Was it worth it?
Was it worth it?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>literally creates
>
>
>
>of religion
No.
nope
No.
The Church had some real need of reform, but what happened was just horrible.
I think it's funny that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches might be on the verge of reuniting, but neither of them seems interested in including the Protestants. Like this discussion recently about the churches setting a common date for Easter. The concern is to harmonize Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and nobody seems to give a shit about the Protestants. They're being left behind.
>As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
- Galatians 1:9
The Catholic church and its false traditions is hell bound
> what happened was just horrible
Why conservators always that retarded? Like they always ignore necessary reforms until it is just too fucking late, all people feed up with all of their shit and some crazy guy ruins fucking everything. You can see that happening times and times again for Christianity, for Russian Empire, for China history.
Fuck off you heretic.
>Like they always ignore necessary reforms until it is just too fucking late,
No that isn't the case with the Church, and mind you the Church was being the political and religious entity. They wanted to make reforms, but it must be gradual.
Was it worth it?
>The Vatican looked bitchin'
>People got to Heaven sooner
Yes it was.
Reminder that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sale of indulgences if the process is properly administered.
Was it worth it?
>heretic
Yes. It. Was.
Jan Hus isn't even a Protestant in his overall thought.
I don't give a shit, he was a heretic, end of story.
>dat dog face
Why should anyone care for heretics user?
What this guy said.
Compared to what happened during the reformation and what was happening before it, what was happening before it is quite preferable to the heretical schism of the reformation.
More souls has been lost, set to be damned in the eternal fires of hell than before.
>More souls has been lost, set to be damned in the eternal fires of hell
Indeed,as Paul clearly says anyone who follows teachings that do not come from Jesus or the apostles then it is a false teaching.
Jesus also said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sick and tired of people who call themselves Christians who think Jesus is a liar.
And who would these liars be user?
Can someone explain why pro-Catholic trolls are so prevalent on this board? Is it a cool leftist hipster thing to defend the Catholic church now that the current Pope is kissing the feet of anti-Christian immigrants and terrorists?
Don't know until i decide between Episcopalian and Catholic.
Read the bible.
>some redditor cuckold who jerks off to the fall of the west
Please fuck off and die,
Probably because Protestants by their very nature PROTEST. It's their entire identity. Reuniting destroys that. If they reunited they couldn't cry about Jesuit Ninja Assassins and the Horse of Bobby Ling.
Can someone help with this decition?
decision*
*cough*protestants*cough*
I don't know, most of the Catholics I've seen so far on here are more or less orthodox, and they're not likely to be leftist than lapsed Catholics.
Is that the only thing people do on here when they see political opinions or facts that they don't like?
Catholic.
>Is that the only thing people do on here when they see political opinions or facts that they don't like?
No it's the thing to do when you got goddamn redditors who spew cuckoldry bullshit that. Are you fucking telling me that goddamn worm opinion is valid?
Burning heretics at the stake was an absurd and cruel innovation from the 13th century developed by the church government as a means of suppressing dissent through terrorism. In the past the Church had dealt with heresy through logic and rhetoric to dissuade their followers, as Augustine did regarding the Donatists and Pelagians or the ecumenical councils did with Arianism. But by the late middle ages the Church was so incompetent and corrupt that it was unable to convince dissenters with their arguments (probably cus they were shit) so they resorted to executing them in the most painful and public way they could think of to show people what happens when you opposed the man with the gold tiara.
Horrible argument t b h
>Is that the only thing people do on here when they see political opinions or facts that they don't like
>Let's discuss Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron Blooded Orphans. Or maybe post pics of May from Pokemon.
>Wait, that's not what Veeky Forums is for?
It's not Veeky Forums and shouldn't be on Veeky Forums any more than those two topics.
And this wrong because..? Are telling me I should argue with people who are wrong are gonna propagate shit that? You don't argue with them, because the idea grows. Take a fucking look at Anabaptism in fucking Muenster. That's when shit become a fucking cancer cell. So it's better to kill them then argue it.
I don't gotta argue shit, fucking would you rather have a thing that works, or
>
>
>
related shit.
And JP2 apologized for the burning of heretics.
The Early Church of course isn't Protestant at all. Take this as an example,
The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 –)
I went Episcopalian because the Catholic church placed too much value on tradition over the written word. I think traditions and rituals are important, but they are more likely to change over time for cultural reasons while the text has (mostly) remained the same.
Also the Catholic emphasis on praying to saints has never made sense to me. Why would an omniscient God have any reason to consider the requests of saints regarding the fate of other humans' souls?
>Also the Catholic emphasis on praying to saints has never made sense to me.
Let me explain it like this, it to put in a good word for God.
Considering there are far more heretics who profess to be Christians than actual Christians now thanks to Protestantism and evangelicalism, I'd say no, fám.
As someone who has no investment in the catholic-protestant shitflinging, the Protestant Reformation was worth it. What the Protestant Reformation did, was that it established the concept of intellectualism as the guiding force of Europe. In medieval times, everything, literally everything, was tied to some church. Maybe the Catholic Church, maybe the Orthodox Church, but the religious framework was set in stone. After this event, the framework collapsed. This paved the way for the Enlightenment, which began the transformation of western states into ones that focus on ideology over religion.
>As someone who has no investment in the catholic-protestant shitflinging, the Protestant Reformation was worth it
Atheist whore who gets defended by dirty fucking proddies detected.
en.wikipedia.org
>In 1991, the General Convention declared "the practice of racism is sin"
According to actual church doctrine do they have any right to declare this?
You realize for someone to be a heretic they have to be a Christian, right?
>You realize for someone to be a heretic they have to be a Christian, right?
Then what's the word for faggots who are lukewarm to it?
Cafeteria Christian?
what does the dog symbolize here?
No, I mean something that will you know, sting. Like heretic.
What the fuck is a proddy?
Honestly, I just think the focus on religion in society to that degree is just unhealthy. That is basically what modern Islamic states are, with their law established by a religion, and it really isn't pretty. I'd rather a western world constantly fighting over different ideals in order to optimize society, than one blindly following one authority. The result is a world where ideas are actually tried, where democratic, communistic, and fascist states all were tested instead of brushed aside because it doesn't perfectly line up with some authority established 2 millennia ago.
The only good thing the Reformation brought is to just loosen the Catholic Church's power and allow for some real freedom.
This is why we got the tone for the Enlightenment to occur but this isn't even compatible with Protestantism. In fact it is its antithesis as this brought forth its decline throughout Europe, taking Christianity down with it and making it a rather shitty religion.
>What the fuck is a proddy?
An insult for a dirty whore known as protestants.
>Honestly, I just think the focus on religion in society to that degree is just unhealthy.
Okay, let me take you back. After Rome fell, like the you know the west fell. The Catholic Church basically had to play the state, they had to play both roles because dammit they need to.
What I see, right now from you, is a dumbass Idealist who lives in the west, a Christian west which is degenerate, and sick, because the Catholic Church doesn't have it role back as playing the state. Now you got Orthodox bitches who cry about how the Church should second to the state, or proddies who cry like cucks over every little goddamn thing, but fuck'em.
In terms of spiritual benefit from the reformation, quite a bit I think.
the individual, and his or her state, were placed centre-stage. Immediate access to the bible, the encouragement of reflection on its meaning to oneself. Not carefully controlled and dispensed Sacraments. Not indulgences, recognised good works, and inquisitions. Not, in fact, a whole parallel economy based on the supposed benefits of these things.
It's wrong because eventually making martyrs of heresiarchs only emboldened their followers and allowed them to draw parallels to the persecution of early Christians. It administered to people one of the worst imaginable deaths simply for espousing opinions supported by the text of the Bible.
>You don't argue with them, because the idea grows.
Only if your clergy are incompetent messes who were ignorant of scripture and appointed through simony for the last 400 years. The early church didn't have to resort to extreme violence to try to convince its followers of the truth and it was in far more dire straits than the late medieval church. The burning of Jan Hus just one of the numerous abuses by the church towards Christians who wanted to read the Bible for themselves and act in accordance with it, and their unwavering self-righteousness and refusal to reform in the face of much-deserved scrutiny was their downfall.
False.
Calvinism is in fact authoritarianism. It took secularism to fix the shit and make actual progress such as in the case of capitalism.
The Prot version of that is literally, enslavement.
Move towards Puritan America and we see how instead of liberty or equal rights, we get the Puritans killing the Natives and see such act as Divine.
As Science progressed, Protestants got pissed as fuck and came up with shitty arguments like "god of the gaps" to counter anything science can explain.
So no, it was secularism and deism that actually made progress, Protestantism made a mess which will cost Christianity as a whole.
The Early Church doesn't even endorse any Protestant values at all.
But it isn't bitch. It is the right church, sure it fucking needs some fixing up but fucking burning the whole damn thing down is asinine.
>The burning of Jan Hus just one of the numerous abuses by the church towards Christians who wanted to read the Bible for themselves and act in accordance with it, and their unwavering self-righteousness and refusal to reform in the face of much-deserved scrutiny was their downfall.
Okay, if you let shit reading the bible happens, you know what happens, you get charlatans, you get fools saying they are prophets, and then they get others to buy into it. Great user now you got heretics saying they follow different shit because you allow faggot assholes to believe that they are the second coming of Christ. And the worst part, it isn't centralized where it could fucking stamped out, so now, you gotta tell me this,are they right? It's there interpretation.
Yes there is. The Pope has ZERO authority to shorten someone's length of time in purgatory, and even if he did why would he not offer such a service freely? The fact that he was offering such a service for money just shows what a charade the whole church had become by that point.
>We had to burn them, otherwise we'd just get more heresy!
>Largest heretical movement in history proceeds to rise PRECISELY BECAUSE of major corruption and heavyhandedness by the church
Nice job, Catholacks.
>even if he did why would he not offer such a service freely?
But they did, and they still do now. Indulgences were needed to make Rome great.
I think that there is some bad history on this thread. Today, I doubt that many serious historians would argue that the corruption of the Catholic Church caused the Reformation.
Instead, due to broad societal changes, new classes emerged (let's call them commercial or perhaps middle class) in some parts of Europe. In Germany, for example, they ran commercial activities of varying sizes. They became literate. Because they were used to making many more important life decisions than peasants would have been able to. As a result, their lives or mode of living no longer matched the then Catholic practice of religion. They felt capable of making their own decisions. Thus, many moved into Protestantism. (The invention and spread of commercial printing furthered this process.)
No, the only reason it fucking happened because no one killed Martin Luther. No one killed him, and no one killed faggot followers.
>degenerate
>currently the part of the world that has the highest happiness worldwide
you keep telling yourself that mate. Call me crazy, but a principle that does nothing to help stability or happiness of the people, is quite a useless one.
Oh ok, so its ok to kill heretics to protect the faithful. fuck freedom of religion am I right?
who wait, that contradicts the catechism now doesn't it?
The principle of Protestantism doesn't serve to those ends.
>Call me crazy, but a principle that does nothing to help stability or happiness of the people, is quite a useless one.
Then you're batshit insane.
Satan get out.
>who wait, that contradicts the catechism now doesn't it?
Well geez user, maybe, oh oh oh, just fucking maybe, Protestants still exist. Again, Church changes to the times. Back then, it would of been correct to kill people like that, and I agree with that, because again, the world doesn't get fucked.
>The Pope has ZERO authority to shorten someone's length of time in purgatory, and even if he did why would he not offer such a service freely?
"I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."
Yeah sure, I can go along with that. I'm just saying that compared to the absolute benefit of not having public thought constrained into being christian-centric, whatever negative effects you perceive from the rise of protestantism is just a bit less powerful. It comes out to a net positive, even if the ideals and the directly caused religious beliefs of the Reformation are viewed at a negative angle.
Peter was not a pope
You're right, he was THE Pope.
well I dont know user, maybe you should read the catechism. (the current one) which teaches freedom of religion or maybe you should listen to saints like Arcluin who said that forced conversion is meaningless and convinced Carolus magus to stop executing pagans
>well I dont know user, maybe you should read the catechism. (the current one) which teaches freedom of religion
We aren't referring to that, in this discussion.
Not according to Paul
Tell Paul to suck eggs because he was.
>fucking burning the whole damn thing down is asinine.
It was the Church's fault for not adhering to the written words of Christ for centuries while pretending that nothing was wrong. They denied communion to people acting in good faith who pointed this out and in rage had them burnt.
>Okay, if you let shit reading the bible happens, you know what happens, you get charlatans, you get fools saying they are prophets, and then they get others to buy into it.
People reading the Bible for themselves was inevitable following the invention of the printing press. Nothing you could do about that except make sure your clergy are competent and not just holding bishoprics to collect tithes and taxes. As for charlatans, the practice of indulgences was itself charlatanry.
Are the Early Christians Protestants?
>Nothing you could do about that except make sure your clergy are competent and not just holding bishoprics to collect tithes and taxes
Or, maybe they should waited like good people.
>As for charlatans, the practice of indulgences was itself charlatanry.
Listen to me, you little shit. Are you defending Muenster? Are you defending probably, in my opinion, the greatest act of why Protestantism is a failure? No, fuck you.
Apparently,St Augustine believed in justification through faith and Predestination
It isn't you fucking faggot.
This is actually false.
Augustine's view is simply that which is stated at Trent. Even the Reformed scholar, Mcgrath notes this and shows how much Augustine and Luther disagree!
Predestination in Augustine in fact means that the faithful get special grace to be able to persevere to the end. His system permits the predestined to fall away unlike Sola Fide.
The Catholic Church is the most hypocritical church.
>said the proddy
No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.
-Justin Martyr (A.D. 65-100)
>but by faith
They were mostly poor people that everybody considered weirdos who were attracted to a charismatic figure and they rolled around on the ground and spoke in tongues and fervently believed in faith healing and magic so I'd say sure.
So? That doesn't shows him into Sola Fide.
First Apology 43
We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man's actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed.
Oops, this already opposes Sola Fide which presupposes no free will by definition. Even here, the statement explicitly notes how punishments and rewards are distributed on the merit of actions which goes against Sola Fide.
>tfw user does a better job arguing the Catholic faith than me
oh
The answer is no.
For example here we see the early church opposing Sola Scriptura,
The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 –)
we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen.
-Clement (A.D. 80-140)
>but by that faith
fucking this. when I learned what protestants were when I was about 8 or so, I immediately saw them for what they are. God damned heretics.
oh and they held services in peoples' houses instead of dedicated temples packed full of mosaics and gold leaf
Soon after,
CHAP. XXXIII.--BUT LET US NOT OWE UP THE PRACTICE OF GOOD WORKS AND LOVE. GOD HIMSELF IS AN EXAMPLE TO US OF GOOD WORKS.
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immovable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word(16) into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all,(17) with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him--the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: "Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them."[1] Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, "Increase and multiply."(2) We see,(3) then, HOW ALL RIGHTEOUS MEN HAVE BEEN DORNED WITH GOOD WORKS, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and LET US WORK THE WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS with our whole strength.
Oops, looks like Clement of Rome also disagrees and shows that you need to show that faith through your works. Ouch, another blow for Sola Fide
Hands down the early church fathers believed in justification by faith alone.
Because they were fucked by Rome.
You failed to show or even counter when I show citations from the very same fathers you used which completely go against Sola Fide.
In fact, even if they did? So what? That Sola Fide is so different from the Protestant version or versions of it that it is so pointless. One can even remove the term from its Prot context and say Catholics believe in it. After all, doesn't all works flow from faith? An active faith that serve as the motive and drive to action? In such a case, Sola Fide is true since it isn't saying you must not do nothing or be passive.
Hey user, why are you so great at arguing with proddies?
no,because it is the fundamental Christian belief.
Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting, by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner.
This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not themselves for righteousness, then God justifies them.
Chapter 34. Great is the Reward of Good Works with God. Joined Together in Harmony, Let Us Implore that Reward from Him.
The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture says, "Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, Daniel 7:10 and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory." Isaiah 6:3 And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for them that wait for Him." 1 Corinthians 2:9
Holy shit here the motif of rewards for good works is presented once more!!
This is contradictory to Sola Fide where works don't do this and add to salvation itself!
Because I take my time to read. It's that simple. All you need is to get a book or look through the fathers or any academical work on them, and some time.
Is sperging out the Germanic's special ability?
>Because I take my time to read
But I don't have time to read because I'm forced to argue with prots,
At least try. It may take time but once you understand in particular the Early phases of Christianity, you get to see how Protestantism falls apart.
Reading JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" is a good start.
>you get to see how Protestantism falls apart.
I already know that Protestantism falls apart because it's a decentralized mess that cannot govern itself.
>Reading JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" is a good start.
I'll try.
Good girl, let this be the start of your journey.
It's free on bookos