How do Pope-cucks defend indulgences?

...

Indulgence were just F2P premium currency before their time, you either farm good action point or you paid to have the indulgence.

>I know christianity better than Peter
Filthy heretic

I always love it when Catholics bring this up

There is literally no connection between Peter and the Roman Catholic Church. Literally none. Never in his lifetime did the Catholic Church look or function like it does now. Everything that makes the Catholic Church the way it is happened after the Constantinian shift.

>1 continued chain of christianity governance
>that means nothing
Fuck off you literal heretic

The Church never sold indulgences.
Why would I defend them?

No, it means absolutely nothing
Peter would never in his life defend post Constantinian Catholicism

Do you know how many indulgences there are?

Walking through a special door can be an indulgence.

Pope is God on earth.

God can do what he wants.

Next.

More papist than pope.

How can Protestants explain this

They can't

Given that the Church realized they made a mistake and stopped selling them, I don't have to. It was centuries ago, after all.

How do heretics defend mega churches?

Catholics are the worst thing about this board.

They don't cause they love shit like that.

Nah. All religiousfags are.

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

- Matthew 23:9

Explain this

>charity is a virtue
>virtues can be used to atone for sins
>giving money to the church so it can feed the poor or whatever is charity
tah dah

Nah. All anti-religious fags are.

>I know the thoughts of Peter guys, I swear. Proofs? None, but who cares about proof anyway, my feelings are what matters
>Direct line of succesion from Peter to Francis? Nah, that's total bullshit m8

HE WAS A PONTIFF OF ROME

The canon was formed through the influence of the Holy Spirit; what that author describes as "kerygmatic, liturgical, paraenetic, and exegitical tradions" are all products of the Spirit, the same Spirit which remains directly accessible to this day. The early church was tasked with conforming doctrine to what the Spirit taught them, i.e. the Spirit shapes "tradition" and not the other way around. God knew what the canon would look like before the church did and He deliberately included all "traditions" necessary for salvation within that canon.

It is clear to anyone without scales in their eyes that the traditions of the Roman church are largely a continuation of pre-Christian Roman idolatry. And I'm not just referring to the Dagon hats and Mary worship, but the fact that the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy mirrors the structure of a Roman legion (I don't recall any "cardinals" among Christ's apostles. . .).

Listen, if you believe in the resurrection and love Jesus and your neighbor that is enough to be saved. If you want to be a Latinboo LARPer God understands, but don't pretend that people are going to Hell because they don't play that game.

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.

Don't have to. He wrote his feelings about Rome.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.

Prove it. Bible verse? Anything?

Wasn't everything run by councils?

Didn't the bishop of Rome serve as one of many for a thousand years without being primary?

It all started in Babylon and was continued to Roman Catholicism, aka Mystery Babylon.

For instance, Ash Wednesday, the start of a 40 day fast, has nothing to do with Jesus, but with the 40 day fast and mourning of Babylon's queen for her lost son. At the end of the 40 day fast, the son is "resurrected".

There was no mourning prior to Jesus' 40 day fast in the wilderness, and He did not raise from the dead at the end of it.

>For instance, Ash Wednesday, the start of a 40 day fast, has nothing to do with Jesus
Luke 4:1-13

Even the protestant observance this tradition.

The fact is that totally destroys every single notion of Sola Scriptura in the NT authors and the infancy of Christianity, making this notion something else added into much later and contradictory to that of what we get in the NT and the Early Christians.

Once it is agreed that the Holy Spirit influences the Tradition of the Church and such are its products which also remains accessible to this day, it entails consistency throughout the ages the content of this Tradition. Core elements cannot contradict or oppose each other. BUT, in Protestantism we see the opposite of this, a break with the Tradition from this infancy. From their refusal to accept Apostolic Succession which is used as a criterion to measure this consistency and universal belief.

So too bad, your argument fails to match history. If any it makes it worse for your side.

Also, a sort of ecclesiastical authority already existed as shown with the authority of Paul, the concept of the "Pillars of the Church" and James as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Not long after, Clement of Rome goes so far as to compare the Church's clergy with Old Testament priesthood, showing once again how this Tradition contradicts yours.

...

And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, "a faithful servant in all his house," noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning had come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Peters church is in no way the same church as the Roman Catholic Church. That's just a fact.

It's also not the Protestant either

...

Right, obviously. It's the early church.
Eat shit delusional faggot. Nothing that makes the Catholic Church what it is was present before Constantine

>Nothing that makes the Catholic Church what it is was present before Constantine

Eucharist, Patristics

Except for that time the Pope was in Avignon. Or there were three of them. Unbroken in Rome, yeah.

I mean the authority structure, the role of priests, the religiosity of Saint veneration, etc. All of the extra biblical bullshit

This is the view of the Eucharist in the Early church

...

>the authority structure,
>the role of priests
See Ignatius of Antioch
> the religiosity of Saint veneration
See St.Cyprian

As I stated above, nobody died prior to Jesus' 40 day fast, and nobody rose from the dead after Jesus' 40 day fast.

As opposed to Catholicism, mourning the death prior to a 40 day fast, and celebrating a resurrection at the end of a 40 day fast, which is what Semiramis of Babylon did.

Rome = Babylon

It actually totally destroys every single claim of the Roman Catholic church to elevate their traditions up to the level of inspired scriptures.

It is, actually, having nothing to do with Jesus, and lying about having Peter's bones.

No man anointed by men can claim to represent G-d.

The early pagan Roman Catholic church, yes.

The real church, no.

Represent? He claims to be Jesus on earth.

There have been popes quoted as saying "I am the way, the truth and the life."

Bunch of lost goats.

give to charity to prove you are a good person so you have less sins to pay penance for in the afterlife, what's not to get

>pay your way into heaven what's not to get

Salvation, Simon Magus, salvation.

Goy, this popery is blaspheming against G-d.

>God on Earth is not God but is actually Jesus

d nobody rose from the dead after Jesus' 40 day fast.
(From Wiki)
Its institutional purpose is heightened in the annual commemoration of Holy Week, marking the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus,

>As opposed to Catholicism, mourning the death prior to a 40 day fast

Yes, the carnival are pretty "mourning days".

t. heretic

Strawman argument.

The pope claims to be Vicar of Christ.

HE WAS THE VICAR OF CHRIST

Show me evidence of your heresy in the Church Fathers

while heretics might frequently have wives that are adulteresses, I would surmise that very few Popes had this problem. The real problem is that the children who post here have lost the ability to understand and properly communicate in English.

They defend it by claiming that they needed mo money fo dem gold basilicas so it's ok if they scammed thousands of people and tell them the Pope is shortening their time in limbo.

Could you post examples of them defending it the way you said?

/r/ing a "heaven ain't free" spurdo

I like heresy. But am I a heretic? Are agnostics heretics, infidels or some other term?

Who are "they"?
/thread
>mo money fo dem
Why should anyone ever take you seriously as a human being? You are illeterate and are a major contributor to the downfall of civilization.

How do Catholics defend the complete extermination of the Cathars and the Bogomils?

Both were movements that were embraced at a grassroots level due to the well-known and well-documented corruption of the Church. Neither the Bogomils or the Cathars attempted to rebel or even to act aggressively towards the Church, and both show just how ungodly the Church was by explicitly acting due to temporal and very worldly concerns.

>annointed
What if YHWH said so? Who says that YHWH, through Jesus and a succession of 'vicars' didn't say so? King Hazael of Damascus was annointed. Did YHWH direct that or was that just some Old Testament prophet spewing forth feces?

the last Lutheran shitflinging thread (that ended up getting deleted) had several people claiming that the money may have been acquired questionably but it was used for a good a cause.

Prostitution is permitted according to some Catholic theologians since it prevents worse sin like rape(at least so go the argument)

How do Religo-cuck defend their primal disgust for purity?

then you'd surmise wrong, bucko

Sixtus III raped a girl but was acquitted by the Emperor because "The judge of all ought to be judged by none"

Leo III was accused of adultery and perjury and had to have Charlemagne come bail him out (in exchange for an imperial coronation)

John X had affairs with some prostitute and her daughter and had a son by them

Benedict IX was a bisexual rapist

John XII had a concubine

Innocent VIII had 16 bastards

Alexander VI had at least 7 bastard kids and had a fondness for prostitutes

Paul III acknowledged 2 bastard kids of his

Plenty more popes had bastard children and affairs with prostitutes before they came into power. More still had people cruelly tortured, executed, and assassinated while in office and sanctioned wars against fellow non-heretical Christians.

>You are illeterate

lol

Luther is such a smug toad-like troll of a person, but I can't help but love him.

It means something to the Roman Empire.

It means nothing to God.

I try to convince people that Catholics really believe this.

It's good to see them this up front about it.

Absolute blasphemy.

By "tradition of the church" regarding the canon, they mean "these books have always been considered scripture".

Scripture = scripture; tradition did not make them scripture.

Literally the worst people on earth. Literally.

The pope claims to be God.

The pope's claim is blasphemous.

Again, that's all about Semiramis, the Queen of Heaven, mourning her lost son, fasting for 40 days, and having her son "rise from the dead" at the end of that 40 day mourning and fasting period.

Has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

When you see a papist with ashes on his head on Ash Wednesday, know that he is a pagan.

Vicar.
Vicarious in Latin.
In place of, in stead of.
Anti- in the Greek
Antichrist.

Yes, the pope is antichrist.

You showed me the heresy of your early church fathers.

Mine did not commit such heresies.

Rome. The City of Whores and Orphans.

I always love the shitfests of different sides trying to claim their superior similarity to the early church. If the gateway to salvation was emulating the early church there isn't a sect that comes remotely close.

Gee, almost as though salvation were a private matter between a man and his Creator.

Apparently, the authors of the NT don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura On what basis? The basis is Tradition since we do not find in any of the accepted Scriptures themselves a definition of the boundaries of Scripture itself.

And as Gamble also shows, Scripture itself in the form of the NT arises and contains indebtness to Tradition itself which becomes more prevalent the further back one goes.

So no, you failed to explain anything. Your point only works if,
a)The canon is known from the beginning and is closed

b)There is no disputes regarding books of Scripture

We don't have a and we have b from history.

Gamble is also a Protestant

I am pleased by your well researched and well articulated post, HOWEVER in order for a Pope to be a "cuck", said Pope must be married and it is his wife who must commit the adultery. I am not defending the Papacy and once again I applaud your post BUT what I do take exception to is the constant misapplication of the word "cuck" is cyberspace.

Thank you once again for your Papal degeneracy list.

2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Apparently they did.

Roman Tradition: Let's totally deify Mary!

The whole context also includes the importance of Tradition so spitting that verse isn't gonna do anything to prove my point wrong.

If any, it proves mine right where there is no Sola Scriptura in Early Christianity.

NO Protestant can beat my arguments

You're insane.

On the basis that the OT was developed and in place 400 years before Christ, meticulously maintained by the Hebrews.

On the basis that every single book in the NT was written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death or resurrection of Jesus Christ, was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and contained absolutely nothing that contradicted any other book in the bible.

The Holy Spirit inspired 66 books.
Those 66 books are in the bible.
The Holy Spirit maintains those 66 books.
The Holy Spirit teaches those 66 books.

You've no idea what I mean, or Who, when I say "Holy Spirit".

You literally think it's a spook.

When a man rails the pope's boyfriend in front of him, is the pope a cuck?

Or did you not know the tradition of orgies and homosexuality that pervaded the Vatican, and which lingers today?

Where in those 66 books we find the list of that 66books.

The whole canon of the OT wasn't even settled during Jesus' time. It was fluid. No such Council of Jamnia ever happened. It's considered bullshit by most scholars today.

If Scripture itself cannot give us the boundaries of itself then it entails that its boundaries are set not by Scripture itself but by something else which would be Tradition.

But this decimates Sola Scriptura as here, Tradition becomes the authority and not Scripture.

And here you are failing to answer my question.

The realization of God's plan on Earth and its enforcement aren't free. Those who help the church carry out God's will should be rewarded in heaven..

Its really that simple. I have no idea why Jesus deniers (Yes, if you deny that Jesus told Peter to build his church then you are a denier) cant get this around their heads

...

I just told you what they were.

OT

NT