>Vatican II proclaimed Allah as God
>""""""saint"""""" Pope John II kissed the Quran
>Current Pope is a cuckold Marxist Freemason
>Tells faithful to welcome Muslim refugees without converting them
>Is against proselytizing (in direct violation of Jesus' command to spread the Gospel)
>Says Jews don't need to accept Jesus
>Says atheists are saved
>Says gays are fine
>Promotes Ecumenism and performs Church services with demonic religions such as Voodoo and Brazilian Ubanda
I mean without even looking at Medieval history, I think these are clear signs that the RCC is not the Church of Jesus Christ which he said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it.
And again seeing as Protestantism is a modern invention, that leaves Orthodoxy as the only canditate for the true Church of Christ.
Yes, the Orthodox Church is the true one, but the tone of this thread is more /pol/ than /his/, even if it is religious.
The thing is all Orthodox countries are debt ridden corrupt shitholes with third world living standards. So the answer to your question is no.
>>1161727
The True faith is what the Mother Assemble was under James.
>>1161735
>Economic prosperity is a good indication of God's favor
Huh?
>>1161735
>>1161735
>debt ridden corrupt shitholes with third world living standards
Ever heard of Catholic Latin America? Let's not forget that Catholic Portugal and Spain would be third world shitholes if they were not immediately next to developed countries and the EU didn't want them in so badly, and even then they suck.
>>1161746
It is
Good christians have peaceful and wealthy nations by virtue of being devout if your country is shitty then God is not pleased with you
Here is an Orthodox FAQ and reading list, OP, you can use it for what you need to: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
I put a decent effort into crafting the arguments contained therein
>>1161727
Schismatics are only slightly better than heretics. So no, not the true faith
>Pope says gay marriage is from satan
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pope-francis-same-sex-marriage-move-father-lies-total-rejection-gods-law
>Pope Francis speaks against Gay adoption
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/pope-francis-shocked-by-gay-adoption-urges-bishop-to-speak-against-it-boldly/
>Compares trans rights to nuclear arms race
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-compares-arguments-for-transgender-rights-to-nuclear-arms-race-10061223.html
>Pope Francis says that there's no salvation outside the Church
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/
>He excommunicates an Australian priest supporting gay marriage and women clergy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-greg-reynolds_n_3983059.html
>Pope Francis is against gender theory and for traditional gender roles
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-gender-theory-problem-not-solution
>Pope is against abortion
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/23/pope-francis-on-abortions-innocent-victims-its-wrong-to-look-the-other-way-or-remain-silent/
>He Encourages the use of force against ISIS
http://www.businessinsider.com/pope-francis-endorses-use-of-force-against-isis-in-iraq-2014-8
>Pope Francis is against lukewarm "faith"
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-off-the-cuff-to-priests-religious-indifference-makes-god-vomit-69700/
>The Pope is misquoted often
http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-times-pope-francis-was-misquoted-132679/
>The Pope Rebukes Communist Cross
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/bolivia/11729834/Pope-rebukes-Bolivias-President-Evo-Morales-for-gift-of-crucifix-mounted-on-hammer-and-sickle.html
>>1161755
That's not how it works. Have you read the Book of Job? The Devil, if anything, gives true Christians the hardest time, and he runs the show here so he can do that.
I was raised Orthodox but now I'm an atheist.
I never liked Orthodoxies emphasis on asceticism and "mimicking" Jesus.
Protestantism and the problem of predestination is much more interesting.
>>1161727
No.
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846:
>“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”
But remember:
>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
>>1161755
Are you a protestant? Because the majority of Catholic nations suck economically. Moreover modern economy is based on usury ("interest") which goes directly against Christian morality. If anything it succeeds to the extent that is anti-Christian (and pro-Jewish, that is, pro-usury).
>>1161757
Thanks bro. I'll take a look.
>>1161757
Shillantine, do you ever leave your house?
>>1161750
Latin Americans are shitskin non Europeans. Greeks/Ukrainians/Russians/Romanians/Moldova/Serbia etc, have no excuse
>>1161761
>Pope Francis: We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful.
>Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Pape/INTERVIEW-Pope-Francis-2016-05-17-1200760633
>A Christian brother and sister from Syria felt blessed to have been among the dozen refugees selected to start a new life in Italy — but now say their savior, Pope Francis, abandoned them on a Greek island, according to a report.
>Their dreams were shattered, though, when they were informed the following day that they would not be traveling to Rome. Instead, three Muslim families were taken.
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/pope-francis-reneges-on-offer-to-take-in-christian-refugees/
>>1161771
How is it possible for an Ecumenical Council and several Popes to proclaim heresies, worship at a Mosque, etc. and the gates of Hades to have NOT prevailed against them?
>>1161777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvjmveYw0tE
>>1161771
I've already addressed this at length in my FAQ. No one who reads Scripture and Peter's place in it, could honestly believe it's anything like the "sun and moon allegory" describes.
>>1161789
It's a wordplay and you know it.
Admit it already.
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
>>1161764
The devil is trapped in hell
He can only for men people with gods permission
And Job was a jew
>>1161731
who knows why the Virgin Mary throughout history has converted heathens to catholicism and not to orthodoxy. Up there in heaven they must not have gotten your message that Orthodoxy is the true faith. The capital of Orthodoxy is islamic now, think about that.
>>1161777
>which is partly drawn from Islam.
He says it himself. As usual you see what you want to see
the second one I know for sure it wasn't responsibility of the Pope that they were not taken. I think that you Orthodox are showing your true colors lately, you are not much better than the heretic protestants. trying to slander Catholicism to convert others because your faith isn't true.
>>1161785
>Sedevacantism
You realize this is an extremely minority view among Catholics and almost non-existent among clergymen which are supposedly the successors of the apostles? Why should people believe that you, and not the Holy See, speak for the Catholic Church?
>>1161789
>No one who reads Scripture and Peter's place in it
Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
Both ancient Israel and heaven are a kingdom. It is hardly justifiable that god would want an ethnocentric "democratic" church like the orthodox one
>>1161797
I think it is, yeah. But that doesn't change that Jerome doesn't, and his position is intentionally misrepresented, and what "rock" in this context means, doesn't mean "ruler of the world and infallible master of dogma", as can see from Peter's own letters referring to himself as merely a "fellow presbyter". All the Apostles are rocks and pillars of faith, every authority Christ gives to Peter, he gives to the rest of them. But I've already argued extensive for this in the FAQ, so you know it all. Peter being a rock doesn't make him Caesar and High Pontiff (all believers are pontiffs, and only Christ is the High Pontiff). Most certainly, Peter is not a successor to David, and David is a type of Christ, not Peter.
>>1161803
She stands on a snake-skinned moon? That's highly symbolic! The snake represents Satan and the moon Islam?
>>1161785
Being the Bishop of Rome obviously doesn't make you anything special compared to other bishops
>>1161740
This.
Everyone in this thread was too busy blowing smoke up each others asses to understand this.
>>1161818
We support Papal Primacy perhaps, but that is very distinct from Papal Supremacy, and it is not dogma, it is the position of primus inter pares which the See of Rome is entitled to, under the condition she is in the Orthodox Church--she obviously isn't entitled to it in the event that she leads a schism away from the true Church, in which case the position of primus inter pares passed to Constantinople, but that is not dogma either (see A8 of this FAQ). Now to address why the Catholic theology of Papal Supremacy isn't just heretical it borders on blasphemy, take a look at this: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386119&language=en Do you think Saint Peter would have accepted this? How do you think he would feel if someone said he should declare himself Ceasar of the world and Christ's official and only successor?
cont
>>1161835
This idea has zero precedence in the early Church--many of the Church Fathers are taken out of context to support Papal Supremacy, when the Church Fathers did not support Papal Supremacy at all. Let me give you an example from Saint Jerome, as quoted by a Catholic Site (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy): '"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).' Now take a look at the quote in context: first of all, Saint Jerome is responding to Jovian, who says chastity is of no importance, and Jovian argued that if chastity were important, then Saint John, who was a virgin, would have been made the rock, not Peter, who was not a virgin. Saint Jerome is not presenting his own opinion about Peter being the rock, he is actually responding to Jovian voicing that opinion (indeed, if we look as Saint Jerome's commentary on Matthew, he says, on Matthew 16:18, that Christ is referring to HIMSELF when he says "on this rock", see Ephesians 2:20).
cont
>>1161838
Now let's remove the ellipsis and see the full quote: "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We may be sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm) Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it?
cont
>>1161839
Here is a more exhaustive coverage of examples such as this, please read it and have your eyes opened: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html Isn't it clear enough there is something wrong with calling the Pope "Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church", when the term "Supreme Pontiff" (High Priest), in the Christian sense, refers exclusively to Christ? Pontiffs aren't even a clerical office in Christianity, presbyters (word is the same in Latin) are. The title "pontiff" is only applied to Christians in the Vulgate when it is talking about Christ, or the universal priesthood of believers.
>>1161735
Stop lying and look at all those cucked western Euro countries.
Also, not their fault that communsim took over Eastern Europe and some other chatolic countries.
And why it started there was because the jews supported the communist groups in Russia at the time.
>>1161830
>>1161823
she has always been represented crushing the head of the serpent. For instance, one of the differences between false and true marian apparitions, is that the devil cannot replicate the Virgin Mary's feet.
The serpent symbology refers to the book of Genesis
The moon symbology refers to the book of Revelation
If you want to know more about marian apparitions and how the Church distinguishes between the real ones and the fake ones, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhabDczs0uE
Constantine will never be able to explain why his "chuch" is all but universal, and one.
>>1161835
>she obviously isn't entitled to it in the event that she leads a schism away from the true Church, in which case the position of primus inter pares passed to Constantinople
This is some incredible delusion right here. Your primus inter pares is an islamic city. Can't you see the irony of this?
>Do you think Saint Peter would have accepted this
If you accept that the Catholic Church has the keys, then you have to accept that the Church has the power to define dogma. Your whole argument stands on your refusal to accept legitimate authority, literally protestant-tier.
>How do you think he would feel if someone said he should declare himself Ceasar of the world and Christ's official and only successor?
So now you are stramanning propaganda like protestants do? Shame on you.
I am not going to read all your copypasta. The Pope does not have "supremacy" in the sense you use it. The magisterium, and not the Pope as a person, can define dogma. They can because of the infallibility that is derived from having the Holy Spirit stop us whenever we are going to teach mistakes or deviation from true doctrine and true dogma as willed by God.
God is perfect and absolute, his will cannot be relativized, and therefore the Orthodox lose authenticity since they don't have a way to be 100% correct in their dogma and their doctrine.
>>1161818
>democratic" church like the orthodox one
Our Church is more like a confederation of autonomous dioceses, it's neither "democratic" nor "anti democratic". Bishops are elders and administrate and teach and pass on teachings, just like elders (which is what "presbyter literally means, and office initially the same as bishop), who are chosen by other elders according to their wisdom. We see the idea of having any high priest as sacrilege, even blasphemy: Christ abolished the priesthood (that is, pontiffs, not presbyters) as a distinction institution, and made all believers priests, only Christ is the high priest. "Pontiff" is an abolished office, it has no place in the Church, and it is never a title Peter would use for himself.
>>1161855
>The Pope is infallible
>unless he makes a mistake!
Really?
>>1161857
>Your primus inter pares is an islamic city. Can't you see the irony of this?
Rome was a pagan city when Peter was bishop there, wasn't it?
We can change our city or even abolish the role, it's not dogma to us.
>If you accept that the Catholic Church has the keys
The keys are to bind and lose, they are the keys to absolve and excommunicate. You don't have any "power to define dogma". Dogma is either defined properly, or it's not; dogma is neither more nor less than what Christ passed down, including the UNCHANGING understanding of what that is; new terms are used and ONLY used to defend the UNCHANGING teachings from those who seek to CHANG their understanding.
>>1161761
No need to start lying chatocuck
>>1161875
*loose
>>1161860
watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
There are lots of things that weren't set in stone at the dawn of the Church, that does not mean you can fill the gaps with whatever you see fit.
>a confederation of autonomous dioceses, it's neither "democratic" nor "anti democratic"
How can you be both democratic and not democratic? Your damage control is laughable.
The Catholic Church has a hierarchical order, but it is not a dictatorship. The conditions for the definition of dogma are very unique to occur, and whenever there has been definition of dogma, it has always been stuff that the Church believe either way.
Just like you can choose to believe in the assumption to Heaven or the perpetual Virginity of Mary, but you don't definte it as dogma because you have no authority and cohesion, we believe in it and make it dogma. We make it dogma because God does not give his truth as opinions, he gives it as facts.
>>1161879
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/pope-gay-washington/
>>1161882
>muh pope
>>1161862
>"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic..."
>heretic
>>1161875
>Rome was a pagan city when Peter was bishop there, wasn't it?
You are ignoring the fact that now it isn't
>We can change our city or even abolish the role, it's not dogma to us.
Of course not, you just change your mind about what is true and what isn't based on your feelings, not in pursuit of truth. If you can't see how you are protestant-tier in your thinking you are quite blind.
>UNCHANGING understanding of what that is
Whatever we defined as dogma was always what the Church has always believed. Just because you became a schismatics and rejected part of the Church beliefs for your own pride and interest, does not mean things have changed. The Chuch has always evolved with time, there are lots of terms Peter didn't use in his letters and that even you now use.
We are guided by the Holy Spirit because we are in the Church founded by Christ. You upend this and protestantize the meaning of having the Holy Spirit.
>>1161883
>>1161881
I've seen it
No, all dogma was passed on by Christ directly to his Apostles. Anything added to that is heresy. You can added canons, but these are things that can be changed (what the RCC calls "discipline"). Dogma, however, cannot be changed, nothing is to be added, nothing to be subtracted; it is, and always was, in stone.
>How can you be both democratic and not democratic?
Most of our day-to-day administration is done by lay people, and our saints veneration goes though lay popularity before canon approval. We also don't think bishops are infallible. On the other hand, all Sacraments and councils are conducted by bishops (in the former case, mainly be priests, whose office is only valid for their bishop), and bishops are appointed mainly be other bishops.
>>1161883
> daily Mail
confirmed retard
>>1161778
PR from a Pope that gets slandered either way by the world because the world is against us =/= dogma
The doctrine and the dogma haven't changed, so the gates of Hades have not prevailed.
Also see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcge7eppKo4
>>1161881
>Just like you can choose to believe in the assumption to Heaven or the perpetual Virginity of Mary,
These are both dogma to us, by the way. The criterion of whether or not something is dogma is whether or not the Liturgy teaches it.
>>1161902
>dont want to face that his leader is a cuck
Confirmed retard
To the christfags ITT, I have 3 questions:
Do you fap? How often? Do you feel guilty?
>>1161890
>The Chuch has always evolved with time,
Dogma has never evolved with us, and never shall, and never should.
> there are lots of terms Peter didn't use in his letters and that even you now use
These terms were coined specifically and ONLY to defend Peter's understanding of dogma, the same understanding passed on by Christ's; these terms are NOT for "developing" dogma's understanding, but for DEFENDING the exact, same, unchanging understanding, from attacks. We see the use of terms in exactly the OPPOSITE way you do: you see them as useful for "evolving" dogma, we see them as useful strictly and only for PREVENTING dogma from "evolving"
>>1161727
Jan Pedał Drugi: Demon, Pedofil, Sługa Szatana.
>>1161913
I don't masturbate, but I have and it made me feel awful
>>1161901
You posted a video from a Sedevacantist site so I assumed (wrongly). Nevertheless you seem to be critical of Pope which is not lawful for a Catholic.
>>1161905
Vatican II says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God (heresy) and Pope John II kissed the Quran (apostasy). Nobody is making this stuff up.
>>1161921
>you seem to be critical of Pope
I am critical of heresy and so I will not stay quiet and smile while the Pope praises Islam and promotes religious indifferentism.
>>1161920
Why?
>>1161930
Because it's wrong.
>>1161899
>No, all dogma was passed on by Christ directly to his Apostles.
Of course, and we have not invented new one, only codified into Church doctrine what apostolic succession has always passed down through the generations. You have lots of things that you can choose to believe or not in the Orthodox Church. So what is that? Dogma or not? If it does come from Jesus how can you choose not to believe it? You are contradicting yourself here.
By making by decree dogma what the Church always believed through apostolic succession we only make a service to Christ, as opposed to leaving grey areas like you do. Truth is, you would define dogma in a precise way too if you could, but you can't do it because of a lack of hierarchical structure and ethno-centrism.
>We also don't think bishops are infallible
We don't think that either. It is the magisterium inspired by the Holy Spirit, that in very particular occasions is stopped from teaching deviation from the dogma. People are fallible and we never said they aren't.
>Vatican II says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God (heresy)
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/01/07/why-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god/
> and Pope John II kissed the Quran (apostasy)
You are like little children. Showing respect for someone else's religion in an official visit does not mean being an apostate.
Why aren't you Deus Vult LARPers in Syria killing apostate muslims right now? You are fucking ridiculous and delusional.
>>1161917
>Dogma has never evolved with us, and never shall, and never should.
you are twisting my words. I never said dogma has changed. I am only saying that the Church has changed in its understanding of the divine revelation. How many times is the word trinity used in the Bible? And yet it was always held as a belief. Honestly, don't damage control about this, you know exactly what I mean.
>>1161917
>These terms were coined specifically and ONLY to defend Peter's understanding of dogma
There is only ONE understanding of dogma, and it lies with the Catholic Church. You reject it only based on the fact that you refuse to follow legitimate authority. It is your pide speaking, and nothing else.
> We see the use of terms in exactly the OPPOSITE way you do: you see them as useful for "evolving" dogma, we see them as useful strictly and only for PREVENTING dogma from "evolving"
Nice strawmen and projections. We have always held and alway will hold the same doctrine and dogma. Actually there is pretty much almost nothing left to define as "official dogma" in the Church, so this whole critique is literally stupid
>>1161775
>Ukrainians/Russians/Romanians/Moldova/Serbia etc, have no excuse
communism
greeks are the only inexusably shit one there
>>1161939
>You have lots of things that you can choose to believe or not in the Orthodox Church. So what is that? Dogma or not? If it does come from Jesus how can you choose not to believe it?
Those are called "theologoumena", and no, none of them come from Christ, that is why they are not dogma.
>By making by decree dogma
You can't "make a degree dogma", dogma is literally and only what Christ passed on. Everyone but Christ himself can only WITNESS dogma, they can't decree it.
>Truth is, you would define dogma in a precise way too if you could,
No, actually, we believe dogma is best understood mystically and should only be defined strictly when absolutely necessary. To put it in words is always a drastic simplification.
>I am only saying that the Church has changed in its understanding of the divine revelation.
The understanding of revelation is part of revelation.
>How many times is the word trinity used in the Bible? And yet it was always held as a belief.
The term "trinity" is not any new understanding of that belief, it is in fact the opposite, a term used to prevent the unchanged understanding from "evolving"
>>1161949
>There is only ONE understanding of dogma
One "developing" understanding of dogma, you mean?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
This is literally applying CURRENT YEAR to the understanding of dogma
>>1161931
Who said so?
>>1161973
Christ said lust outside of marriage is wrong.
I recently read old testament and i could'nt believe my eyes.
How you christcucks accept those jewish shenanigans as word of God?
>>1161958
>>1161958
>Those are called "theologoumena", and no, none of them come from Christ, that is why they are not dogma.
so you only accept and believe in what Christ passed down through Apostolic Succession, but you don't believe in all of it because it does not come from Christ.
Good job refusing yourself
>You can't "make a degree dogma", dogma is literally and only what Christ passed on. Everyone but Christ himself can only WITNESS dogma, they can't decree it.
You know exactly what I mean. That dogma always existed, we simply make it present to all adherent to the Church that they have to stick to it. This is is even more true in this times in which everybody wants to come up with a different interpretation of everything. I mean, you are contradicting yourself because first you critisize the Catholic Church for "change and improve the understanding of dogma", but then you complain when we make it set in stone so that nobody can misinterpret it and change it. As I have said dogma is and always will be what we have always believe, nothing different, nothing new.
>No, actually, we believe dogma is best understood mystically
So dogma is best understood according to your personal feelings and thoughts, got it
>The understanding of revelation is part of revelation.
Sure, but the point is that calling the trinity "Trinity" neither improves nor changes the doctrine of it which was always believed and always passed down through apostolic succession.
>The term "trinity" is not any new understanding of that belief, it is in fact the opposite, a term used to prevent the unchanged understanding from "evolving"
Exactly, and that is exactly the point of setting as dogmas in Church doctrine things that we always believed by the Church, but people had different interpretations about. Making dogma what was always believed only means to reach the fullness of truth as passwed down to us throught apostolic succession, so that nobody can change it, become schismatic or heretic.
>>1161939
>https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/01/07/why-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god/
>As the Church declared in Nostra Aetate (1965): “[Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men. . . .Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
>1965
This is pure heresy, do you realize that? The non-Vatican II Popes are disgusted by this.
>>1161803
>the Virgin Mary throughout history has converted heathens to catholicism and not to orthodoxy
This is actually a very powerful argument. I'd like to hear an orthodox response to that.
>>1161976
He didn't.
http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
>>1161939
>Showing respect for someone else's religion
Kissing their book that denies Christ.
>>1161989
>muh vatican II
there was no dogma defined in the Vatican II. The problems of the Church nowadays stem from the Western world having abandoned religion and christian values. If you build a Church in hell, how easy would it be its life and managing? The orthodox have it a lot easier in this considering that they had communism and therefore the average person has not been contaminated by corporate media and liberalism. It has nothing to do with their Church being more true, it is all about the average believer that attends their Church living in a different socio-economic environment.
>>1161990
they don't have one. They'll simply use protestant-tier arguments like "it is all bullshit" or "it is all demonic"
Also watch this to learn more about what she told us would happen and is no doubt happening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAAkEp0BV9Q
>>1161983
>so you only accept and believe in what Christ passed down through Apostolic Succession, but you don't believe in all of it because it does not come from Christ.
You can believe it, but it's not dogma. For instance, you can believe in Young Earth Creation, or you believe in evolution, but neither dogma, because Christ never said one way or the other on it.
> but then you complain when we make it set in stone so that nobody can misinterpret it and change it
You can't really put understanding in stone, because it's something spiritual, not material. Writing it down is like a drawing, it's not the 3D object, but a 2D rendering. However, when it is written down, it's not a new or better understanding, it is a defense if the unchanging and spiritual understanding, it is like a fence to protect it from someone trying to distort it.
>So dogma is best understood according to your personal feelings and thoughts, got it
So Catholics are materialists, or what? Mystical experiences extend from today all the way back to Scripture, and the consistent writings from one to the other reflect a line of understanding that is attested to and over and over by multiple sources. It's not a matter of it being subjective, there is only one spiritual understanding.
>neither improves nor changes the doctrine of it
Or its understanding
>Making dogma what was always believed
What was always believed was always dogma.
>>1161991
"Lust" is literally just a translation of "desire". It's the same word Christ uses in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:"
>>1162007
>you can believe in Young Earth Creation, or you believe in evolution, but neither dogma, because Christ never said one way or the other on it.
It is dishonest to compare a secular understanding of one aspect of nature, to things that we always believed by members of the Church. If they are part of Apostolic Succession, then God wants us to believe it.
Do you think God is the absolute truth? What kind of sword is the Word of God if it is open to choice whether it is true or not?
>owever, when it is written down, it's not a new or better understanding, it is a defense if the unchanging and spiritual understanding, it is like a fence to protect it from someone trying to distort it.
This is such a weak argument and a blatant attempt at mistification. Do you understand the trinity "spiritually" or do you understand it materially first? You cannot feel spiritually that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same entity but different persons. You have to understand it materially (i.e. mentally) first. Besides, history has showed us that whenever heresies arose, the Church had to clear things out materially, because it is very easy for people to be spiriturally led astray. So you are saying the Church was always wrong in doing what it always did to prevent what it did, and instead we should rely like protestants on the Holy Spirit magically guiding each and everyone of us to the Truth without any help? I hope you realise what you are saying here is total nonsense.
>>1162006
Do you realize that by saying that muslims worship the god of Abraham, i.e. God, you're also claiming that what Muhammad saw in the Hira cave in 610 AD which made him want to kill himself was the angel Gabriel and so that Christianity is a false religion? What next? Mormons worship God too and Joseph really saw that "angel moroni"?
You really need to read Matthew 7:15-20, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and Galatians 1:8-9.
Why is the trinity even relevant to modern humans? this is something that should disappear into the historybooks because it serves no point
>>1162007
>So Catholics are materialists, or what? Mystical experiences extend from today all the way back to Scripture, and the consistent writings from one to the other reflect a line of understanding that is attested to and over and over by multiple sources. It's not a matter of it being subjective, there is only one spiritual understanding.
We don't have to write Scripture at this point in time. God uses the right means at the right time. There is no reason why you should use mysticism to understand what we already understand. Private revelation by mystics never tell us more than we know, only deepens an understanding that we already have. That's all good and fine, and private revelations we don't hold as dogma. First because it never adds anything to the dogma we already have. Secondly because as we have already agreed upon, the definition of dogma is what we use to come to the fullness of truth and avoid that others may be led astray
>Or its understanding
We simply define an understanding we always had. You are attacking the lexical formulation of this aspect but you know exactly what I mean.
>What was always believed was always dogma.
Yes, we simply defined it clearly and to fullness of truth, so that nobody could be led astray. Even so, the Church still has people like sedevacantists trying to destroy us from within. As you see, it is a necessity. The World is an enemy of the Church of Christ, and always will be
>>1162025
>Do you realize that by saying that muslims worship the god of Abraham, i.e. God, you're also claiming that what Muhammad saw in the Hira cave in 610 AD which made him want to kill himself was the angel Gabriel and so that Christianity is a false religion? What next? Mormons worship God too and Joseph really saw that "angel moroni"?
These are all non-sequitur that come out of your biased mind.
None of that follows from that statement. In general:
The Catholic Church is the fulfillment of God's revelation. Everyone who isn't part of it, is in a more and more imperfect communion, just like the more imperfect the communion with the will of God becomes as someone stems away from it.
Just like Protestants are closer to the truth than Muslims, Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists. This does not mean elevating islam to what isn't and declaring it true. It is simply an aknowledgment that in this imperfect world truth is a palette of colours where black is total distance from it and whiteness is fullness of it. Of course we cannot obtain fullness of truth without God, and not in every aspect of our life will we have a perfect understanding of it, that is simply impossible. The point here is that by admitting one truth, which is that the Muslims worship our same God, you are not admitting all that is false with it. Muslims know that our God is the real one, but they don't have a right understanding of him and they don't make his will. Stating the truth and recocnizing this does not mean to validate heresy, simply to not be supersticious and try to see the truth in all its complicacies for what it is.
>>1161799
He's only trapped during Ramadan
> orthodox church
Which one? Orthodox church of russia, orthodox church of greece, orthodox church of romania, orthodox church of bulgaria, orthodox church of belarus, orthodox church of serbia or orthodox church of ukraine? Or maybe orthodox church of america or orthodox church of syria or orthodox church of latvia?
>>1162042
This is the same reasoning that Bergoglio tried to use in the synod of the family to justify gay marriage, but gave up when he realized he would face another SSPX type schism: Oh, gay marriage is "holy", just not "as holy as" heterosexual marriage inside the Church.
Anyway the document doesn't say that at all, it says
>“[Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.
It clearly states that Muslims worship the all-mighty God Creator of heaven and earth, not that "Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists". That's just you trying to control damage.
>>1161727
>Protestantism is a modern invention
Who's to say it isn't a rediscovery of original teachings?
>>1162064
Anyone who can read a history book?
Cont.
But seeing as the "God" of Muslims says that Jesus is not God. Either Muslims worship "the creator of heaven and earth" and the Gospel is a lie, or they don't worship "the creator of heaven and earth" and the Quran and Vatican II are both lies. There is no third option.
>>1162071
Well anyone who can read a history book can see that Catholicism and the Orthodoxy are as invented as any other religious tradition. Did God really want a Medici pope, or three popes ruling at once? No. Hierarchical religious institutions like the Orthodoxy and Catholicism just confuses one's personal relationship with God. Fight the real enemy, anon.
>>1162060
>This is the same reasoning that Bergoglio tried to use in the synod of the family to justify gay marriage,
I didn't know you could read Bergoglio's mind and his true hidden intentions. In front of superhuman powers such as these I cannot really give a rebuttal, can I?
>but gave up when he realized he would face another SSPX type schism
They will come back into the flock
>gay marriage is "holy", just not "as holy as" heterosexual marriage inside the Church.
see:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pope-francis-same-sex-marriage-move-father-lies-total-rejection-gods-law
>It clearly states that Muslims worship the all-mighty God Creator of heaven and earth
They do though. I have clearly answered this in >>1162042
I really don't get what is so hard to understand. They worship our same God but they are not part of his people. I can like Putin and say "I would vote for him". This does not mean that I am a Russian and I will be allowed to do so.
> not that "Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists". That's just you trying to control damage.
Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists. Do you agree with that statement or not? If you agree with that then all your objections are simply baseless and a refusal to accept facts for what they are. Nobody is saying islam is true, it's only in your mind
>Either Muslims worship "the creator of heaven and earth" and the Gospel is a lie, or they don't worship "the creator of heaven and earth" and the Quran and Vatican II are both lies. There is no third option.
The third option is that you are so biased that you cannot see how flawed your logic is. We know that who does not have the Son does not have the Father. They don't understand God. They don't have salvation that comes through Jesus. End of the story. What we identify with the Trinity, but they don't because they rejected that understanding, is the same God they say to worship? The answer is: yes
>>1162080
Orthodox don't have "three popes", every bishop is equal, like in Scripture.
>>1162064
>Who's to say it isn't a rediscovery of original teachings?
history, common sense and the Bible
>No. Hierarchical religious institutions like the Orthodoxy and Catholicism just confuses one's personal relationship with God. Fight the real enemy, anon.
You confuse the sinful nature of men with upholding the message of God as revealed to us through his Church. If protestants were in charge of compiling the Bible, it would have 100 gospels only in the NT. Thank God that wasn't the case
>>1162042
>by admitting one truth, which is that the Muslims worship our same God
This is heresy.
You are claiming that what muslims worship as a god (false-god) is God though they deny that Jesus is the Christ (which makes them antichrists, 1 John 2:22)
>Jesus said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.
John 14:6-7
Here's the thing: muslims do NOT know Him since they reject His divinity, His teachings and His sacrifice
>There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
John 12:48-49
>He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
Being "close to the truth" doesn't mean anything. You cannot be "almost right", you are either right or wrong.
2+2 = 4
Saying that 2+2= 3 is "close to the truth" is meaningless.
>>1162080
The go far enough back that its hard to falsify them, but the evidence leans to what your saying, yes.
Its just they predate anything like Protestantism by over a thousand years
>>1162091
Historical examples from Catholicism, Constantine. Settle down.
>>1162087
>Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists
Us Christians: 2+2 = 4
Atheists: 2+2 = 0
Muslims: 2+2 = -4
>>1162093
>This is heresy.
you are not the one who decides what is heresy and what isn't.
>You are claiming that what muslims worship as a god (false-god) is God though they deny that Jesus is the Christ
I have already explained this. You obviously don't want to hear the truth and would rather stick to your prejudices and superstition
>John 14:6-7
Amen
>Here's the thing: muslims do NOT know Him since they reject His divinity, His teachings and His sacrifice
I agree
>John 12:48-49
Amen
>2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
Amen
Look, Muslims worship the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. That is what their theology says.
Isn't that the description of our God? As I said they don't have the truth, but that statement in Vatican II isn't false, no matter how many memes you spout.
God obviously wishes for them to convert to Christianity, as can be seen by events like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun
>>1162017
> to things that we always believed by members of the Church
There is nothing that was always there, imparted by Christ, which is optional. "Optional" beliefs are things like Airel Tollhouses.
>You cannot feel spiritually that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same entity but different persons.
You clearly haven't been to an Orthodox Liturgy. You can definitely "feel" the Trinity, and I'm 100% confident that while the exact terminology wasn't laid down in the early Church, people could absolutely feel the oneness of the three names of the baptismal formula. I do not think your average Christian, before the terminological distinction between ousia and hypostasis, did not understand the Trinity, I think he fully understood is mystically.
>Besides, history has showed us that whenever heresies arose, the Church had to clear things out materially,
That's because of material distortions, which were introduced. For instance, in Liturgy, there is no consistent teaching that Christ never married Mary Magdalene and had kids; we take it for granted he didn't, this was always Church dogma, even without codification; but now, suppose, a bunch of bishops start teaching their flocks that he DID do this, , suppose hundreds of them do; then there is a crisis, so you have to explicitly lay down that he didn't in liturgy; this doesn't mean we didn't know he didn't before, or that it wasn't dogma, it's just we didn't have bishops teaching contrary to dogma, so we didn't need to explicitly word the issue. This does not mean we gain a "new understanding" when we word the issue and incorporate into Liturgy.
>>1162055
They're all the same Church, those are just which bishop has jurisdiction.
>>1162112
You clearly haven't been to an Orthodox Liturgy. You can definitely "feel" the Trinity, and I'm 100% confident that while the exact terminology wasn't laid down in the early Church, people could absolutely feel the oneness of the three names of the baptismal formula. I do not think your average Christian, before the terminological distinction between ousia and hypostasis, did not understand the Trinity, I think he fully understood is mystically
right which is why the early church spent about a century fighting over the subject. They fully understood it.
>>1162118
>right which is why the early church spent about a century fighting over the subject. They fully understood it.
They spent a century fighting heretics, it wasn't be they were "confused", there was always a right teaching, the heresy was introduced, it wasn't a "confusion" anymore than the Gospel of Judas was a "confusion"
>>1162124
A lot more than a Century, actually
>>1162093
the word on the food "ḥalāl" starts with a different letter than the word for the crescent moon "hilāl". it is thus based on a completely different consonant root and complety unrelated.
star and crescent were originally a symbol of the ottoman empire without religious significance and only in the 20th became associated with islam in general
>>1162108
>you are not the one who decides what is heresy and what isn't.
Bait?
>superstition
????
>Look, Muslims worship the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. That is what their theology says.
Are you seriously accepting their theology? Now that's apostasy. Do you know what this gospel says?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
Remember Galatians 1:8-9.
>they don't have the truth
>that statement in Vatican II isn't false
Vatican II sattement:
>“[Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.
Come on now, stop with the mental gymnastics, admit that they worship a false-god and that what Muhammad saw in that cave wasn't gabriel.
>>1162087
>I didn't know you could read Bergoglio's mind
No but I can read the news and understand the context
>The bishops’ final report watered down the warm and welcoming language about gays and divorced couples that appeared in a preliminary report released on Monday
>At a preliminary synod last year, bishops watered down a initial statement that was seen as a major change of tone toward homosexuals. That statement spoke of "gifts and qualities" of homosexuals but was changed after a backlash by conservatives.
TL;DR Vatican was going full gay until the backlash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/no-consensus-at-vatican-as-synod-ends-.html?_r=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-synod-idUSKCN0RY0BT20151004
>They do though... worship our same God
>we identify with the Trinity, but they don't because they rejected that understanding
Christians worship the Trinity. Muslims
>don't because they rejected that understanding
>they have rejected
>rejected
There is no God but the Trinity. Muslims don't worship the Trinity. The answer is no, they don't worship the same God as Christians. Any non-biased person except Vatican II shills know that to be true.
>>1162093
>You cannot be "almost right", you are either right or wrong
that's bullshit and that sort of mindset is extremely destructive. using math as an example is misleading because real life especially in such messy domains as politics and religion is not like math at all
>>1162112
>There is nothing that was always there, imparted by Christ, which is optional.
So all that is optional you came up with on your own? By your definition you should not believe it, neither let anyone have the choice to believe it, since as you said nothing that does not come from Christ should be believed.
The truth is that your beliefs are option because you do not have fullness of truth
>You can definitely "feel" the Trinity, and I'm 100% confident that while the exact terminology wasn't laid down in the early Church, people could absolutely feel the oneness of the three names of the baptismal formula
This is based purely on your speculation. You learned of the Trinity before you learned to "feel" it. Your anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.
>I do not think your average Christian, before the terminological distinction between ousia and hypostasis, did not understand the Trinity, I think he fully understood is mystically.
The countless heresies that rejected our undestanding of Trinity beg to differ.
>>1162112
>there is no consistent teaching that Christ never married Mary Magdalene and had kids; we take it for granted he didn't,
You mean like there is no consistent definition of Peter being called the first Pope in Scripture but we always took for granted that he was? You cannot choose what is taken for granted and what isn't. But you do because you don't have the magisterium that straightens these things out and avoids divisions, or more precisely, deviations from the truth.
>suppose hundreds of them do; then there is a crisis, so you have to explicitly lay down that he didn't in liturgy
But you can't, you lack of hierarchy and magisterium prevents you from stopping the heresy
>it's just we didn't have bishops teaching contrary to dogma, so we didn't need to explicitly word the issue
The problem is, that in such a circumstance, you wouldn't be able to prove that the new stance on the subject is not what has always been believed, because as you yourself admit it isn't explicitly laid down anywhere and because the various bishops are all equal in their authority over doctrine. This is why the magisterium exists and why the Holy Spirit protects it from error. You are proving all my points.
>>1162136
>So all that is optional you came up with on your own? By your definition you should not believe it, neither let anyone have the choice to believe it, since as you said nothing that does not come from Christ should be believed.
I didn't say it can't believed, I said it shouldn't be DOGMA
>You learned of the Trinity before you learned to "feel" it.
That's because you learn it very early now, but are you seriously suggesting that Christians didn't grasp the Trinity before the term was coined?
>The countless heresies that rejected our undestanding of Trinity beg to differ.
Again, these heresies were willfully introduced, similar to Gnostic Gospels, they weren't simple "mistakes". Simple mistakes aren't called heresies, heresies are willful.
>>1162087
You realize the same argument can be used for Buddhists, Hindus, Animists, you name it... They are deep, deeeep down all really Christians, except they don't know it. Hell even Satanists: what they call "Satan" is actually the Holy Trinity, they just don't know better.
Your argument is so ridiculous that if the Church had followed it anywhere in history there would not have been heresies and no need for ecumenical councils and creeds. Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics, Monophysites etc. they all worship the same God they just see it differently. But since the Church has never seen things this way and has always combated these heresies and has never compromised with them, your argument is stupid.
>>1162130
>bait?
no, truth
>????
yes
>Are you seriously accepting their theology?
Their theology is what they believe. So yes, I believe that what they believe is what they believe. Does that change the fact that their religion is wrong? No
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
Not relevant at all, don't move goalposts
>Come on now, stop with the mental gymnastics
No you are the one doing mental gymnastics, I am quite tired of having to reply to your bait posts
>admit that they worship a false-god
If you worship the God that created Heavan and Earth you worship our God simply by defining him so. Otherwise you have to imply that there is a God who did all those things and isn't our God. Last time I checked there is only one God
I feel like I am discussing with a 12-year-old kid
>Muhammad saw in that cave wasn't gabriel.
Of course it wasn't gabriel. Either way he most likely made it all up.
>>1162129
>star and crescent were originally a symbol of the ottoman empire
The crescent moon was originally the symbol of Hubal, the moon god worshipped by Pagans at the Ka'aba.
Islam began as a heretical Arab Christian cult focused on Aphrodite and the Morning star. This was confirmed during that era by John of Damascus (676-749), who called Islam a “superstition among the Ishmaelites that is the forerunner of Antichrist.” According to John, Muslims were, “idolaters [who] reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Akbar.”
It is said that till the time of Heraclius (610-41) these people "served idols openly," and "worshipped the morning star and Aphrodite." Paganism was outlawed by Theodosius I (390). People still practised pagan rites openly must have lived outside the empire, as indeed the Arabs south of the border did. That these Arabs worshipped idols is correct, as is the worship of the morning star, i.e., of al-Uzza (53:19, 20). One wonders at the mention of "the morning star and Aphrodite." The morning star was Venus-Aphrodite. In another place our author says that the Stone of Abraham at Mecca bears a likeness of Aphrodite.
Read >>1161033 >>1158314 >>1158427 >>1158447 >>1158452 >>1158480 >>1158525 >>1158555
>>1162141
>but we always took for granted that he was?
But what "Pope" entails is something you added later.
>But you can't, you lack of hierarchy and magisterium prevents you from stopping the heresy
Don't be ridiculous, how do you think we handled the essence-energies issue?
>you wouldn't be able to prove that the new stance on the subject is not what has always been believed,
Any teaching which is not explicit in the Liturgy, and is making an effort at being introduced, has to show a consistent line of being espoused back to the early Church. If it can't, then it's committed to the flames.
>>1162131
>No but I can read the news and understand the context
Not what you were implying at all with your statements. Also what you """"understand"""" isn't a fact so don't sell it as such.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/no-consensus-at-vatican-as-synod-ends-.html?_r=0
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-synod-idUSKCN0RY0BT20151004
Good goy, get your news about the Vatican from jewish, secular newspapers. They are totally not our enemies since forever.
>>1162153
let me put it more accurately:
the crescent and star iconography had been used by many different peoples in many different places since antiquity, among them arab pagans, muslims, christians, european and central asian pagans.
The current use of the crescent and star to represent islam is a result of its use as a state symbol by the ottoman empire and does not have roots going back to the beginning of islam
>>1162154
>But what "Pope" entails is something you added later.
Not really, we have been though this. The authority of the Pope is necessary to preserve the fullness of Truth we received through apostolic succession. I have even explained you why that is actually absolutely necessary. The Pope is honestly "overpowered" in the way you guys understand it, probably because he is also a "public figure" and therefore the media are always paying attention to him.
>>1162162
See the linked posts: https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1158080/#1160992
and:
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1158080/#1161033
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1158080/#1161112
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1158080/#1161150
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1158080/#1161158
>>1161727
>And again seeing as Protestantism is a modern invention
32 AD is "modern"? Oh, you bought the Catholic lie that there were never Christians outside of their church.
You know they lie about everything; why do you believe them about anything?
>>1162162
Statue of Hubal with a crescent moon in his lap says you taqiyyaa.
>>1162163
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_moon_allegory
That seem overpowered to you?
>882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
The seem overpowered to you?
And yes, we've already been over this. Exhaustively
>>1161835
>>1161838
>>1161839
>>1161841
Can you imagine the Council of Nycea proclaiming "To our Arian brothers! They worship the same God as us, they just see it differently. There's not black and white, there is a gradation! Surely light can coexist with the darkness and there are gradations of truth! "
Here's what actual saints had to say about Islam:
http://www.onepeterfive.com/what-did-the-saints-say-about-islam/
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012
>>1162168
>protestantism
>32AD
you are right, back then you already existed. In fact, you were PROTESTING against Jesus
>>1162168
Which Christian group are you referring to outside the Church? The Ebionites? The Gnostics? The Arians?
>>1162179
Hence the catholic lie.
There were Christians centuries prior to the existence of the Roman catholic church.
>>1162181
All born again believers of whatever nationality, language, tribe or nation of origin.
i.e., Christians.
>>1162178
this
>>1162188
Which ones, which community of Christians are you talking about? Presumably one that didn't have a bishop?
>>1162192
You seem completely alien to this concept.
Because you group think. Because you have faith in your church, not in Jesus.
>>1162180
the circumambulation of the ka'aba is a pagan ritual that was re-interpreted within the framework of islam. there are many examples of such re-interpretations in current christian religious practice as well, e.g. christmas or easter (the name of which is literally taken from a pagan goddess).
it doesn't mean that we are still following those religions.
i also don't think it is useful to our understanding of religions to classify them as "pagan" or "non-pagan" in the first place.
i also ought to stop arguing with you since you are clearly insane
>>1162203
There were no Christians who weren't under bishops.
The Church is Christ's Body, and Christ said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail over it, so yeah, I put stock in the Church, since Christ told me to.
>>1161782
How do you join an orthodox church in a country like Chile? There seems to be only one orthodox church in the entire nation.
>>1162204
Pagan then, pagan now. Only instead of 360 pagan idols, there's only 1 pagan idol. The idol of Hubal that never left the kaaba. Hubal is HaBaal in Hebrew; the Ba'al of the Moabites.
The Arabs have always worshiped Ba'al, and have never worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nor do they claim to. They claim to worship the God of Abraham, but Abraham came from a pagan Chaldean culture. It's those gods the Arabs worship.
>>1162207
You're a fool.
>>1162207
>since Christ told me to.
Jesus never told you to place your faith in a manmade institution, you idiot.
>>1162176
Definitions like that are a formal, legal way of defining things that in reality don't exactly work as in paper. I see nothing wrong with any of those statements. The figure of the Pope is a bit like the figure of a King. There is nothing wrong with that. The Church on earth is a mirror, a reflection of the Kingdom of Heaven. This was also true for the Kingdom in Israel. We know this as a fact. Of course God would want a hierarchical structure that ends with a "king", or you think Heaven is a congregation of autonomous gods?
>unhindered
this does not mean what you think it means. It simply states he is the ultimate authority, and nobody inside the church has authority over the office of the Papacy. Of course he has ultimate managerial authority, but in doctrine and dogma he cannot simply make stuff up just because he wants to. You guys are the first ones who say the roman bishops are corrupted and come up with conspiracies where they kill the various Popes, then you say that the Pope is "unhindered". Make up your mind or abandon your blatant bias.
>>1162186
you didn't even get the joke, s m h
I will spell it out it for you: you were the Pharisees
>>1162208
Walk in and say you want to join.
>>1162215
The pope is not like a king; the pope, Pontifex Maximus, took over for the Roman emperor, Pontifex Maximus.
>>1162221
How do you explain the fact that Catholics believe in things that are biblical, while protestants don't? I thought you guys believe Scripture to be the true inspired Word of God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVyptxPQ04
>>1162215
The Pharisees, the ones so proud of the organization they belonged to, the ones so proud of all the "works" they did for God, the ones so sure they were "more holy" than everyone else, the ones who exerted authority and power over the "lesser masses", the ones who developed their own rites and rituals and followed them religiously, instead of God.
Those Pharisee Catholics?
>>1162208
I'd advise asking on fb of whatever and putting posters up to find people who are either Orthodox, or interested in it, in your area. If you get a big enough group, the Church will set you up with a parish. If you can't,you can still join, email the priest for the closest one and say you are too far to attend regularly but you are interested, and then ask him for reading assigments
>>1162224
The Catholics believe what the Babylonians believed. There was a Father God, a Queen Mother, the Queen of Heaven, and a resurrected son.
>>1162214
"I will build my Church"
Christ built the Church, and it is his, how is that manmade except insofar as Christ is fully human as well as God?
>>1162230
The church is built upon "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Not the man Jesus called Satan.
>>1162215
>Of course God would want a hierarchical structure that ends with a "king",
The "King" is Christ, he is the successor to David, and the King of Israel. The Pope is not the King of Israel.
Each bishop is a representative of the one God. God doesn't want one person to run the whole thing on his own precisely because humans are fallible. Being elected bishop doesn't magically make you immune to error.
>but in doctrine and dogma he cannot simply make stuff up just because he wants to.
He already has.
>>1162237
>the bible says what I want it to say man
>yeah Jesus said that, but I'd rather have him say what I want
>b-b-babylon
>s-s-satan
>>1162236
Jerome in the Vulgate called Mary "full of grace". It's a piss poor translation. Here's how everyone else translated it:
Luke 1:28
The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear, "having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."
The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament, "And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
American Standard Version, "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
English Standard Version, "And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
Today's English Version, '"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
King James Version, "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
New American Standard Bible, "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
New King James Version, "And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
Revised Standard Version, "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'
New Revised Standard Version, "And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
New Living Translation, "Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!'”
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, 'thou that art 'highly favoured, 'the Lord is with thee: 'blessed art thou among women.'"
The Holman Christian Standard Bible, "And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you."
Like the JW, the cult of RCC wrote its own bible.
Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned...
>>1162245
Matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
>>1162237
I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, so I'm unsure of what your point is here. We don't believe in Papal supremacy or infallibility, and are not in communion with the Pope for this reason.
>>1162230
He built his church in man who believes in him.
>>1162249
One pope, ten popes, you're both lost. You're just the other leg of the statue the Rock that is Christ Jesus is going to pulverize.
You're just as Nicolaitan as they are.
>>1162204
>worships Satan
>calls me insane
Hilarious.
>the circumambulation of the ka'aba is a pagan ritual that was re-interpreted within the framework of islam
Like the Black Stone of Aphrodite (the sacred stone that fell from the sky, Acts 19:35), the Black Stone of Mecca is also clearly an “image” of Satan, the fallen star, which symbolizes Lucifer and attempts to take the place of Christ the Great Redeemer. It is called by Muhammad, the son of perdition, Yameen Allah. This means that it is “the right hand of Allah” with which “he touches his servants.”
Today we see millions yearly circumambulating roundabout the Kaaba circle, which exerts the only spiritual influence over a great mixture of multitudes of different ethnicity and languages to gather them in her abandoning their tongues to speak “one language” (Arabic), “one attire”, “one purpose” and “one world nation” (Umma) and commit spiritual harlotry. Mecca sits in “the desert” “sitting on many waters” which are “peoples, multitudes, nations and languages” (Revelation 17).
We also find a depiction in Isaiah 21, the combination of these three descriptions “city”, “desert”, “sitting on many waters”, “circumambulating around her”, is this city in the “desert by the Sea”; Mecca.
But it is Ezekiel 31, which speaks of circumambulating around an idol “her rivers running round about his plants”. Such “plants” are idols that represent Lucifer (The Assyrian).
The “shadowing shroud” in Ezekiel 31:3 is reminiscent to the black cloth that covers the prostitute Kaaba in Mecca and the streams perhaps refers to the hordes of people from all over the globe who come to worship Satan by running around his idol and bowing to it by the billions throughout history.
>>1162247
>blessed
>favored
literally the same thing.
Besides, the greek original is very clear.
You literally refuted yourself
>>1162253
Let's not forget the silver vagina they encased the meteorite in.
>>1162252
>thinking you know the correct interpretation of the end times
why are protties so delusional?
>>1162255
Nope.
What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word, kexaritomena, and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.
5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb., Str 5487, TDNT 9.372, LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6), as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”
5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485, TDNT 9:372, TDNTA 1298, GK 5923, Two occurrences, AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.
Mary won the Jewish Virgin Lottery; she was chosen to bear the Messiah. In that way, she is blessed above all women, for no other woman bore a more important child.
There was nothing divine about her necessary, or warranted, at all. It was all done through the power of the Holy Spirit, once Mary consented.
>>1162259
I've studied it for decades.
Why has nobody who's ever used the term "prottie" ever added anything to my faith?
>>1162257
Indeed.
In the Koran, chapter of the Star, we read:
>“Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star.”
Qur’an 24:35-36
Compare this with:
>And the third angel sounded the trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, burning as it were a torch, and it fell on the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters
Revelation 8:10
One-third of the people (rivers) are poisoned. The Black Stone of Mecca owes its reputation to the tradition that it fell from the “heavens.”
>>1162247
The word used is literally the verb form (χαριτόω) of grace (χάρισμα), which is used here as an attributive verb.
>>1162252
Bishops are a Scriptural office.
>>1162261
>protestant apologetics googling intensifies
Constantine is greek, so you just got BTFO right here >>1162276
Is god the apotheosis of benevolence?
>>1162209
>They claim to worship the God of Abraham, but Abraham came from a pagan Chaldean culture. It's those gods the Arabs worship.
muslims on suicide watch
>>1162276
>>1162261
GOOGLING HERETIC ON SUICIDE WATCH
Will Protestantism ever recover?
>>1162275
She is blessed among women; she was not sinless.
That is me.
Romans 3:23 For all (except for my mommy) have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
--Things the bible does not say.
>>1161727
daily reminder all four original orthodox patriarchates were conquered and are still occupied by heathens.
>>1162284
Nicolaitans are an abomination.
>>1162286
I had already posted that. The phrase is not "full of grace".
>>1162300
Yes, unless you mean that somehow Benevolence turned into God.
>>1162333
I'm a simple man. When the bible says all have sinned, I include Mary.
You cannot include Mary, because you worship her as a Babylonian goddess.
>>1162324
You intentionally distorted it. The word is literally "grace", except in verb for, it's the exact same word, just a different grammatical case. Now you can make a fair case for different translations of it, but "grace" is an absolute valid translation, and in my opinion a preferable one, because it is preferable to maintain uniform translation of words wherever possible, as it makes biased translations much more difficult. Therefore if you translate it this way, you should also translate everywhere the Bible says "grace", as "favor" instead.
>>1162333
Yes, Mary was graced to have the Messiah grow in her womb.
No, Mary was not "sinless" or "divine" in order to do so. To say that, you deny the humanity of Jesus, which is of course what your forefather Arius and his buddy Emperor Constantine believed, and what all gnostics like you believe.
>>1162337
You got blown out in your native language. Sorry. It happens when your theology is from the Father of Lies.
>>1162337
How is it exactly that you gloss right over the fact that in the Greek, it does NOT say "full of grace", which is at the heart of the immaculate conception?
>>1162327
I'm unsure as to how that's pertinent. The guy was a deacon, not a bishop.
>>1162322
>she was not sinless
St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
>>1162338
it is the exact opposite, faggot. You deny that she is the Mother of God. By denying her that title, YOU deny that Jesus was God. You are deceived by satan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gishKKdpj_4
>>1162329
Then god would be the apotheosis of mercy, yes? If he is ever-merciful, then he will show mercy to all, including sinners. Institutions like Catholicism and the Orthodox church have manipulated the words of Christ into their own doctrine as a means of influence. They use the boogeyman of hell to strong-arm the populace away from true loving faith and into submission.
>>1162348
Any organization that is composed of authoritative clergy over laity is an abomination. It's how men make kingdoms, not God.
>>1162349
She was graced to bear Jesus as her child; all Jewish virgins longed to bear the Messiah. Mary was selected, graced by God, and bore Jesus.
She is no more sinless than you are.
>>1162352
Did God exist before Mary?
>>1162357
Israel in the OT was a Kingdom, you are so clueless
>>1162363
Yes. Was Jesus God?
>>1162353
God did show mercy to sinners by taking all of our sins and dying for them.
If you reject that, if you reject the merciful and gracious God's one and only plan of salvation, expect no mercy to follow.
God is also holy, just and righteous.
>>1162346
I don't care about the immaculate conception, I'm Orthodox, we don't subscribe to that.
The reason "full of grace" is used as a translation, is because kεχαριτωμένη is perfect participle.
>>1162369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gishKKdpj_4
>>1162366
Did God encourage them to become a kingdom, with a king over them?
>>1162368
Yes.
Did Jesus exist before Mary?
>>1162374
>yes
so Mary is the mother of God.
If you imply that she is only the mother of Jesus, you imply that Jesus isn't God, because Jesus was both human and God
This is logic 101
>>1162370
And as above, the phrase "full of grace" would have been "plaras karitos".
Start disbelieving that water washes away your sins, that oil lets the Holy Spirit in you, and that God cares about your membership in a manmade organization.
You desire God? Then do what God says to do in order to know the living God.
>>1162357
The institution of authorities over the laity is Scriptural
Acts 20:28
1 Peter 5:1-2
1 Timothy 4:14
>>1162374
Is faith without works dead?
>>1162369
But that is not eternal mercy and contradicts his eternal benevolence. So either he will forgive sinners even now, or he is not wholly benevolent.
>>1162379
So if Jesus existed before Mary, and He did; He is in fact the Creator of the universe, how is it that Mary is His mother in the same sense that your mother is your mother, and the cause for your existence?
>>1162381
>Start disbelieving that water washes away your sins, that oil lets the Holy Spirit in you, and that God cares about your membership in a manmade organization.
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Yes, he cares
>>1162383
People to serve soup to Grecian widows is biblical. People claiming to have spiritual authority over others is diabolical.
>>1162384
Faith in what?
>>1162385
What about eternal holiness? what about eternal righteousness? What about eternal justice?
>>1162381
Before you even dare debate anything, explain this
>>1162381
The term is "graced", but perfect participle, which "graced" doesn't express; hence, "full of grace", which expressed a perfect participle of "graced." Can you think of another way to expressed the perfect participle of grace as an attributive verb?
>>1162385
God has forgiven all sinners of all sins save one that cannot be forgiven.
That one lone sin remaining is Unbelief. Unbelief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Unbelief that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and rose again on the third day. Unbelief that Jesus is in fact God, the Creator of the Universe, and the origin of all life.
For that Unbelief is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable.
>>1162389
I said nothing about "Lord, Lord".
>>1161727
>>Vatican II proclaimed Allah as God
Allah literally just means God in Arabic
>>""""""saint"""""" Pope John II kissed the Quran
So?
>>Current Pope is a cuckold Marxist Freemason
Nah.
>>Tells faithful to welcome Muslim refugees without converting them
People generally don't just magically convert to Christianity. Often they're inspired by Christian love.
>>Is against proselytizing (in direct violation of Jesus' command to spread the Gospel)
He's against the sort of aggressive evangelism that doesn't actually do much good.
>>Says Jews don't need to accept Jesus
He never said this.
>>Says atheists are saved
Potentially they are, it's really not for us to say.
>>Says gays are fine
In and of themselves, they are.
>>Promotes Ecumenism and performs Church services with demonic religions such as Voodoo and Brazilian Ubanda
Citation needed.
>>1162369
False. The fact that you believe that God sent Jesus down to pay for sins entails no forgiveness. He still gets his money back. He did not cancel any supposed debt.
>>1162381
You get your apologetics from a person that is demonically posessed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gishKKdpj_4
>>1162387
>being this dense
At this point I think protestantism is a mental illness
She didn't create God, she birthed him into the world in the form of a person that is both human and divine. That is the literal definition of "mother", to give birth to someone. Did she give birth to Jesus? Yes. Was Jesus God? Yes. Therefore she is the mother of God.
>>1162394
The Jews have the tanakh, to their honor, and their talmud, to their shame.
The muslims have their qur'an, which they tend to ignore, and their hadith, which they tend to cherrypick.
The catholics have the bible, nominally, but vastly prefer their traditions.
All of the biblical traditions were written down in the scriptures for us; any that you think you overheard 2000 years ago are figments of your imagination.
The proper traditions of Christianity are contained in the scriptures, and nowhere else.
>>1162390
>Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers
>Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers
>Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers
>The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof
>The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof
>The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof
>>1162404
Or he was man and became of two natures. Therefore Mary birthed his humanity, but not his divinity. Mary is the mother of Jesus ,who is God, but not God.
>>1162409
Actually they are only seen in Scripture through Tradition loser. So no, you failed to even answer the problem
>>1162413
If Mary birthed Jesus who is God and raised him as her own child, that entails that Mary is the mother of God Himself or else one must deny the very fact that the person in her womb is God! Or even the person she raised!
>>1162413
If Mary didn't give birth to God, then Jesus, who was birthed by her, wasn't God. Your logic brings unavoidably to arianism. If you accept that Jesus is God, and Mary his mother, then Mary is the mother of God. The title has nothing blasphemous and is completely accurate. Jesus already had his divine nature when he was in her womb, when she birthed him he also had his divine nature. You cannot separate Jesus the way you are doing from his divine nature because that would mean making that divine nature something foreign to him, instead of something that belongs to him fully. Mary is the mother of God, not matter who you look at it
>>1162413
Do you deny that Christ's very flesh was divine?
>>1162392
Do you sleep like a baby?
>>1162433
>He experienced a union with God after birth,
WEW lad, that's some heavy heresy right there
>When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
>>1162433
So the hypostasis was different before birth? Did the Logos erase the prior hypostasis?
>>1162437
>And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
>>1162441
yes, sorry. I was so shocked by that heresy that I didn't notice I had not pasted all of it. Thanks
Do you guys ever wonder about what Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter, Paul....what they looked like. What their mannerism was. How they talked, what kind of facial expressions they made. If they joked around or were always composed.
Especially about Jesus, and about Mary. Do you guys ever wonder how a sinless person would talk and act in the context of everyday life? For us today, and for people back then, it must be a marvelous sight, and a great inspiration just to be in front of them. It must have felt like a bug in the matrix.
>>1162395
Can you think of another way to run around the fact that the inspired text does not say "full of grace"?
>>1162402
Tetelestai
>>1162404
Funny, the bible never calls Mary the Mother of God.
I wonder why that is.
Maybe because Jesus preexisted Mary?
>>1162411
Serving people is NOT taking authority over them. It's literally the opposite.
>>1162413
And here we wander into the Arian heresy.
>>1162417
They are in the scriptures, and the scriptures speak for themselves, with the Holy Spirit advising, of course.
>>1162429
Like a baby who sleeps all night long peacefully, yes. Not like a colicky baby.
>>1162487
>the scriptures speak for themselves
so who of the 50 thousand denominations is right?
>>1162433
And we found the Arian heretic.
kek
Scratch a Nicolaitan, find a heretic.
>>1162441
Mother of my Lord.
Not Mother of God.
I wonder why the divinely inspired scriptures did not say "Mother of God"
>>1162476
You are not explaining anything.
If I break a vase in a china shop and the owner forces me to pay for the broken vase and expects his money back somehow someway, he isn't forgiving me for what I had done. Someone somewhere must pay on my behalf. Him getting someone else to do so, isn't him forgiving me. He still gets his compensation.
>>1162479
You had ignored arguments that shown that the very denial of Mary as Theotokos entails Jesus not being God, Arianism and some sort of Nestorianism.
>>1162492
it's literally the same thing, or are you implying that the Lord of Elizabeth is different from your Lord?
So it's ok for you to call Mary "the mother of the Lord"? Is it ok?
>>1162487
Except that one needs Tradition to actually see that and even understand how to read and interpret Scriptures to begin with.
This is why ANS Lane sees Tradition as the evidence of correct interpretation of Scripture.
None of the Early Christians or Church Fathers into Sola Scriptura. Deal with it.
>>1162492
So Jesus isn't God?
>>1162472
It does, or at least that's as close of a phrase in English as you can get, as it is the only feasible way to convey perfect participle of grace without confusion. If you can think of another way, by all means, state it.
>ITT: prottie heretics getting BTFO
>>1162445
The heresy is to call Mary "Mother of God", and "Queen of Heaven".
>>1162471
I get the feeling Paul rather resembled the Happy Merchant.
>>1162486
Does the bible call Mary "Mother of God"?
Then why do you?
>>1162486
Jesus washing feet showed servitude, not authority.
You people literally stand everything good on its head.
>>1162489
Let God be right, and all men wrong.
It's hilarious that you infer they have 50,000 mutually exclusive beliefs though.
One may also check this book up to further add salt to the Protestant wound as it entails Marian Devotion in the Early Church,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fa8ODAAAQBAJ&pg=PT12&dq=mary+in+early+christian+faith+and+devotion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigyIe-1ebMAhUlCcAKHeGEB6sQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=mary%20in%20early%20christian%20faith%20and%20devotion&f=false
>>1162494
You break a vase. It's worth $100,000,000. You cannot pay. You are thrown in debtor's prison.
You are let out of debtor's prison the next day. They tell you that a wealthy man paid your debt, and that you are free.
What do?
(Mary was just a Jewish virgin, descended from David. That's it.)
>>1162497
It's strange how "Mother of God" is nowhere in the bible, but you insist upon it.
>>1162506
No, one needs the Holy Spirit of God.
Lacking that, one turns to liberal scholars.
>>1162506
Jesus is God.
Jesus created the Universe.
4000 years before Mary was born.
So who created whom?
>>1162507
It does not. I posted what would, and that phrase is not present in the divinely inspired texts.
>>1162524
You break another vase. And cannot pay, and are thrown in debtor's prison.
What does the wealthy man do?
>>1162517
Proto-catholics are just as evil as modern day catholics.
>>1162529
Mary didn't create Christ, but she did bear him, his flesh (which is the Logos) was taken from her flesh.
