>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 Veeky Forums, even if it is religious.
Parker Gutierrez
The thing is all Orthodox countries are debt ridden corrupt shitholes with third world living standards. So the answer to your question is no.
Cameron Hughes
The True faith is what the Mother Assemble was under James.
Aaron Adams
>Economic prosperity is a good indication of God's favor Huh?
Chase Taylor
>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.
Charles Nguyen
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
Charles Morris
Here is an Orthodox FAQ and reading list, OP, you can use it for what you need to: pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
I put a decent effort into crafting the arguments contained therein
Levi Mitchell
Schismatics are only slightly better than heretics. So no, not the true faith
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.
Robert Turner
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.
Kevin Hall
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
Isaiah Hall
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).
Thanks bro. I'll take a look.
Angel Morales
Shillantine, do you ever leave your house?
James Gonzalez
Latin Americans are shitskin non Europeans. Greeks/Ukrainians/Russians/Romanians/Moldova/Serbia etc, have no excuse
Ian Smith
>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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
Jackson Cook
>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?
Both ancient Israel and heaven are a kingdom. It is hardly justifiable that god would want an ethnocentric "democratic" church like the orthodox one
Brayden Richardson
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.
John Ortiz
She stands on a snake-skinned moon? That's highly symbolic! The snake represents Satan and the moon Islam?
Isaac Martinez
Being the Bishop of Rome obviously doesn't make you anything special compared to other bishops
Adrian Ross
This. Everyone in this thread was too busy blowing smoke up each others asses to understand this.
Juan Adams
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: 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
Eli Ramirez
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 (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
Michael Allen
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." (newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm) Casts the quote in quite a different light, doesn't it? cont
Owen Murphy
Here is a more exhaustive coverage of examples such as this, please read it and have your eyes opened: 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.
Leo Cruz
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.
Hunter Barnes
...
Blake Green
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: youtube.com/watch?v=IhabDczs0uE
Constantine will never be able to explain why his "chuch" is all but universal, and one.
>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.
Oliver Butler
>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.
Benjamin Torres
>The Pope is infallible >unless he makes a mistake! Really?
Thomas Davis
>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.
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.
>"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic..." >heretic
Ayden Reyes
Answer this Catholicucks!
William Ward
>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.
Brody Adams
...
Ian Price
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.
Nolan Lee
>and the gates of Hades to have NOT prevailed against them? Have they?
>Sedevacantism I never said I was ;^)
Adam Taylor
> daily Mail
confirmed retard
Sebastian Sullivan
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.
>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.
Jason Garcia
>dont want to face that his leader is a cuck
Confirmed retard
Zachary Adams
To the christfags ITT, I have 3 questions: Do you fap? How often? Do you feel guilty?
Logan Baker
>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"
Blake Wilson
Jan Pedał Drugi: Demon, Pedofil, Sługa Szatana.
Ian Wilson
I don't masturbate, but I have and it made me feel awful
Landon Nelson
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.
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.
Bentley Cooper
>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.
Sebastian Brooks
Why?
Joseph Murphy
Because it's wrong.
Sebastian Morgan
>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) 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.
>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.
Samuel Gutierrez
>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
Logan Ward
>Ukrainians/Russians/Romanians/Moldova/Serbia etc, have no excuse communism
greeks are the only inexusably shit one there
Thomas Edwards
>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"
Tyler Richardson
>There is only ONE understanding of dogma One "developing" understanding of dogma, you mean? catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop This is literally applying CURRENT YEAR to the understanding of dogma
Xavier Phillips
Who said so?
Ian Jackson
Christ said lust outside of marriage is wrong.
Jonathan Harris
I recently read old testament and i could'nt believe my eyes. How you christcucks accept those jewish shenanigans as word of God?
Henry Perry
>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.
Brandon Flores
>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.
Camden Adams
>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.
>Showing respect for someone else's religion Kissing their book that denies Christ.
Angel Bailey
>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.
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: youtube.com/watch?v=lAAkEp0BV9Q
Parker Wood
>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.
Angel Edwards
"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:"
Ethan Nelson
>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.
Carter Howard
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.
Levi Wood
Why is the trinity even relevant to modern humans? this is something that should disappear into the historybooks because it serves no point
Brody Peterson
>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
Josiah Gomez
>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.
Dylan Russell
He's only trapped during Ramadan
Daniel Nguyen
> 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?
Liam Richardson
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.
Eli Collins
>Protestantism is a modern invention Who's to say it isn't a rediscovery of original teachings?
Jason Hughes
Anyone who can read a history book?
Dylan Watson
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.
Alexander Thomas
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, user.
Leo Davis
>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: 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 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
James Bennett
Orthodox don't have "three popes", every bishop is equal, like in Scripture.
Lucas Johnson
>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, user. 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
Logan Murphy
>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.
Christopher Rivera
...
Zachary Parker
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
Noah Adams
Historical examples from Catholicism, Constantine. Settle down.
Carson Torres
>Muslims are closer to the truth than atheists Us Christians: 2+2 = 4 Atheists: 2+2 = 0 Muslims: 2+2 = -4
Adam Hughes
>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.
> 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.
