[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55trap / b2 / bimbo / cartoons / dempart / islam / jenny / vichan ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Free speech discussion
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | The Gospel |

File: 36cbf8f7a549993⋯.png (113.45 KB, 528x271, 528:271, question.png)

f59e7e  No.1289

This thread got deleted on cuckboard before anyone could reply, but I had already typed something out

f59e7e  No.1290

I'll presume you're talking about their priests, I'm not aware if catholic laity are pedophiles at a higher rate than others.

I would say there are three groups:

>pedo infiltrators who intentionally enter catholic life for access to children

>sexually frustrated priests who were genuine at the start

>sodomites who have been deluded to think their mental illness is actually a call to rcc priesthood, but buckle under temptation (because they're unsaved)

The requirement to be unmarried, rampant corruption, and superstitious reverence by the people against their better judgment are the kindling for this fiasco. At my churches, not only do you need to be a non-adulterer but you MUST be a married man.

1 Tim 3

>2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

>3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

>4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

>5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.


e8d05d  No.1291

>>1290

The catholic argument against that verse is that the priest is "married" to the church.


e923ae  No.1292

>>1291

that might be the laziest catholic workaround I've heard

How can he be married to the church as a prerequisite for the position?

Does he have children with his church?


0adc18  No.1358


5c45cb  No.1360

Paedophilia automatically severs and (inflicts capital punishment on) a priest from the Body of the Church. Read Horrendum Illud Scelus.


5c45cb  No.1361

That the new Impostor Church is lax on paedophilia is irrelevant. It cannot be considered Catholicism.


bac8a1  No.1369

>>1361

are you a sede? is it your claim that your group is "true" catholicism?


5c45cb  No.1372

>>1369

Yes, I am a Sedevacantist. It is not my "claim", it is the logical/Catholic diagnosis of the current situation in which the Church finds itself.


7373c8  No.1373

>>1372

"claim" doesn't imply you're wrong, but I can see how that last post could be read as curt

Is there any possibility in your mind that the notion of a "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" church (as an institution) is a misguided goal in the first place, instead of your present conclusion that it's just been hijacked (even though God has been specially guiding it)?


430a74  No.1411

>>1360

>inflicts capital punishment on

Rome ain't killin' pedos, chief


e8d05d  No.1412

>>1292

I actually just did a bit more research on this verse. In the Catholic douay rheims Bible, there's a note saying that "having one wife" just means that he hasn't had more than one. In fact, Paul didn't have a wife at all yet he was still considered a bishop.


f97795  No.1413

>>1412

Paul was not a bishop


430a74  No.1422

>>1412

The bible never says Paul was a bishop


e8d05d  No.1424

>>1413

>>1422

I did not know that, thanks, the douay rheims site where I read the catholic explanation for that verse used that reasoning in its commentary. So I guess I don't know of a catholic argument against that one.


551dac  No.1425

>>1424

I appreciate you going into enemy territory comrade


e8d05d  No.1426

>>1425

Out of curiosity, which side are you on in this figurative battle? It's kind of ambiguous, or maybe I'm just not reading it right


fc4154  No.1427

>>1426

Non Catholic


e8d05d  No.1429

>>1427

OK that makes a bit of sense then. I always like going into the inter-denominational threads because I'm at a bit of a weird place in my faith right now. I was a cradle catholic, got away from the Church for a while, and came back to it about a year ago. Just a few months ago I started dating this wonderful girl who's a Southern Baptist, and it's made me start to ask questions I never did before since this is one of the first real exposures to something other than catholicism that I've had. I really appreciate that the people ITT aren't just bashing me for being catholic but are politely explaining their views with teaching in mind.


e923ae  No.1430

>>1429

I'm a student at a southern baptist seminary. Is there anything in particular you're needing explanation on?


e8d05d  No.1433

>>1430

I don't think there's anything in particular at the moment, but I appreciate the offer. I've been doing a bit of my own research on it since I don't like the idea of an inter-faith marriage (not that I've been dating her nearly long enough to be even thinking about marriage yet). I find myself agreeing with a lot of the scriptural arguments about sola fide, probably the hardest thing for me to get over is the historical argument. Like I just find it hard to believe that the Church was wrong for 1500 years until the reformation happened and found the true faith. I guess if you could shine some light on that from your perspective that'd be cool.


d6aa07  No.1435

>>1433

>Like I just find it hard to believe that the Church was wrong for 1500 years until the reformation happened and found the true faith. I guess if you could shine some light on that from your perspective that'd be cool.

Happily. You're framing the issue from the catholic perspective, but the idea that "now we have the answer" is not at all a claim of any reformation churches. This is evident in the very word "reform", as in, to restore what was the original. None of the reformers considered any doctrine they articulated to be novel.

A catholic has to articulate it this way because of the doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", meaning you have to be a member of our church in order to be saved (even though catholicism doesn't offer assurance of salvation). This is the natural result of the RCC compounding more and more doctrines that consolidate power for themselves: apostolic succession, sacramentalism, the papacy, culminating in the biggest slap in the face of the Bible of "papal infallibility". In fact, none of these are biblically supported. Any reasonable outside observer should start with apprehension to an institution giving itself more power, just like we would for a state government.

We don't reject church history from the pre-reformation, either. I was required to read St. Gregory the Great's "Pastoral Rule". Calvinists dive deeper into church history than anyone, god bless, even if they get the wrong answer in the end.


e8d05d  No.1438

>>1435

So do you read the church fathers and similar works, not just the Bible?


d6aa07  No.1439

>>1438

yes of course


e8d05d  No.1441

>>1439

That's actually really interesting, I never knew that. I've actually been to a souther Baptist church with my gf twice, and I always just kinda saw it as a "feel-good, Jesus is my best friend, Hillsong Anthem rock party" kind of thing. I didn't know there was actually serious theology underlying it because it didn't look as serious as a catholic mass. That kinda changes things, thanks for helping me out with this. I hope you'll understand that I'm not just going to convert immediately because of one anon, but I'm definitely gonna be praying on this more and seeing what God tells me.


d6aa07  No.1442

>>1441

Sure man I'm happy for you and your gf

I'm not happy about the current state of evangelical worship either. There's a whole controversy of the past 2 decades of the "seeker sensitive" movement that had negative effects on our theology of worship. The whole hillsong, whiny vocals and electric guitar is just really effeminate and frustrating. You should know that the average southern baptist church is more traditional and runs about 60 people in a service, but everything is trending towards these multi-campus megachurches and they tend to have rock style worship.


e8d05d  No.1443

>>1442

So what does a southern Baptist service look like if it's not one of the rock band type ones?


18a71b  No.1444

>>1289

Well people who cant deal with the chaos of life and existence properly will go to extreme lengths to justify themselves where someone who is socially deprived will talk and feel toward things they normally shouldn't, like sex deprived will lust and fuck things they normally shouldn't. Organized religion goes hand in hand with alot of abnormality for obvious reasons.


e8d05d  No.1446

>>1435

I actually just did some more research on the idea of papal infallibility, and found myself siding less with the RCC. They cited scriptures that say things about Peter but they don't say that he was infallible, it's just kind of read into it to support papal infallibility. It never even outright says that Peter is above the others, just that he had a special calling. I need to read my Bible more and do some more praying, but I really appreciate your help with this.


905d72  No.1449

>>1446

Not only was he not a leader or capable of giving a false teaching, Paul rebukes him in the Bible


e8d05d  No.1450

>>1449

The site I was reading had an answer for that one that kind of makes sense but not really. They basically said that Paul's rebuke was toward Peter's action (of refusing to eat with the gentiles) rather than his teaching. Paul even acknowledged that Peter knew what was right but acted wrongly, and so he wasn't teaching in that moment. So yes, it fits the RCC view of papal infallibility because Peter wasn't addressing an issue of faith or morals. However, that doesn't change the fact that the doctrine isn't really based on scripture very well. Another thing they claim is that because Peter wrote two epistles that are part of the new testament, to claim that he is fallible is setting yourself up for failure. But even that argument lines up with (what I believe is) the Baptist teaching, ergo that Peter was guided by the holy spirit during the writing of those letters. But that doesn't automatically mean that he was infallible, or that anyone who succeeds him is infallible, just that he was guided by the holy spirit during those writings.


905d72  No.1451

>>1450

Yeah your second conclusion is right. Every scriptural author was a sinner. The words are perfect in spite of that.


ca88fa  No.1452

>>1443

A more traditional megachurch will have an orchestra and a choir

https://youtu.be/QbsRErROktU?t=2342

A less traditional megachurch will have a rock instrumentation

https://youtu.be/Q3tbcI2dgZc?t=1740

Here's a real traditional service, the piano + songleader is what usually happens at smaller churches

https://youtu.be/OfevnFy4CwQ?t=701


15ec23  No.1453

File: 1d7ef84300a42b5⋯.jpg (399.46 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, calvinist reformers.jpg)

>>1435

>even if they get the wrong answer in the end

It has been foreordained that we would invade this thread and preach God's sovereignty.

Hold on to your hats, boys.


2c3a38  No.1456


9c17af  No.1638

Why does that other board censor literally everything?


19f82d  No.1641

>>1638

Because the moderation sees their role not to help provide a platform for discussion, but to direct people by any means necessary to rome (even disingenuous means)


d9da7d  No.1646

>>1638

All bans lead to Rome.


9c17af  No.2393

>>1638

they think they are right


19fcc2  No.2395

File: 4d047f0b3775173⋯.jpg (105.43 KB, 504x784, 9:14, 1524809104050.jpg)


6a5b8d  No.2398

>>1435

This is weird because church fathers tend to differ a lot from the Reformers that they just end up being figures to pay lip service to rather than serious theological authorities. Even I myself who used to be evangelical(now high church anglican leaning) cant find any satisfactory response to that. The only way is sola scriptura but biblical scholarship moves away from some evangelical and baptist positions quite unanimously from what I seen.


6a5b8d  No.2399

>>1433

I was in your place once. Although I was evangelical. You seem to be on the right track doing research but I would suggest moving away from apologetics and into scholarship. What I found made me less of an evangelical and more high church leaning but I did not find much that support the Roman Catholic position but I really suggest you find it out yourself on this and come to your conclusion.


2763bc  No.2404

File: 660ba8aca676212⋯.png (32.84 KB, 640x916, 160:229, abortion.png)

File: 1f42892eb1e5848⋯.png (268.97 KB, 1518x1320, 23:20, Frequency of prayer by rel….png)

File: f9deabfc50bbcad⋯.png (264.14 KB, 1700x1353, 1700:1353, cathofags.png)

File: 58fb7842a3709e5⋯.png (65.28 KB, 684x600, 57:50, Frequency of reading scrip….png)

File: 90b4186199b6369⋯.png (62.58 KB, 680x600, 17:15, Frequency of reading scrip….png)

>>2399

I'm >>1433 checking back in. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the catholic church teaches a false gospel (mariology, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, confession to a priest, salvation by works, etc.). Right now I'd say I fall under the Baptist umbrella. We're supposed to judge a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of evangelical churches is pretty clearly good when you look at the data (in America anyway).


1d3a9a  No.2405

>>2404

Praise God for your discernment. What sort of church are you going to now?


2763bc  No.2411

>>2405

There's a church network in Ohio called H2O, I go to the plant they have on my campus. From what I gather they're pretty much Baptist or southern Baptist in theology. It's a nice little group, the contemporary worship music is quite a bit different than the catholic hymns I grew up with but it's not that bad after looking at Psalm 150 and realizing it's biblically supported. I have yet to be disappointed by any of the sermons, the pastors are both pretty solid.


3dc7dd  No.2412

>>2411

>but it's not that bad after looking at Psalm 150 and realizing it's biblically supported

Ex-Orthodox here. Never did understand the "instruments are the devil!" mentality in light of said Psalm. Not to mention that the emphasis on being non emotional when doing readings, in retrospect, was kind've comically ridiculous when one is reading stuff like Psalm 100 in a robotic monotone chanting voice.


d14fc0  No.2413

>>2412

Instruments are idolatry because God didn't command us to use instruments


3dc7dd  No.2414

>>2413

So Psalm 150 condones idolatry?


1d3a9a  No.2415

>>2413

That's not the point of the regulative principle


2763bc  No.2416

>>2413

It literally says to praise God with the harp, lyre, cymbal, and a couple other instruments.


2763bc  No.2417

>>2412

>Ex-Orthodox

Out of curiosity, what made you switch, and to which denomination?


3dc7dd  No.2419

>>2417

To summarize:

-Fed up with the Pharisaical self-righteousness and corruption that permeated the upper echelons of the leadership, as well as the laity.

-Marion, Saint and angel "veneration" just came off as idolatry (especially in the prayers describing Mary as "saving", "protecting", "guiding" etc.), and felt distracting from a relationship with Christ, no matter how much I tried to rationalize it.

-The more I read up on scripture and other viewpoints, the more that the crypto-works based salvation Orthodoxy endorses just doesn't make sense (i.e. Salvation is by faith! ….. but don't forget to take communion on a regular basis; your sins are not forgiven unless you confess them to a priest; pray at these specific times of the day out of your prayer book and make sure you do a good job of it; say the Jesus Prayer so many times in a row that it basically becomes a vain repetition due to anything becoming basically white noise if you say it a bunch of times in a row no matter how holy the actual words are; and don't forget to do a lot of good works to compensate in the event that you die without being able to confess all you sins to a priest otherwise the angels guiding you to heaven won't be able to protect you from the demons who want to drag you down to Hell on the way up… and so forth.)

-Just utterly unbiblical doublethink tomfoolery, like this for example:

>Fasting is not required for salvation, it's just training to draw you closer to God.

>But according to a church canon, if you break a fast you can be denied communion.

>Communion is required for salvation.

>Also, amongst the list of offenses that can get you dragged to Hell by the toll-house demons: breaking a fast (or even just eating tasty food. That's right, if your food tastes good, you might be in danger of Hell. Don't believe me? Check out the fourth toll house of gluttony):

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses

-Even if the toll houses are taken as just a metaphor, the concept of demons coming to get you in the air with, accusations and tests of your works, as the angels try to take you up to heaven is documented in the liturgical records of Orthodoxy, and even in early accounts of life after death by Saints and figures both in the Byzantine and Latin churches and pre-schism church history (see Seraphim Rose's work "The Soul After Death.")

-Even Orthodox churches that don't subscribe to this view at least subscribe to the concept of "The Particular Judgement." Basically after you die, you are put into either a temporary state of Heaven or Hell, until The Dread Judgement when souls and bodies are resurrected for their final sentencing. While a soul is in the temporary Hell state, it can be "prayed out of" this Hell state, and end up being switched over to the temporary Heaven state, and be saved at The Dread Judgement. Russian churches take this concept even further with a 40 day prayer ritual for the dead i.e. departed soul is free for about 3 days to wander about, then is shown visions of Heaven and Hell, then is put in either of these areas temporarily until The Dread Judgement. During the 40 days after a person's death, prayers are to be performed in regular intervals for the departed soul (3 days, then 9 days, then 40 days, IIRC off the top of my head.)

-Bottom line: the Orthodox conception of the afterlife is basically Purgatory: Orthodox Edition.


3dc7dd  No.2420

>>2419

continued:

Between Mary as intercessor between man and Jesus, and Jesus as intercessor between Mary and God; the crypto paganism of saint "veneration" along with the aforementioned; and the heavy works based salvation….it all adds up to the following subtext: Jesus Christ's death on the cross, in terms of tearing down the division between God and man, was not enough. Even in the prayer books and prayer guides, there's this sense that you've got to approach God in exactly the right way, and even then, he's far away, and will listen to you better if you go through Mary and the Saints. Not a personal God who you can talk to from the heart at any time.

When I started to pray to God from the heart again, instead of reading from a glorified script, He began to help me overcome the sin self-defilement that had dogged me into despair for a long time. My Spiritual Father at the time told me it would be overcome with a lot of prayer and fasting, due to this sin directly linked with the appetite (i.e. starve yourself, and you won't feel lust!) Addiction recovery programs, on the other hand, promote the HALT acronym to remember major triggers for acting out on an addiction (Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired.) Some of my worst urge attacks that led to me cracking and acting out were on days that I ate like a bird.

Hmmm…. it's as if praying to God in a direct, personal, and humble manner, instead of going through Mary or Saints or starvation, or prayer ropes/beads, or sacraments, or all the other hokey pokey nonsense is what God meant for us to do all along! It's almost as if… God alone is enough; that Jesus's sacrifice and blood on the cross is enough. When I think of the Orthodox approach to things, I think of this passage:

>Colossians 2:18–23

>18 Let no one condemF you by delighting in ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm. Such people are inflated by empty notions of their unspiritual mind. 19 He doesn’t hold on to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, grows with growth from God.

>20 If you died with Christ to the elements of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: 21 “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to what is destined to perish by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines. 23 Although these have a reputation for wisdom by promoting self-made religion, false humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value in curbing self-indulgence.

As for which denomination: I'm currently getting ready to visit a few churches and see for myself, as well as continue to study theology further. Right now, I'm heavily leaning towards some variety of Baptist, whether it be Southern, Free Will, or Independent.


2763bc  No.2421

>>2420

Sounds like you went through the orthodox version of exactly what I went through when moving away from catholicism. I hope you find the church that God wants you to be a part of. If you haven't read the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM2000), I'd recommend doing that for a good starter on the southern Baptist convention.


3dc7dd  No.2423

>>2421

Thank you for your kind words. I've also read the BFM2000, and plan on reading more as well. God Bless you and keep you.


1d3a9a  No.2424

>>2420

If it helps let me clarify about those Baptist groups

The SBC is a convention that meets once a year. Southern Baptist churches only have connection for the purpose of sharing resources (it's called the cooperative program), about three quarters going towards missions. There isn't an authority structure that compromises the autonomy of the local church, and the bfm is deliberately inclusive of the nuances of theology among Baptists (mostly the reformed vs "traditional") debate. In this sense a church cooperating with the SBC is independent. The convention model was decided in the 19th century as opposed to the "mission society" model, where unaffiliated groups would each compete to raise funds for their efforts.

An "independent Baptist" and a "southern Baptist" can have the exact same theology, and usually they do. You really don't come to an intellectual, theological conclusion to be a Southern Baptist like you do to become a calvinist, it's more like choosing a college. You know there are other colleges who also do a good job, but this one has the program you want and the football team is on a streak.

A "free will" Baptist is almost a different tradition. They reject eternal security and see foot washing as a third ordinance.

Anyway I hope I'm not just repeating things for you that you already know. You're using exactly the right method by reading confessional documents and visiting the churches.


6a5b8d  No.2425

>>2404

Those stats dont mean much to me. Sure Evangelicals are better when it comes to being more conservative and reading scripture more but most important is, do they understand it properly? From my experience, not really. There's also a good reason for that disparity, because of how Catholicism is handling itself for the past number of decades. When you compromise to the world, that is the inadvitable result. Which is why I weep for the Episcopals and Church of England.

That said my reasons for moving away from Baptists and evangelicals is clear, it isnt biblical at all. I am willing to grant Lutherans as more biblical in this respect since their sacramental theology makes sense but ironically, biblical eucharistic descriptions are what moved me to a more Anglican direction ultimately. Because something like a eucharistic anamesis will only work if some aspect of Catholic "sacrifice of Mass" is presupposed which they and Evangelicals are unanimous in rejecting. They are right on real presence though. It will take a lot to explain other aspects so I leave this as an example of why I am not evangelical.


1d3a9a  No.2426

>>2425

You're making an error in assuming evangelicals aren't making these theological decisions on principle.


6a5b8d  No.2427

>>2426

I never said they dont. My point is while they honour the bible more, they ironically dont understand it. It's possible to want to know the truth about something but come out mistaken due to ignorance or having the wrong presuppositions. That was me before I started exploring biblical scholarship to know more about New Testament background and theology and church history.

And of course for Catholics on that front, an extreme ecumenist approach is what led to that decay. Because stats of more traditional leaning ones show something more closer to the Evangelicals in the pew survey.


6a5b8d  No.2428

https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/05/an-undesigned-coincidence-involving.html?m=1

I thought I share this here since her steps of moving to Sacramentalism away from memorialist and from what I seen, even Reformed views of the eucharist is similar to mine. The main difference is in my case, John 6 hardly came into view but 1Corinthians and the strong connections between the eucharist and Jewish Passover. She was even raised Baptist, although I wasnt but I attended Baptist churches before


3dc7dd  No.2429

>>2424

Thank you for your insight. Some of this I did know, but quite a bit I did not (particularly the more confederate nature of the SBC.)

My major concern with Independent Baptists is that I've read/heard that some congregations under this designation follow Landmarkism/Baptist Bride Theology and/or KJV-onlyism. Both make me a bit leery.

I find myself wanting to give Free Will Baptists a shot due to, at this point, having some Arminian sympathies, but am ultimately finding myself wrestling between Arminianism and Calvinism, which is something that ultimately God is going to have to sort out for me as I read and learn more.


4c58be  No.2430

>>2429

Read more. It will sort itself out in time. Now I am a papist


1d3a9a  No.2431

>>2429

I'm not sure that it's true these positions are more common in the average IFB church over the average SBC church. They're also not so wild in their academic forms, most landmarkists just see that as the most appropriate theory of Baptist origins, and most KJV churches see it as the preferred translation not a specially ordained one.


4c58be  No.2432

>>2431

How can Landmarkism even work? Like most of the groups claimed by them are usually gnostic tier or more Catholic than what Baptists would allow in the case of groups like the Donatisrs


154f8a  No.2435

File: fe18b6e6fda86de⋯.jpg (1.2 MB, 4656x1500, 388:125, The_Trail_of_Blood.jpg)

>>2432

It's essentially Catholic "apostolic succession" for Baptists. I don't find it correct, but it's not so weak as to dismiss offhand.

If it turns out donatists can't be identified with Baptists, then they're not part of the line. We might have more historical knowledge of them now than Carroll did.

There's a different successionist view that just says there has always been churches practicing believers baptism, but there's no urgency to find an unbroken line.

It's really all a pretty complicated argument.

As a side note, we were concerned about overzealous landmarkism in IFB churches, but it was actually begun in the SBC. Carroll was brother to the founder of Southwestern Seminary and wrote "trail of blood" there.


4c58be  No.2437

>>2435

This isnt something I looked into much detail apart from what some IFBs told me when I talked to them on how they view the history of Christianity. Given what is now known though, it would be something that I just cant take seriously


056136  No.2445

>>1290

1 Tim 3

>2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

>3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

>4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

>5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Epic, thank you.


d59a4f  No.2452

>>1289

Abstinence leads to deep perversion like homosexuality. Preists arent allowed to marry, so their desire would be perverted.


0e1f0f  No.2460

Catholics are pedophiles because the abuse of children is a sacrament in Babylonian mysticism, which is the actual religion of catholicism


0e1f0f  No.2461

>>1290

>I would say there are three groups:

>

>>pedo infiltrators who intentionally enter catholic life for access to children

>

>>sexually frustrated priests who were genuine at the start

>

>>sodomites who have been deluded to think their mental illness is actually a call to rcc priesthood, but buckle under temptation (because they're unsaved)

You're naive. The rape and murder of children is a necessary sacrament in Babylonian mystery religion. The catholic church is just paganism veiled in Christianity, which is obvious once you consider all the symbolism they use. Their clergy and buildings are literally covered with the symbols of pagan gods.


0e1f0f  No.2462

>>1358

The mods at that forum are catholics and they delete any valid criticism of catholicism


0e1f0f  No.2463

>>1426

The fight between catholics and protestants isn't a fight between Christians. Christians aren't devoted to any religious institution and will fellowship with other Christians regardless of the label applied to them. There are real Christians in both the catholic and protestant churches even though the churches themselves are utterly corrupt.


d90d27  No.2466

>>2463

That's a lame argument. Am I not allowed to use a descriptor of my theology?


244494  No.2475

Man this thread got real bad


1b415e  No.2485

>>2466

use what you want. However, the prot vs cath argument isn't a Christian argument. There isn't one side that's true christians and another side that's false.


cf74c7  No.2492

File: 94bfeb1caef9010⋯.jpg (8.51 KB, 322x202, 161:101, 1541556312850.jpg)


430a74  No.2494

>>2485

Wrong. Rome is a false church with a false gospel and God commands all Christians to come out of her


d90d27  No.2495

>>2485

Do you not believe that Protestants and Catholics hold mutually exclusive views?


075e81  No.2501

>>2494

>Rome is a false church with a false gospel

True, but so are the protestant churches. They aren't blatant satanism like Catholicism, but they are still corrupt


075e81  No.2502

>>2495

I understand that many of their views are mutually exclusive, what I deny is that one of those churches is right and the other is wrong. They are both wrong. Catholicism is Babylonian mysticism and modern protestantism makes the bible into an idol and has been made blind and corrupt because of it.


dd245c  No.2505

The church is run by the Jew and as such most priests are actually Jewish pedofiles, jews have a rule of kike pedo omerta whereby they claim they are catholic if caught.abusing christian children, all pedofiles are either faggots or kikes or faggot kikes.


dd245c  No.2506

>>2495

Beside the point, its all JEWISH MYSTICISM. Including Islam as the Qur'an was written by the jew also.

>>2495


cdc686  No.2508

>>2502

ok you're not holding a "common ground" position, you believe a third position is correct. Who do you associate with? Who has it right in your judgment?


430a74  No.2514

>>2501

>so are the protestant churches

No, they aren't


9aa876  No.2541

>>1289

Most pedophiles use their lifestyle as a way to hide their actions so long as they aren't hardcore autists.

It's why you commonly see pedos and sexual deviants in positions of power. Recently it was discovered that the Original Nightstalker was a police officer and I believe this decade BTK was discovered to be a town priest.

In short, these people aren't true believers in the faith. They are using it as a cover so people won't suspect them, no different from any other disguise.


a70450  No.2591

>>2541

Why does it dispraportionately happen in catholicism compared to other denominations then?


b6dd5f  No.3289

Catholic Church is evil


9c17af  No.5501

>>1289

Based


cb8e51  No.5507

>>1291

dae think that's queer as a three dollar bill?


cb8e51  No.5508

>>1422

>>1413

The Apostles were the first bishops. Yes, husband of one wife strictly means at most one, but the rest of it clearly implies that marriage should be the usual case.


cb8e51  No.5509

>>1433

It wasn't wrong for 1500 years, Catholicism went astray when they banned clergy from marriage and declared the Pope infallible with supreme political authority. It was wrong for a few hundred years before the Reformation, but the Reformation was also wrong about a lot of stuff, because the Reformation was a bunch of disaffected people.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55trap / b2 / bimbo / cartoons / dempart / islam / jenny / vichan ]