Seriously though

If you genuinely believe God (call it what you want: Jesus, etc) is the way to eternal life, that's really all you need. Dressing up the truth in a few bells and whistles is helpful for the weaker minds, and it helps remind you in more or less "every day terms" to keep you from getting too kooky.

christians make me actually hate christianism
also if you hate god and jesus you literally can't be a christian

Wowzas this is my weak spot.

Mmmmm that is some long hair.

I bet they don't shave their pussies either. I'd take the one on the right and split her furry taco and give her such a licking and a dicking she'd be clapping along to hymnals of my cock.

Dumb frog heathen

Ah yes, because Jesus put all the Apostles in charge not just Peter...oh wait!

I'm neither a heretic nor attracted to children. :^)

It only turns to flesh once its inside you, silly. Plus it gives you holy protection.

>inside you

Nope, it transforms when the priest performs the ritual of transubstaniation.

>why aren't you giving money to the world's largest pedophile crime syndicate
Anyone who is still a catholic after the 1960's is either a kiddie diddler or a third world 85IQ spic

Sure, but it doesn't actually change form until it's inside you. Before then it simply appears as a wafer.

Because I follow CHRISTIANITY, not Paulianity like you Catholics do.

>dude we need a Pope to be the final arbiter in minor disputes while maintaining the true faith
>keep mini schisming depending on which pope is in power with the opposing side sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring whatever the guy says until they croak
I mean what is the point? at least the protestants admit they're a bunch of divided fools and splinter whenever shit gets unbridgeable, the Catholic Church likes to LARP that's not the case while REEEEing when the wrong guy gets intrigued to the top

protip: absolute power corrupts absolutely

Especially in the days before the Enlightenment (and still after it), many decisions were based as much on temporal/geo-political decisions. The Papacy had to be if it wanted to have any authority. It has less to do with actual minor philosophical differences and more to do with "because we said so".

What is it that makes Catholics so arrogant?

oh boy
seems like you haven't yet interacted with the local orthodork contingent

Because the One True Church™ is part of their theology. You'll find that orthodox are pretty arrogant as well because they also subscribe to it. Protestantism is pretty forward about the One True Church being the whole communion of Christendom (the universal Church Catholic) rather than one specific denomination.

Protestants can be pretty autistic, but I appreciate that they do not go as far as Catholics in calling certain groups of Christians apostate or anathema. If I went to a Catholic mass tomorrow they would ask me not to receive communion despite the fact that I'm a baptized Christian that attends Eucharistic services every week and believes strongly in the real presence of Christ in communion. But according to the Catholic church, I'm illegitimate because I go to an Anglican parish.

If I went to a Lutheran service tomorrow they would allow me to join in communion with all the rest of the Christians in attendance.

>do not go as far as Catholics in calling certain groups of Christians apostate or anathema
Seeing Christianity as old roman paganism and the pope as the Antichrist are common thoughts in the Protestant world.

>You'll find that orthodox are pretty arrogant as well
That's plain wrong. Neither are catholics arrogant. Protestants usually try to convert people here by telling them they follow satan if they are catholic.

>anglican not accepted
Since when? Anglicans are accepted. They are basically catholics with a Queen/King substitute for the pope.

>If I went to a Catholic mass tomorrow they would ask me not to receive communion
How about you try and see that nobody asks you anything.

You are the example why I dislike Protestants. They are little effort people. They are willing to believe everything that suits their minds no matter on how little it grounds. I simply asume that they study the bible just as self-rightious as they talk about others.

Do you think the Lutheran Churches or the Anglican Church are in a better shape than the Catholic Church?

Your post basically confirms what I was saying about Catholics. You're arrogant. You assume that I've never tried attending a Roman Church.

My ex-fiance was a Roman Catholic I went to a Roman church with her for nearly two years. Not once during those two years was I allowed to receive communion. Moreover, I went to the rector of the Parish and asked for individual permission to receive communion as I believe in the real presence. I was denied that right because I believe in real presence but not specifically transubstantiation.

>but that's just one Church

Once again, you're wrong. Every single Catholic church I've been to has asked me not to receive communion once they found out I was Anglican. At least embrace your customs m8.

The Anglican Communion is in shambles at the moment. The American Episcopal Church has gone rogue and the African Churches are threatening to separate over the issue of homosexuality. The Church of England has attendance so low that it's laughable and there are not enough Vicar's to support the churches that still stand. Being the middle way (via media) is not easy, but we will continue striving to be the uniting force between Protestantism and Catholicism until our final door shuts. I pray that we stay open.

That being said, the Roman Catholics are struggling as well with the liberal/conservative divide which is best personified with the fights between cardinals and Francis. As for the "state" of the Catholic Church, I have found that the lay people are incredibly faithful and that in the right places Roman Catholic attendance is high (see Hispanics in America). The clergy are extraordinarily corrupt of morals, values and discipline (see 50% rates of homosexuality in places like Kansas) and Roman Catholisism is having a difficult time converting people. Those who are born Roman Catholic tend to remain so, but they are not replacing fallen Roman Catholics with new converts.

(cont. in next post)

>doesn't show orthodox or any of their splinters
sweetie...

The Lutheran Church is a bit more complex. The Evangelical Lutheran Church (American Liberals) and the European National Lutheran Churches are losing members faster than you can count. They became too liberal way too fast and everybody jumped ship for "christian spirituality" or agnosticism.

The more conservative side of Lutheranism which is best represented by the Missouri-Synod in the United States is doing wonderfully. Their Churches are full and everyone from the lay people to the clergy are faithful and thoroughly Christian.

So to answer your question concisely: Anglicanism and Catholicism is dying. Liberal Lutheranism is waiting for one more nail in the coffin. Conservative Lutheranism is doing fine. The only churches that are growing are the non-denominational Evangelicals, Baptists and Mormons.

Mainline Protestantism and Anglicanism needs a conservative revival ASAP. Ultra-liberals are killing the mainline, Anglicanism and Catholicism.

>The only churches that are growing are the non-denominational Evangelicals, Baptists and Mormons
Gosh Babtists are the worst.

user, the Roman Church is in schism...

Protestantism is the white man's religion. Catholicism is for Spaniards and other assorted rabble

>You assume that I've never tried attending a Roman Church.
In his defense, given the blatant falsities you said, one could only think you ignorant or a liar. It was actually kind of him to go with the least offensive one.

wtf I love Catholicism now

Maybe you don't recieve it because you're not catholic?

I find them to be interesting. I'm not a fan of their liturgical tradition (or lack thereof) but I will admit that Baptists really know the bible well. I'm not sure they are the best at interpreting it, but a really devout Baptist can often straighten the scriptural record very quickly in a conversation. I also don't quite understand their fetish with the King James translation, as it was not the first English translation of the bible, was authorized by a closeted homosexual king, was illustrated by free masons and used to strengthen the theological role of the English king in Christendom. You would think they would use the Geneva Bible or something else. That being said, it is my favorite translation for prose, but I use the ESV for anything theological.

Hey user, make sure to always invite 2 baptists when you go fishing.
>If you only invite one he'll drink all of your beer

Have you ever attended their churches?
They made a nice impression on me but behind the cottons I found different.

And everywhere else that is not brainwashed RCC.

Catholics say they are the only people going to heaven. That is arrogance on a level men should not be able to achieve.

Anglican Catholics are basically Catholics.

How about eating crackers and drinking juice in an unworthy way (i.e., the Catholic way), eats and drinks abomination unto yourself. How about that.

Effort? What effort of yours will get you to heaven?

And southern Germans.

t. Bavarian

they don't know what they believe, or why, or how it radically changed in the 1850's.

Because the convention, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the important bit.

Not who sat on the throne, paid for it, nor his proclivities. He had nothing to do with the final product.

There has never been a convention like the KJV convention, and there never will.

what changed so radically in 1850?

>Catholics say they are the only people going to heaven.
They don't say this. Everyone who lives his life after gods will goes to heaven.
I don't even know what a anglican catholic is.
>How about eating crackers and drinking juice in an unworthy way
I don't understand.

A continuation of the deification of Mary that they could not come back from.

1. Mary is called the Mother of God. AD 431
2. Prayers offered to Mary AD 600
3. Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) AD 1854
4. Assumption of Mary AD 1950
5. Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church AD 1965

They say it, write it, affirm it, and believe it.

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

The Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned in case of inculpable ignorance. [i.e., not knowing the RCC exists.]

Some of the most pertinent Catholic expressions of this doctrine are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different terms by the ordinary magisterium.

>They don't say this.

"No salvation outside the Catholic Church" is a common teaching in Roman circles.

>I don't even know what a anglican catholic is.

Anglicans are a Christian sect that maintain a Catholic liturgy, polity and tradition but don't believe in the primacy of a Pope. Their mother church is the Church of England and they have an Archbishop of Canterbury who is the figurehead of the communion. The King or Queen of England is the "defender of the faith."

>>How about eating crackers and drinking juice in an unworthy way

Jesus said to do this in remembrance of him.

The Catholics say do this to get the Holy Spirit within you; to literally eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood.

If vampirism and cannibalism are not "unworthy" of God, what is?

Mary was always called the Mother of God, it was just made dogma in 431 by condemning referring to her as simply the mother of Christ, on the basis that doing so denies that Christ is God.

Mary has never been called the mother of God, by any author of the bible, or by any believing Christian.

God is a trinity.

Is Mary the mother of the Trinity?

Unwashed pagans believed in a creation mother, in order to spread christianity mary's role was modified.

They just changed Semiramis' name to Mary, like the pagans before that changed Semiramis' name to Isis, or Ishtar, or Venus.

All paganism comes from Babylon.

And lies do not advance the Kingdom of God, only the keep of the devil.

>They only worship idols to attract the pagans.
>They only perform magic rites and rituals to attract the pagans.
>They only believe they are eating God and drinking his blood to attract the pagans.
>They are only keeping the vernal equinox and Saturnalia to attract the pagans.
>They are only.....they are only.....they are only....

At what point can we say that they are the pagans?

I'm not converting to your Slavic Pagan syncretic Church. Blow it out your ass.

I don't know about the Lutheranism at least in my locality, we've got one on the Missouri-Synod that's been bleeding members pretty quickly which is tormenting the poor pastor of that church. It's a shame too since it's not like members are going to other churches, they're really just aging and starting to die out without any new members to replace them. And it's not like the pastor is driving them off either, he's actually a really nice guy (And this is coming from a Catholic on the matter).

We had a huge uptick in Catholic converts for a while in my county, but the priest responsible for bringing in so many new people eventually lost his touch after a while and attendance dropped to only about 20% higher than old numbers (VS almost double attendance for his first 8 years at its peak).

Funny because I know a guy who is an (Evangelical) Lutheran and his father is literally a bishop (won't say where, but northeast US). Nice guy in a way, but he is the most painfully clichéd bleeding heart liberal douche I've ever met. Believes it is his sacred duty to self-flagellate for whatever liberal cause comes up, trumpet for BLM, #MeToo support, put down Toxic Masculinity™, share buzzfeed, huffpo and everyday feminism posts, etc.

And I say all this as a (moderate) liberal myself. He's quite unbearable.

>outside the Church there is no salvation
A doctrin that was proclaimed in Florence in the 15th Century and disolved in Vatican II in 1960 something. But not in use anymore since some hundred years.

Yeah in medieval ages things were different.

I hop you don't want me to explain this because now it gets a little stupid.

Christ is God in the Trinity, the whole of God.

Did she give birth to Christ or not?
Is Christ god or not?
So how can she not be the mother of god if christ is god?

>Be son of czech immigrants in America
>Catholic mass is still said in Czech every fourth Sunday of the month, attendance is almost 90% Bohemian despite being a couple hundred miles from the Mexican border.

[spoiler]I was saddened to learn how irreligious actual Czech people were though.

I think that it's the case in most of the mainline denominations (I'm a Congregationalist) that the clergy and bureaucracy tend to be more ardently liberal than the congregation. They're the ones who really push social justice. It's not that the people in the pews are opposed per se, it's more like they shrug and say "Yeah, I guess that's right" and don't think much more about it.

>Slavic Pagan syncretic

I'm a slavic pagan and how can one man be so wrong.

So is removing 6 books of the bible. And compiling the words of the apostles and prophets into a bible in the first place. And tempting men with images of women.

Which is why you're circumcised right? Peter was pro-circumcision when the matter came, and as the sole head of the church, why didn't he just pull his infallibility on Paul there? Maybe the role of Peter has been overplayed for political power, and the other apostles were given also the ability to bind and loose, hm?

>Peter was pro-circumcision when the matter came
Seems like he didn't psh his point.
Infalability is a modern thing. It wasn't a Dogma till 19th Century.

No idol worship permitted. Icons represent spiritual things that exist and are alive in Christ, and it is Christ that is honored by our respect and reverence towards them. They are not themselves worshiped as deities.

No magic rights and rituals. All of the mysteries of the sacraments are in the hands of God only. They are not sorcery.

The eating and drinking of the Son of God and his blood is in the bible. It's as pre-pagan as it gets.

The Vernal Equinox was part of Passover calculations. Consequently it's traditionally been relevant for determining Easter.

The date of the nativity was determined by going backwards from his nameday, and takes place after the Roman saturnalia by like a week. Didn't know pagans had the whole of December booked.

Do you mean to say that papal authority grew with the dogma in actuality? How can you found your authority on inheritance from another and claim to be higher than him?

>papal authority grew with the dogma in actuality
Yes, the papal authority increased over time until his absolut athority was made a dogma.

>can you found your authority on inheritance from another and claim to be higher than him?
Because the chruch agreed to give its pope more authority than Peter had? They still have councils to decied things.

>the church
A selection of high ranking bishops in one city does not a ecumenical (and I mean that in it's simplest form) council make.

>Peter was pro-circumcision
Peter changed his oppinion on this over time.
He was pro accepting of non jewish christians that don't follow the jewish laws as equals (he ate with them non-kosher) later he denied to do this after he got visitied by some Jewish Christians and ate kosher with them and didn't want the non kosher Christians with them That was critisized by Paul since both agreed before to not demand the Torah from the goym. Nobodies knows how this took its end but you see that we usually neither circumcice ourselves nor eat kosher.
Kardinals are from all over the Catholic world. Francis is Argentinian. He was Cardinal before.
Cardinals vote the pope out of their own.
Cardinals are apointed by the pope on the other hand according to criteria.
It's not democratic and never been and very likely will never be if this bothers you.

You really try hard to hate the catholic church.
No matter how much this user answers your misconceptions you still come up with a new one.
What's your problem man? How about live and let live.

>Someone caught in a cocaine-fueled gay orgy was almost appointed a bishop.

Yup. It's sad too because again, so much of the lay people of the Roman Catholic Church are really devout.

The Holy Spirit is abandoning places run by people like that Bishop. The Gospel is not preached there, just social justice.

I became a Catholic after realizing it was the most authentic remaining relic of European paganism.

The problem is that I hate anything founded on political efficacy at the expense of true and right understanding of what is Christian. The Papal position was not always the highest, nor established as the highest by any council or matter of discussion: the assertion was backed by the divide of the east and west, the ability to take a whole half of Christendom with him. He removed many who disagreed to take the position: there were 4 other patriarchs of the early church. How do you honestly think the Church would turn out if Peter had just excommunicated Paul, who spoke rightly? That's what I'm saying but they lawyer and lawyer.

I have nothing against the people of the Roman church whose hearts I do not know, only it's faulty institutions built up in wicked centuries with pride. Where the spirit is dead, what use is animal life? What good is tolerance of things that are intolerable to any goodness? Would you prefer no dialogue? Smash my misconceptions please. I don't use so many questions just to argue, I want to understand.

By ecumenical I do not mean democratic or even representative, though neglecting all the rest of the world outside the sphere of one patriarch and asserting claim to four other patriarchal seats to use as mere titles doesn't help that. I mean that it is taken by the whole of the Church as it is in Christ. You can gather as many men together with as big of hats as you want, they won't change fundamental truths.

There were many "Pauls" in the East, least to the greatest in Rome. These men were unilaterally "excommunicated" because they didn't agree with the (again unilateral) change which they understood to have occurred to a creed that had been established for centuries. The pope then had chosen absolute authority and his successors pressed it for centuries. Schism after schism followed. The robe of Christ was torn again and again. How can one see this and be content when we should be on our knees trying to mend the garment?

Just want to say that this is a fantastic post and I thoroughly share the sentiments which are present in the first half.

I just go to church with my wife and play the part. Do any men really believe in this stuff or am I an aspie? Women and feminine men are the only ones that seem to care in my experience

Yes, men believe it: they're most often those who teach it. The center of the religion is the conquest of death, something immediate and easy to understand and value whatever your inclinations, and the church on earth is traditionally termed the church militant. Martyrs and saints are often called athletes in Christ for what they endured. It's a religion that values the roles of men and women in their own ways, and places men at the head of the family. Among it's honored are soldiers and kings and many masculine men.

It's true though, that often men who have less in this world are drawn to it. The body is neither despised nor itself the aim and center, which is spiritual, but it will be in body that men return.

We also are hoped much the same to hunger, to labor, and to endure and die if called.

Yes, men have quite literally preserved the faith.

protestantanism is a soyboy religion

How are we sure it wasn't for the greater good rather than them believing in a greater purpose?

>How about you try and see that nobody asks you anything.
In a sense you're correct, odds are no one would know to stop him. If the priest knows he's an Anglican then he should refuse to give him communion and we Catholics would consider his act gravely sinful

Papist please

>soyboy
Go back to TRS

This board made me hate christians. I'd sooner eat a bullet than deal with them every sunday

feelsgoodman

I visited northern Ireland way back in 2005. My grandfather was from there and we still have some relatives. I don't LARP as Irish, I just wanted to visit.

Anyway, I went to mass one day during the week (it was all old people) and took communion. Only after leaving did I look closer at the signs and realize it was an Anglican (Church of Ireland) church and service. Woopsy. Everything to me seemed the same as Catholic though.

>brb, going to hell

He did, actually. Peter was nothing special during his lifetime as an apostle. He was impetuous, and did good things and bad things.

He is not the foundation of Christianity.

Jesus is.

Transubstantiation is not only stupid, but pagan. Pagans have been doing it for thousands of years.

Is Mary the mother of the Trinity, or not?

Is Mary the mother of the Trinity, or not?

Massive idol worship, especially Mary.

Transubstantiation is a magic rite and ritual, as is last unction.

Pagans did what you do, thousands of years before you did it.

Passover had nothing to do with the vernal equinox, but the barley harvest.

Your date for the nativity is the date of the pagan celebration of Saturnalia. Exactly.

Jesus was born in the second week of September.

On every count, you are not only wrong, but damned wrong.

>all these US denominations
Wtf's wrong with burgermongler godcucks?

No salvation outside the church is still Catholic dogma. some theologians dispute what exactly it means, but it is very much still on the books

...

The night before he died, he gave the apostles bread and wine. He said that the bread is his "body" and the wine is his "blood". He gave people his body, metaphorically. Pretty much he gave them his divinity, cleansing them of their evil. So no cannibalism, just metaphors.

Nobody I know worships Mary: Mary was a person, and an important person, a saintly person who in many things we should all imitate, but a human being like you and me. Is the mother of God in the flesh not due any respect? Was her place not special of all women, and is she not a role model? If Christ on the Cross did not forget his mother, why should we now?

Do you believe that the early apostles and those who learned straight from them (these are the same church fathers your reformers reference so selectively in damning the catholics) as they learned from Christ, were doing magic with the Eucharist?

>Pagans did what you do, thousands of years before you did it.
And should I not eat a food because pagans ate it, or look at the stars and wonder or keep calender's, because pagans did it? Pagans also did many things where the spirit may have been acting through them, like keep stories of a deity who dies and comes back to life. They got some things right, but I guess since Pagans did that too we can't follow Christ anymore in your eyes. What do pagans have to do with what is truth? The early church determined the days for certain functions like they did the lords name day because people knew Christ taught them, and the nativity feast, while certainly adorned with pagan traditions like trees and the like, is based on the traditional dates.

The 19th through the 21st or so and the 25th aren't exactly the same days. I don't know anyone who celebrates Christmas that early. Though you'd they they'd be celebrating it in November with how quickly decorations go out.

Do you honestly think it's sinful to celebrate Christmas on the 25th?

I bet you're American, you people don't seem to comprehend sectarianism. My family would honestly prefer that I contracted AIDS than Catholicism.

I don't understand your question. We're sure they believed it because many of them died refusing to deny it, despite immense torture, and professed it while they lived, and did much to further the cause of the Church.

It looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

That's God in the flesh, not his mother for the record. Though the saints are alive in Christ (which is why we give so much attention to them, since that adoration is due to Christ, and is his), they're not present in the flesh. Icons, like those of Mary are depicting things that are real and present spiritually just like a description in writing would: fitting then that are said to be written, and not drawn. Another fine way of putting it is that icons are "a sermon for the eyes".

And in case you're wondering, we kiss and adore the scriptures in much the same way too, for all of those things are filled with the Holy Spirit. You're right though if you think some ought to spend more time reading them and living by them though. It's an issue that needs to be addressed by every Orthodox individual.