
John Chrysostom, Homily 21 on John, says “Where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, Who is My mother, and who are My brethren? because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him.” This will suffice for us.
(6/7)

>>18682599
Now, this false doctrine is bound to the authority of the papacy. To accept the papacy is to accept this, and to deny this is to deny the papacy. Yet this error, which is unknown to scripture, which was first innovated long after the faith was once for all delivered to the saints, which was directly contradicted not only by church fathers but by doctors of the Roman church long thereafter, is something which you are bound to believe by faith, as though God Himself had revealed it to you. And that is proof that the pope is a false prophet and the Roman church’s claims are a lie. This lie was contrived to hide from you the true gospel, by which Mary was saved from her sins and by which alone you also can be saved. For if you stop seeking to be saved through your own personal righteousness and purity and cast yourself entirely on the mercy of God through the foreign righteousness of Jesus Christ you will be justified even though you mortally sin, and you will have peace with God. Rom. 5:1 “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.
(7/7)

File: 751001303_178814824026551(...).jpg (297 KB, 1440x1920)

297 KB JPG

>>18683922
>Ok but using holy skulls to remind the congregation of our own mortality is pretty fucking METAL
they just look like silly halloween props

>>18684027
Don't even know what I'm looking at but I'm scared and mesmerized. I can see the appeal to the masses if done tactfully

>>18683878
This is the exact anachronism I described before which you cluelessly chose not to heed. You would do well to keep silent and stop embarrassing yourself, better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

First, where is all of the religious activity being directed here? Oh, at the statue of Mary, right? No, Augustine is emphatic that all the worship is being directed to God in the honor of the martyrs. Very different. Second, the existence of the word latria is not the same as your fictional distinction. The question at hand is not whether there is a word called latria but whether it is appropriate to give worship to creatures. Third, he says “We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life”, yet you do not give such devotion to any but the dead. Fourth, we have both Faustus’ accusation and Augustine’s reply. Faustus accused the Christians: “The sacrifices you change into love-feasts, the idols into martyrs, to whom you pray as they do to their idols.” Augustine answered: “As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols”. What Faustus calls prayer Augustine calls worship, because he recognizes prayer to be an act of worship, very unlike you and an implicit rebuke of your idolatry. Nor did he undertake any defense of prayer to the dead in reply. Fifthly, he continues “We see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, ‘I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethen.’” But how did John worship the angel? By offering sacrifice? No, by falling down before him, as you never cease to fall down before idols of the dead.

>>18683878
>>18684060
And in case it is not obvious for any readers, the reason Augustine is so focused upon sacrificial worship here is not because he considers sacrifice to be the only kind of worship (which as I have demonstrated he directly contradicts in this very passage), but because of the accusation of Faustus: “The sacrifices you change into love-feasts, the idols into martyrs, to whom you pray as they do to their idols.” Faustus accused the Christian love-feast in the honor of the martyrs as being a sacrifice offered to the martyrs as gods. That is why he is so focused on sacrifices here. He does not say that latria consists in offering sacrifice, but that offering sacrifice is a kind of latria, “To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices”.

>>18683892
>You don't have any idea what etymology is
I do know what an etymology is, which is why I know it’s not the same thing as a definition. You are a complete and utter clown

>>18683938
>you know that if a Hindu did this you would think it's a pagan practice
The people who bitched about this practice in the early centuries of the Church were pagans.

>>18684060
>yet you do not give such devotion to any but the dead
Speak for yourself.

>he recognizes prayer to be an act of worship, very unlike you
Haha, you're just lying now.
see >>18683276

>Nor did he undertake any defense of prayer to the dead in reply.
Okay, continue to ignore the relevant chapter in City of God that I already cited ITT.
I don't care about your bad faith pretense anymore.

>>18683655
Because the letter I corresponds directly to the same letter in the Tetragrammaton, Iod.

File: zoomer tradcath.jpg (54 KB, 680x516)

54 KB JPG

>>18684069
>Speak for yourself.
So you pray to statues of living people now?
>Haha, you're just lying now.
I don’t see anything there that impugns what I said, but even if there was 1. You do not get to speak for the entire Romanist religion, and all the many who have assured me that prayer is not worship 2. You truly betray the depravity of your godless heart in granting prayer to be worship. The other papists were wiser in denying prayer to be worship, because if prayer is worship, then indisputably you worship the saints, offering them prayers. You not only at last grant that you are an idolater, you do so shamelessly. And it is very consistent with your disrespectful, haughty, deceptive character: there is no fear of God before your eyes.
>continue to ignore the relevant chapter in City of God
There wasn’t any defense of prayer to the dead there either.
>I don't care about your bad faith pretense anymore.
You are an obnoxious moron, and I sincerely doubt you would be taken seriously even if I did not intervene. But you’re underage, and so this is my advice to you: shut up. Stop embarrassing yourself and start learning. Overcome the foolishness of youth so that you will have fewer things to be ashamed of when you are older.

>>18684075
>There wasn’t any defense of prayer to the dead there either.
You're a liar.
Completely shameless.

In his long list of miracles attributed to these saintly relics, St Augustine describes a man who prayed before the relics of St Stephen for intercession on behalf of his sick daughter, he even brought her dress with him to the shrine.
When he returned, to find everyone reporting she had died, he laid the dress on her body and she was returned to life.

Like, this is evident to anyone who can read.
But it escapes you, because you really hate the truth.

>>18684078
Mentioning that a guy prayed to a saint once =! defending prayer to saints. It is true he should have rebuked this practice and questioned the superstition related to it, but this other’s man’s guilt is not to be thrown on his shoulders for his silence. This passage isn’t even about dead saints (or relics), it’s about miracles. In his On the Care of the Dead, chapter 16, Augustine explicitly denies that the dead are either aware of or active in events on earth. Again, you should stop embarrassing yourself. You would be better off.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (87 KB, 711x766)

87 KB PNG

>>18684068
>The people who bitched about this practice in the early centuries of the Church were pagans.
Not just, everyone hated it including Jews. Christians were like Jeets parading around mangled body parts and everyone was sick and tired of this uncivilized practice

>>18684085
I'm not the one deliberately choosing to post irrelevant and nakedly hostile mockery like the image you chose to download and saddle your mind with, you completely discredit yourself and shame everyone affiliated with your disrepute and waste.

>this passage isn't even about relics
He explicitly attributes all these miracles to the relics of St Stephen Protomartyr, his intercession.
Others he mentions happened while these relics were in procession.

"For were I to be silent of all others, and to record exclusively the miracles of healing which were wrought in the district of Calama and of Hippo by means of this martyr— I mean the most glorious Stephen — they would fill many volumes; and yet all even of these could not be collected, but only those of which narratives have been written for public recital."

Miracles wrought by means of this martyr.
He literally says, in the exact work you're pretending says the opposite, that the saints somehow do actually hear prayers for intercession but the exact mechanism is a mystery to him.
He is saying the martyrs do actually take interest in the affairs of the church militant, that church triumphant is wrapped up in the communion of the saints.

One more lie on the polemical pile.
Just heaping up coals for later.
Paragraph 19 follows, a final refutation for you of your own asking.

>>18684120
>On the care for the dead
>St Augustine

19. This also solves that other question: If the dead do not know what the living are doing, how is it that the martyrs can provide aid to those that pray, and thus show that they take an interest in the affairs of men? For it is certain that, when the barbarians were attacking Nola, the confessor Felix (whom you piously love as he rests among you) appeared not only through what resulted from his aid, but that he was actually seen by men. We heard this not in unreliable rumors but from trustworthy witnesses. But such things were a divine display far different from the usual function God has fixed for each kind of creature. For it does not follow that just because the Lord suddenly changed water into wine when he wanted that we should not consider water as valuable and useful in its usual place among the elements quite apart from its rare and unusual use in that divine event. Just because Lazarus was raised does not mean that every dead man will be raised when he wishes, or that a lifeless man is raised up by a living one in the same way as a sleeping man by one who is awake. Some things are within the boundaries of human conditions, others are signs of divine power; some are done naturally, others miraculously, although God is still present in nature so that it exists, and nature is not absent in the miraculous. So we should not think then, that just because the martyrs assist in healing or helping some men that any dead person who wants can be an influence in the affairs of the living. Rather we are to understand that the martyrs are interested in the affairs of the living through divine power, for it is not possible for the departed by their own nature to be interested in the affairs of the living.

>>18684003

>First, Hippolytus and Origen are both fathers of the 3rd century

Neither are universally recognized as Fathers of the Church

>Presumably you yourself do not believe you have an earlier citation to give, or else you would give it

St. Luke (1st century) teaches the immaculate conception too. The Bible is a fundamentally Catholic book, but if you are talking to a Protestant they will always self-refer to their own interpretation so its better to appeal to extra biblical sources

>So if we granted every premise the only conclusion that would follow that you have actually proven is that this is not truly catholic, i.e. what was believed always, everywhere, by everyone

A simple historical analysis shows that the immaculate conception was held by the early Church. You are (Falsely) asserting a lack of evidence, but even if that was the case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the immaculate conception was false, it would have been condemned as heretical just like every other of the 100s of heresies that circulated. But it was always received.

>what was believed always, everywhere, by everyone
It took a little over 3 centuries to settle the Biblical canon, during which time several competing canons were held by different groups at different times. The Canon then was not 'believed always, everywhere, by everyone'. One of many examples how you are not correctly applying this standard

>>18684007

I will not assume your motives or methods in coming to this conclusion, possibly if you used AI or something, itis beyond me, but you are wrong.

Here first is a better link to the source:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

Full citation:
On Psalm 22 or 23
From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on The Lord is My Shepherd.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness. But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.

Another relevant supporting citation:
On Daniel:
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the ark overlaid with pure gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ark made manifest.

The most basic scriptural argument that anyone should know is the connection between the Blessed Virgin and the Ark of the Covenant. Hippolytus is making that same connection.

>the Virgin, who was the ark overlaid with pure gold

>But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.

without sin.. as regards to His humanity.. of the Virgin Mary

>>18684011
>Not only have you yet again done nothing but uncritically repeat what you were fed by papist propagandists

>This is not your fault, it is the fault of the equally clueless propagandists you derived this from

I wanted to make a joke, like "Martin Luther Impressed!" or something, but I remembered that he, like most reformers, also believed in the Marian Dogmas.

Yes you can find it on Catholic Encyclopedia. He calls her 'immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings'

>>18684015
>Origen was by far the least orthodox of all the church fathers

what 'Church fathers' ? what group of people are you appealing to?

>indisputable errors

Without a normative Church authority every error is endlessly disputable (Source: Protestant reformation)

>his teachings were condemned by name as heretical by an ecumenical council

some were. Do you think they condemned every single thing he ever wrote? He was incredibly influential, and Origenism survived (Within the Church) long after both his death and (Alleged) condemnation. This is an ahistorical understanding

>And as far as that goes it is but one of many examples of Rome relying on fraud to support itself, for from the foundation of the papacy to this very day she has relied on lies, forgeries, and rewriting of history in order to defend herself because Rome is *not the true church*.

this is just rhetoric. nobody here isgoing to fall for this kind of stuff. stick to the arguments and the evidence and stop giving Catholicism more main character energy than it already has

as for what you quoted at the end. Jesus did in a true sense die for the sins of the Blessed Virgin in the sense of preservative redemption

>>18684020
>Now that we have refuted your argument
you and who? ChatGPT?

>proof the immaculate conception
theres no standard of "Proof" you can use against a Protestant though. You would say any scriptural argument is wrong because of your different interpretation and you would just say any historical evidence that does support it isn't proof

>which you are required to believe by faith under pain of a curse

under pain of sin

>although it is found nowhere in the revelation of God

its found in Sacred Scripture implicitly and explicitly in Sacred Tradition

>Tertullian, “On the Flesh of Christ” chapter 7 says
are you a Montanist? or are you just appealing to Tertullian for this specific thing and denying all of his other theology. he died outside of communion of the Christian(Catholic) Church ...

what is your standard of proof here? Is Tertullian alone sufficient as proof?

>>18684022

>John Chrysostom, Homily 21 on John, says

in your first post you were saying 200 years was a long time after Jesus to be citing people. John Chrysostom died in the 5th century. But, he is oneof the few figures you would be able to find to support your argument, so I understand why you would appeal to him as he is a great authority.

he erred here.. thats all. nobody believes none of the Fathers made errors and this was one of only two that St. John Chryososyom made

>>18684025
this whole message is just rhetoric and no argument. who would be convinced by this?

its too easy to poke holes in this flimsy rhetoric

>Yet this error, which is unknown to scripture
the 'source' of this error gave us scripture

>which was first innovated long after the faith was once for all delivered to the saints
whats the proof for this?

>which was directly contradicted not only by church fathers but by doctors of the Roman church long thereafter
how long? how many people? what part of Church teaching is contradicted by certain Church Fathers holding false opinions

>as though God Himself had revealed it to you
Catholics believe in divine revelation, I don't know what you believe in

>And that is proof that the pope is a false prophet
Who said thePope is a prophet?what?

>This lie was contrived to hide from you the true gospel
contrived by who and when? what is the true gospel?

Catholicism is self-evident and easy to prove as it has superior motives of credibility to any other religion and certainly any other deficient Christian sect

>>18684388
>>18684396
>>18684409
>>18684420
>>18684433
>>18684444
>>18684453
Considering the, uh, “quality” of the argumentation here I’m guessing you’re the rabid 15 year old tradcath idiot and not the guy I was responding to, right?

>>18684620
There's no such thing as a "Traditional" Catholic. Being Catholic means being traditional. I am 37 years young. Let's try to just respond to arguments and not result to adhoms.

File: Come out of her, my people.png (475 KB, 600x600)

475 KB PNG

>>18684655
OK, so this is traditional Catholicism?

>>18684667
yes

>>18681585
>If they were correct that Jesus isn't God then they would be right that it is idolatry. It wouldn't be any different from the Indian temples where they worship Sai Baba. Jesus is genuinely God, which is why they're wrong.
nta

Correct Christology and the belief that we are united to Christ in baptism are why you can depict Jesus or the saints. Every icon of a saint is an image of the Body of Christ. See St. John of Damascus' On the Defense of Icons. When you deny the validity of icons, you profess nestorianism at best or deny mankind's capability of salvation at worst.

>>18684709
Actually it’s you that has to be Nestorian. You cannot separate the man from the God, when you depict the man Jesus, you are depicting God, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:15-19). It is God who says what you can or can’t do, who gave you this authority to rewrite the laws of God?

>>18684716
>Actually it’s you that has to be Nestorian.
Wrong, when we depict Christ we are depicting both natures in one person.

>which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)
>>You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully (Deut. 4:15)
The premise here is deprecated by the fact that Jesus is God, and now has a form.

>>18684749
> Wrong, when we depict Christ we are depicting both natures in one person.
That is a concession that your images are blasphemous because the divine nature cannot be depicted.
>The premise here is deprecated by the fact that Jesus is God, and now has a form.
The text does not say you may not depict because you saw no form, but you saw no form so that you would learn not to depict. Even if it were so nobody has the authority to suspend this command but God, who has not done so. Besides, many under the old covenant saw God under some form or another, such as Jacob who wrestled with Him, or Abraham who hosted Him as a guest, or any number of prophets who beheld Him in visions. But under this law they were nevertheless forbidden to make any image of Him.

File: Luther looks up from his bible.jpg (37 KB, 474x510)

37 KB JPG

So the takeaway from this thread is that Cathodox worship pictures and corpses and they do it on the sole basis that men said so, while Protestants worship only God and follow God.

File: X1130679-HDR.jpg (1.24 MB, 800x1200)

1.24 MB JPG

>>18684870
Lutherans (as well as Methodists and Anglicans) make and have icons in church too though.

>>18684870
>on the sole basis that men said so
Protestants are the same. You all believe in mythological fiction as "history" which was written by human beings with a dishonest political agenda.
The differences you have between yourselves are superficial. If you believe in the bible you're a dimwit. Simple as.

The Catholic Church has official guidance that it's okay to throw religious statues/icons in the trash but should dispose of them respectfully if it's been specifically blessed by a priest. to me but it would suggest the Church knows many commoner Catholics do view the little statuettes you can buy in any store as something more than just an icon to help "remind" during prayer

>>18684886
trans btw

>>18684886
The scriptures are the words of God and not men.

>>18684996
What about when Paul says "I'm writing this as my personal opinion and not as a divine decree" in 1 Corinthians?

>>18685051
Paul said no such thing? I take it you mean 1 Corinthians 7:12. The Lord in Pauline use normatively refers to the person of Jesus Christ. Paul’s meaning is not “this specific part of my epistle is not divinely inspired, the rest of it is, but not this part”, he means that this instruction was not passed down to him as coming from the mouth of Jesus.

>>18684121
Everything must begin at a point in time. The worship of saints was a recent novelty in Augustine’s day, and was very different from the highly developed form you practice. I know you will not hear a word have to say, no matter what, because you are irrational, ignorant swine, you have proven that if nothing else, but I am not casting pearls before swine because I answer not for your sake (which would be a complete waste of time) but for the reader who might be deceived by your tireless anachronisms.

1. This does nothing to erase what he said in chapter 16. Again, he explicitly says Abraham, Jacob, Josiah, and Monica of Hippo are all ignorant of what happens on earth, whereas you name them all saints, and pray to them, and expect them to respond to your worship. He does not say that any saint whatsoever is able act in time (which he actually now denies), but only the martyrs (for the cult of martyrs preceded the cult of saints), and that as extraordinarily as water turns into wine and dead men live again. While you make any dead saint able to hear and answer prayers, and that as ordinarily as breathing. 2. In the chapter immediately following this one (which I do not doubt you are unaware of and have never read because your propagandists never cited it) Augustine expresses doubt that these prayers are ever answered by martyrs and not rather by angels on their behalf while they remain ignorant of the matters themselves 3. Even here, Augustine neither defends nor advocates but merely describes the practice of prayer to the dead, and that not as his own but of others.

The fundamental problem is that it is objectively factually false that the medieval cult of saints existed in the patristic period, and what you are doing is anachronistically conflating practices which are only slightly or superficially similar because of your desperate need to remake history in your own image.

>>18684388
Almost all Protestants believe in the immaculate conception, just not the assumption of Mary.

>>18685177
Yeah that's right, you've been engaging in bad faith from the very start and simply talking past me while continuing to embarrass yourself in the eyes of God with these petty and meaningless insults.
You're actively disrespectful to your target audience by pretending they can't simply read and understand exactly what Augustine, Paul, and David mean.

How absolutely vile.
Everyone else who you're "really" talking to can see the absolute state of your decrepitude evidenced by your bilious and caustic demeanor, you just don't have any perspective so you'll just keep on blindly lashing out in what is literally nothing more than an act of tearing others down because you have nothing of substance yourself to add.

It would be pitiable, if you were only less arrogant and openly spiteful.
Instead, what you are is laughable and debased.

Why sink to such a low level on my account, unless the many objective facts I have laid out with ample citations have enraged you?
There is no other explanation, you insult me because it's the only response you can really muster.

>>18685426
It’s impressive how exactly you match this image >>18684075

If I'm a pig, then you're in the same exact sty I am right now.
Just make good on your words and leave instead of wallowing in the mud of your own imputation, you abject hypocrite.

You won't, because you can't go without the trough slop.
If only you had the same sense of humility as the prodigal son, who was grateful for the slop until he finally realized what he was doing.

You probably never will.
I can sense how deeply hardened you are.

>>18685429
You have gone out of your way to totally obliterate your own credibility ITT.
This small minded self sabotage is really something to witness, do better.

>>18685462
Why are you speaking to me, clown?

Origen witnesses to prayers at the tombs of martyrs as well. He says the souls of departed saints pray for the faithful here on earth.
Cyprian too relates that cemeteries were gathering places for Christian worship specifically because the bodies of holy men and women were so highly revered.
In fact, Imperial edicts during the persecution specifically forbade Christians from entering cemeteries for this exact reason.

When he was executed, faithful Christians spread linen and handkerchiefs out before him to catch his blood.
These are what we refer to now as first class relics.

Both well over a hundred years before Augustine.
Our hateful prot will never get over the fact the catacombs exist, that the martyr's tombs in them served as altars for the Eucharistic celebration, and continue to ignore the truth.

>>18685474
The contrast between your crass, vulgar lashing out and my own well reasoned, evidenced positions only serves to drive my point home to greater effect.
You have allowed your emotions to get the better of you.
It confirms what I have to say just as much as the mockery of Roman soldiers and the baying crowd served to confirm Christ himself.

Indeed, I count it as all blessings when the enemies of my faith revile and insult me.
When they speak evil about me, and spread out their lies to snare me.
Because in this small thing, I am a little more conformed to the image of Christ, and share in just minute fraction of his own dolorous suffering.

None truer was it said by the psalmist, that a people I knew not served me.
It would be better for you to take my advice and remain silent or go, the tongue like the rudder of a ship is a small thing but can steer a large vessel as the bridle of a horse may control an unruly animal.

In the old parlance of this place, which you are obviously a stranger or very new to, lurk moar.
Your tears are delicious, this savour might be lost on you but it is to me something worth cherishing.
All your salt are belong to us.

>ctrl f twitter

you have to go back

>>18685597
In the 1500s, it was said that the head John the Baptist was in Amiens, Constantinople, and Rome. Was he a multi-headed monster, or were AT LEAST two (likely all) of these cases where Catholics worshiping some literal who's head?

Eighteen(!) "Apostles" were said to be buried in Germany at the same time, weird since Jesus only had 12...

But keep on worshiping human remains rather than God, surely this idolatry won't be detrimental to your spiritual life.

https://x.com/farmingandJesus/status/2097707609197576289/quotes

I saw this clip of a random drunk catholic party thot arguing with a street preacher and after watching the video and reading some of the quote retweets I FINALLY understand how Catholics (and I guess Orthodox) view the Bible. The laity see it as a liturgical textbook and that Christianity isn't something studied, but lived, and everything you need to know to live out that faith can be found in regular mass attendance. This is just something that I couldn't comprehend until now. In the video the drunk catholic certainly gets stuff wrong, but she basically says she's not going to listen to him quotemine the Bible to her and still manages to put up a fight.

>>18685932
>In 1987, 44% of Catholics indicated weekly Mass attendance. In 2017, that was down to 29%
sounds like catholics are failing there as well

>>18681152
>1. We have the correct canon of scripture because God has spoken them
Nowhere in the Bible does it ever tell you how many books are meant to be included.
The only way to decide this are decisions based on the traditional beliefs and judgments of the group by qualified theologians.

>>18685932
>The laity see it as a liturgical textbook and that Christianity isn't something studied, but lived, and everything you need to know to live out that faith can be found in regular mass attendance.
Yes. Christianity outside of Protestantism is sacramental.

>>18685957
>Nowhere in the Bible does it ever tell you how many books are meant to be included.
That’s irrelevant, and it would also be irrelevant if there actually was such a book because believers would already be persuaded and unbelievers (like you) would simply question the authenticity of that book as well. The canon of scripture is nothing but the list of the divine books. Either this or that book is authentically divinely inspired, or it does not belong in the canon. But all our canonical books are authentically divinely inspired, and no others, therefore we do actually possess the correct canon.
>The only way to decide this are decisions based on the traditional beliefs and judgments of the group by qualified theologians.
1. Do these “qualified” theologians have reasons for their judgements? If not, why should we care about them? If yes, then why can we not arrive at the same canon for the same reasons? 2. Again, the canon is nothing besides the list of the divine books. It is merely our recognition of what is actually objectively true. Ergo, the church cannot be the source of the canon, because if the Church makes a dogmatic pronouncement on the canon which includes a book which is not authentically divine (such as the canon of the Council of Trent did) or which excludes a book which is then the Church was in error. Hence, 3. Whether a book ought to be included in the canon is determined solely by whether it is authentically divinely inspired, and nothing else at all, let alone that a false prophet in Rome decreed it would be so. 4. Because the holy scriptures are the very words of God they derive authority from Him alone and are to be believed and obeyed merely because they are His words. Ergo, no man can authenticate or add to their authority in the smallest degree, and any which claims to do so is Antichrist. Therefore the authority of scripture does not depend on the Church, but the authority of the Church on the scriptures.

>>18685231
most of the Protestant reformers believed in it. Most protestants today do not

>>18686041
Not trying to get mean or personal, but this is genuinely one of the stupidest things ive read in a long time. Surely i'm not the only one who thinks so

>>18685932
That clip made me hard

>>18686347
Most of them didn’t believe it either

>>18686041

> would already be persuaded

Low self esteem men projecting is everywhere in humanities.

You don't ever want to try high self esteem, Anon? It will change your entire life.

>>18683443
Clearly you're unwilling to engage with the practical analysis (and for the record I have no idea who RZ is, you might mean Redeemed Zoomer but I have never watched anything he has made) and insist on just examining the definition so fine, let's dig in there.

In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul says you're not supposed to even eat with someone who calls themselves a believer but is "εἰδωλολάτρης", "an idolater". Let's see what this word means and whether it exclusively includes sacrifices like you are arguing.


In 1 Corinthians 10:7, he writes "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written:" and then he quotes from Exodus 32. In Exodus 32, Aaron says "Tomorrow there will be a festival to YHWH", and then they build the golden calf. So even if you're worshipping God, if you're attempting to do it through the conduit of a statue, it is idolatry. Would you agree so far?

File: 1783272492299541.jpg (127 KB, 615x440)

127 KB JPG

>You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Sorry MEXICAN.

>>18680670
Mary should not be prayed to since she is not god.

>>18687065
The reason it is forbidden to make images of God the Father is because he is invisible.
It is acceptable to represent Jesus, who is the Son, according to his human nature since he is the image of God.

You left out the part where Aaron built an *altar* dedicated to the golden calf.
They weren't actually worshipping IHFH, the Lord said to Moses that they sacrificed to it saying behold the god that lead you out of Egypt.
Aaron may have called this thing by the holy name, but that isn't what Christians do with statuary depicting saints at all.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10 of the offering of *sacrifices* to idols.
And what's more, of altars. That you cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.

None of these objections you have raised clash at all with at any point with Augustine's understanding.
Because he makes clear that Christians do not offer sacrifices to the saints, but on the behalf of their memories.

Do me a favor and read John 17 again, but closely.
Notice how Jesus shares the glory he had with the Father before the world was made with his saints, that he is glorified in and by them.
That he has sent them, even in the same way he was sent by the Father.
The mutual indwelling guarantees the unity of their souls with his own human soul even while they look forward to the resurrection of the dead.
If you revere God because of his eternal glory, you should also pay respect to his saints because he has given them a share in that same glory wherein the Father and Son are made one.

>>18686041
This is one of the most retarded examples of circular thinking ever.

Explain to me how you distinguish between a canonical and noncanonical book.
As stated, there's no clear table of contents in the Bible that lists canon. So why would a book like Enoch 1 or Enoch 2 not be included, as just a randomly grabbed example?
From first principles.

>>18681050
Peter was the first pope and so it can be assumed that all the early popes of rome were following his Apostolical oral tradition. Obviously the Apostles spread Christianity far and wide to many cities, with paul and peter probably being the only ones who took it out of the middle east and of course both of them had a had in starting christian communities in the capital of the roman empire.

But if Peter was the first true bishop of rome, then, particular as a long term follower of Jesus, who actually lived and spent years with Jesus (which paul wasn't) then he is the true founder

The issue is that we have a lot more surviving texts from Paul and a more detailed account of his ministry so he seems more important from a purely biblical perspective but remember that the early church predates the construction of the new testament and of course the early church would have relied more on oral traditions and letters and documents that didn't survive the persecution days.

>>18687500
>This is one of the most retarded examples of circular thinking ever.

>Explain to me how you distinguish between a canonical and noncanonical book.
The matter before us right now is whether the scriptures derive their authority from the Church or only from God their author, not how the canonical scriptures are distinguished from human writings. We may ask in reply how the Church could distinguish the canonical scriptures? Or better yet, how do you distinguish the true Church from false churches, seeing as this task is totally impossible apart from the evidence of scripture, and you never find any argument for it aside from the mere presupposition of the papist magisterium and truly overt circular reasoning.

Now, there are many evidences whereby these books show themselves to be the word of God, such as fulfilled prophecy, the majesty of the doctrine revealed therein (which offers man’s only hope of salvation), the testimony of other scriptures not in question, the testimony and recommendation of the Church etc. etc. But none of these arguments will ever persuade any man apart from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is the cause whereby the elect come to know the word of God. For that scripture expressly teaches, John 10:4-5 “When he brings all his own out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they will never follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” For being enlightened by the Spirit, who leads Christ’s sheep into all truth (John 16:13), the believer recognizes the word of his Master because of the marks of inspiration impressed on the text as he recognizes his own mother by sight.
(1/3)

>>18687500
He needs no external authority to recognize his mother (let alone a false prophet in a golden palace, which could never serve as authority for anything at all), but merely from the familiar sensation of her face he immediately possesses the knowledge, “this is my mother”. So it is for the regenerate and scripture. You will object and say that this is subjective. But the charge is false, 1. This is not the evidence by which we would persuade others, which of us did you ever see argue to an unbeliever that the bible is proven the word of God by their sense of recognition or experience of the Spirit? I have already spoken of the objective evidences of the inspiration of the scriptures, this is not the evidence with which we persuade others but by which we are persuaded, the only role of the Spirit is to enable us to recognize and accept the objective evidence and character of the holy scriptures, while without His grace we would never have eyes to see. 2. This internal testimony is not of our own invention, but taught clearly in the word of God. Now, I would know whether whatever idol you worship is too impotent to imbue man with knowledge. For if this is within God’s power, then He can do so in reality, and God having done so in reality, therefore I know. And I know that this has happened not because of my own feelings, but because of the word of God. First, I believe, and then it tells me why I believe.

And we should not pass by the grotesque absurdity that is a papist appealing to skepticism, as if his papacy could endure the very same standard for even a moment. Can you tell me why I should believe the pope has any authority at all? How do you distinguish his claims from the claims of Muhammad?
(2/3)

>>18687500
>So why would a book like Enoch 1 or Enoch 2 not be included
I remind you again that the canon is only a human list of the divine books. It is our recognition of what God has spoken. That means it is logically impossible for there to be any correct answer to this question than “because they are not inspired”. Either Enoch is inspired, or Enoch is not inspired. If Enoch is inspired, then it ought to be in the canon, if it is not inspired, then it ought not.

Now, you need to understand that in reducing the scriptures to be equal to mere human books you are a blasphemer and an unbeliever. This is little more than an impudent expression of your unbelief, you are not a Christian. Is not God very angry with you and will you not perish eternally because of this? Repent, because you truly have no hope while you do not believe.

There are several arguments whereby we may disqualify Enoch, none of which are the mere fiat of a heretic in a funny hat (which is no argument at all). 1. This book was written in the intertestamental period, wherein there was no prophet of God. Therefore, it is not holy scripture. 2. This book was never accepted among the Jews, who were the caretakers of the divine oracles. Therefore, it is not holy scripture. 3. This book contains errors, such as that the earth does not change. Therefore, it is not the word of God. 4. This book was never accepted as scripture throughout the Church, if by any Christian at all. But the believer is enlightened by the Spirit to know the truth of scripture. Therefore, it is not His word. And there may be other arguments to discredit the book.

As for the book known as 2 Enoch, this seems to date as to its entirety *after* the New Testament, and potentially even after the age of the fathers, which would be sufficient cause to reject it in itself in addition to the reasons given above. And so much for this objection to the authority of scripture.
(3/3)

>>18687725
>>18687726
>>18687727
And I will add this point: if we suppose there is a 67th book of the bible, the Table of Contents, is the matter resolved? Is the controversy over, do our adversaries now concede the intrinsic authority of scripture, is every excuse thereby silenced and unbelief eradicated? Of course not, this was a bad faith argument from the beginning.

>>18687725
>>18687726
>>18687727
So in all of that you just managed to say, "Divine Revelation", with no clear demonstration that divine revelation actually happening to anyone.
The average Christian experiences zero divine revelations about the Canon over their entire lives. So for them, how are they to determine Canon?
Maybe you had a voice in your head tell you the exact list of canonical books. But for the average Christian that does not have this happen, how are they meant to determine what is Canon?

Beyond that, your reasoning for why certain books are noncanonical is faulty, too.
>enoch 1 is not canon because it was not written by a prophet
How do you know it was not written by a prophet?
>because it was not in the list of books that canon says are by the prophets
This is just more circular reasoning.

>enoch 2 is not included because it is too late to be from a prophet
Again, how do you know it is too late?
>because canon ends before that point
Which loops back to the circular reasoning.

You're just talking in circles and appealing to divine intervention, when there is no provided evidence of this divine communication in the first place.
You haven't demonstrated any logical explanation on how a Christian is meant to distinguish Canon from Noncanon, if they aren't directly told by the Holy Spirit.

>>18687737
>The average Christian experiences zero divine revelations about the Canon over their entire lives.
Christians, actual Christians, experience divine revelation constantly. It’s called the holy bible.
>So for them, how are they to determine Canon?
>Maybe you had a voice in your head tell you the exact list of canonical books. But for the average Christian that does not have this happen, how are they meant to determine what is Canon?
This is a strawman argument, and the reason it is invalid is because it means you have yet to join us in the disputation and address my actual argument or position, instead choosing to demonstrate your superiority by vanquishing the shadows in your head. Where did you see me say that God ever spoke to me outside of scripture? The alacrity of your response, the failure to consider anything else I said, and the embarrassing misrepresentation of my position tells me you scanned through my reply as quickly as possible without carefully paying attention or following the argument. So, to answer the question of how believers know the authenticity of scripture without God speaking to them outside of scripture, the answer is identical to my previous answer.
>How do you know it was not written by a prophet?
Asked and answered.
>This is just more circular reasoning.
It is also a hallucination you have suffered, do you get those often? And it is another strawman.
>Again, how do you know it is too late?
If it were authentic scripture it would have to be of the Old Testament, since it says nothing plainly of Jesus Christ. But it could not possibly be of the Old Testament while being written after the coming of Christ.
>Which loops back to the circular reasoning.
And another daring strike on the scarecrow!

Now, care to give an excuse for your god-king in Italy like I demanded before, or did you not notice that part when you briefly glanced at my posts?

>>18680670
As a non religious American, I was quite surprised at the amount of corpses on display in the great churches of Europe. It is probably more of a cultural shock than a religious one.

>>18687743
You don't have an actual argument, is the problem.

You essentially rely on a claimed truism that the Bible is complete and perfect because it is a work of divine revelation. But then lack anything that actually supports that beyond appeals to divine revelation that you say is unnecessary because the Bible itself is the divine revelation.
There is this constant psychological loop you do where you say that divine revelation reveals the exact books of the Bible. Then you say that one need not experience divine revelation because they have the Bible. And when the Bible does not reveal its completeness inside, then you loop back to relying on that first level of divine revelation.
It is a completely circular loop.

You gave no coherent argument outside of divine revelation for what distinguishes canon from non-canon that cannot be applied to actual canon.
Lets take on your Enoch 1 tear down.
>written at a time with no prophets
Except there is no reason to think this if you start from a perspective that all claimed revelatory scripture is equally plausible before further deduction. Which is the rational starting point. There is no reason to think that Enoch 1 couldn't be the end of the OT prophets or the start of the NT period.
>never accepted among the jews
Beyond that it was accepted by many Jews, that is unimportant. Most Jews rejected Jesus and he found support among the Gentiles more than he ever did among his own people. Jews being wrong about scripture is more likely than unlikely.
>book has errors
All books of the Bible contain errors. Luke 1 claims a census that never happened. Genesis claims the Earth was flooded, that never happened.
>not accepted as scripture
This is an appeal to Tradition, which is contrary to your entire argument before.

My point isn't that Enoch 1 is likely to be scripture.
It is that you have no argument as to why it isn't, because you rely on human tradition and cherry pick reasons to discard what is nontraditional.

>>18687815
I would respond to the various errors and blasphemies in this post but instead I demand an answer to what you have continued to dodge: Can you tell me why I should believe the pope has any authority at all? How do you distinguish his claims from the claims of Muhammad?

>>18687815
>you say that divine revelation reveals the exact books of the Bible
Can you show me where I said this? Quote the exact words where I said that. You see, the problem with doubling down on the strawman is that it only exposes you as a complete idiot to everyone reading this who has not likewise drunk the papal kool-aid to the same extent you have. You are a willfully dishonest sophist and it is obvious to everyone.

>>18687837
I think the guy defending the Protestant canon is arguing very poorly. Everything he is saying is just self referential / circular. It's ironic to talk about people drinking the kool-aid while reducing your own argument into "God told me" and that's it

>>18687838
I think you’re a willfully dishonest sophist.

>>18687846
>I think you’re a willfully dishonest sophist.
And I think you’re one of those fideist fellows who feels more vindicated in the veracity of his faith the more fallacious it is. Or maybe you’re just not understanding how flawed your epistemology is. Maybe RZ’s discord server is just filled with broccoli heads teaching you all to argue this way. I do not know. From a Catholic perspective, that Protestantism is forced to resort to the sort of fallacious reasoning you see itt is excellent news.

>>18687916
Rabbinical Zoomer has been refuted and corrected many many times. I wouldn't trust his apologetics.

File: church-of-virgin-mary-at-(...).jpg (124 KB, 866x1390)

124 KB JPG

>>18687270
>You left out the part where Aaron built an *altar* dedicated to the golden calf.

Yes, which was intended to represent Yahweh. It was an altar to God yet through the means of the conduit of a statue. And that was an extreme sin. Paul tells us that in New Testament times, this is still an example of εἰδωλολάτρης.

>they sacrificed to it saying behold the god that lead you out of Egypt

And that God was still Yahweh. Aaron explicitly says so in verse 5. The golden calf was an idol of the true God, but God didn't see that as an ounce better than worshipping something else.

>Aaron may have called this thing by the holy name, but that isn't what Christians do with statuary depicting saints at all.

It's even worse: you're trying to beseech a Saint through a statue and God through the Saint. It's idolatry stacked on top of idolatry.

>Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10 of the offering of *sacrifices* to idols

Catholics do this, what do you think a votive offering is?

>And what's more, of altars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_Our_Lady

>Christians do not offer sacrifices to the saints, but on the behalf of their memories

You pray directly to them. If you were just saying "God, help me be like St. Mary" thya would be someone's memory. Instead you bow in front of an image of Mary and say "Great Queen of Heaven, I beseech you".

Mary is the object of your communication.

>The mutual indwelling guarantees the unity of their souls with his own human soul even while they look forward to the resurrection of the dead.

This reminds me of a Catholic post I saw talking about how Mary saying "they have no wine" was a deep allegory for the quantity of joy in their lives in the Gospel instead of...them being out of wine. You're reading something into the text that isn't there and you can make it say anything this way. Like how John 17:3 is a stock text used by Unitarians to argue Jesus isn't God.

File: only.jpg (102 KB, 960x720)

102 KB JPG

>>18688140
>You're reading something into the text that isn't there and you can make it say anything this way. Like how John 17:3 is a stock text used by Unitarians to argue Jesus isn't God.
Two questions: Which person of the trinity was the Son speaking to there? What does the word only mean?

>>18688486
The Father is the only true God, and the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. They are one and the same God.