Is Roman Catholicism paganism or is that just a proddy meme?

Is Roman Catholicism paganism or is that just a proddy meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&SourceID=phxrefbap&keyworddesc=Church History&keyword=Church History
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

A meme which stems from a lack of knowledge.

Some weird Latin American 'Catholics' are definitely polytheists and idolaters. Run of the mill Catholicism does not practice paganism as it ascribes to God unity and singularity of essence.

It's usually a conflation of prayer and worship. Catholics don't worship anyone other than God. It's doctrinal. Prayer to saints isn't worship.

Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom," the evil high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome.

Though it may be abbreviated into Pope or Papa, yet it's clearly a title inherited directly from paganism.

It's also obvious to any historian that while the Catholics have called themselves Christians, they more closely resemble the ancient pagans both in customs and names. Pope Gregory I (601 AD) said in so many words literally, "We must compromise with the pagans in order to further Christianity.".

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it..declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott Mexico

The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.

Neither of you addressed the pagan origins of Catholicism in Babylonian paganism, which is where your religion comes from.

For instance, your Ash Wednesday, Lent, and Easter are directly from Babylonian paganism, and have nothing to do with Jesus being tempted in the wilderness.

The Queen of Babylon, whom you call Mary but whose real name is Semiramis, mourned the loss of her only begotten son, Tammuz. You mourning on Ash Wednesday is in tune with Semiramis' mourning.

Semiramis fasted for 40 days. Your Lent, where you give up something, or fast, for 40 days, is directly tied to this Babylonian pagan practice.

After 40 days of fasting and mourning, Semiramis had her son returned to her, miraculously, on Ishtar. You celebrate this as Easter.

Your Ash Wednesday, Lent and Easter have nothing to do with Jesus, and everything to do with the Queen of Heaven, whom you worship.

It is not paganism.

However it is heavily, heavily influenced by it.

wtf I love catholicism now.

Yes but so is Protestantism (Via Germanic folk religion)

examples pls?

They both (Catholic and Protestant) are pagan and worship the Sun (except possibly 7th Day Adventists)
They both are mostly polytheistic (except Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians)

Pretty simple really

The Real Presence was believed since the start. Transubstantiation is merely an explanation of what all Christians always believed (until Zwingli) using Aristotelian metaphysics, which were obscure in Western Europe until Aquinas' time

good then Catholics are its own religion, every Catholic wasn't a Christian.

Hebrew traditions is heavily influenced by Paganism, council writings in the 500s have more authority than uneducated Hebrews in the 200bcs

Newman means that in a good way. Grace sanctifies nature. What's good in organic cultural traditions ought to remain, as long as whatever practices contradict Christianity are removed. By your logic, in order to bring Christianity to Japan, we ought to destroy all vestiges of traditional Japanese culture as they are pagan

Continued celebration of Christmas and continued traditions associated with it?

It's anti biblical satanic idolatrous paganism.

There's no such thing as a religion "not influenced by paganism"

jews have hid it the hardest but it still shows.

Islam is not. It's a pure religion straight from God(swt) Himself.

No. They did not into sola Scriptura and sola Fide.

They all accept a corporeal presence of Christ in bread and wine

They venerate martyrs and pray for the dead

And they have plenty of images. The earliest dates to the late 2nd century and supposed Pagan motifs are taken from the secular sphere of culture not the Pagan religious one

Many love Hellenistic philosophy so much, they think Plato copied Moses

So sorry damn buddy, it was there from the start

That is a lie

Both of these are pseudohistory

No.

Mine is real history

Your's and his are bullshit

Explain this

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.-chapter 66
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

>newadvent
Into the trash it goes
Btw i can still tell it's you Malaysiafriend
Both i responded to are bullshit

Explain this

Stay mad

Eat shit

Y-you too

Faggot

Here's some real early church history
sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&SourceID=phxrefbap&keyworddesc=Church History&keyword=Church History

James White cannot explain this

It's also funny how one of the early christian concept of sacrifice involves doing good works

That's not even a quote of a primary source

James white is also not a primary source

And fucking references are given down below dipshit

It's thinly veiled paganism with emphasis on monotheism. Whether it is pagan or not though I don't think really matters. Many of the celebrations are cool, and holy figures like Santa Muerte, the many Saints and Virgin Marys are interesting.

Do you agree with Newman about doctrinal development?

>guarenteed replies

If Catholicism is Babylonian, so is all Western Christianity dipshit.

He's a retard but Rome is Babylon

The black stone

Newman got nothing on this

What I shown is Irenaus destroying Sola Scriptura contra James shithead white

How can Protestants even recover?

And Babylon is Egypt, and Egypt is Sodom.

Jews deride the current enemy by comparing them to the last one.

Or is the modern Italian capital city evil?

HOW CAN JAMES WHITE RECOVER

And you eat shit

You didn't answer my question

You didn't answer my question

Why did IRENAEUS GO AGAINST sola scriptura?

JAMES WHITE BTFO

Where in the Bible is the definition of the bible?

Why did Clement oppose James White?

The first time Irenaeus used tradition as a source was to prove Jesus was over 50 when he died
Would you agree with that?
If you say no then how can you trust any such tradition?

Table of contents

And when he uses it to show that there are RULES to reading Scripture and that there is CONTINUITY through succession

Do you agree that Jesus was over 50 when he died
Yes or no

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [Gnostic heretics] rave about." - AH, 3, 3, 1

I do not care

Was Jesus over 50 when he died?

33

Is that a no?

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy Priests, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, 'Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden' that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord." - AH, 5, 20, 2

Nice argument.

Oh, so i guess the "apostolic tradition" of Irenaeus was wrong, huh...

You ask irrelevant questions which does not relate to Irenaeus' use of Tradition within a dogmatic context

He didn't say priest, he said elder

I'm demonstrating an error in Irenaeus' tradition
Thus proving it is not divine but man-made

It doesn't matter because in context he says that you cannot doubt them and the preaching of the Church on Biblical issues

He basically says, obey the church and don't question it's interpretation of scripture

The argument is Irenaeus does not hold to Sola ScriptUra

I had cited prominent scholar JND kelly and from Irenaeus himself to prove my point

And none of these remained addressed

Should we obey the holy tradition that Jesus was over 50 at death?
Irenaeus was one church father
I could demonstrate how Athanasius DID hold to Sola Scriptura

Athanasius didn't as his concept of Tradition involves such being the guide to Scripture as Irenaeus shows as well

Irenaeus talking about proddies
"In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,I,8:1(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:326

"The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,--while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,--still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,--the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all."
Contra Gentes,1 (A.D. 318),in NPNF2,XIV:4

When Arius claimed he was right because most bishops supported him Athanasius responded by saying it wouldn't matter if every bishop agreed with him, it wouldn't overrule the plain testimony of scripture. So according to Athanasius, Scripture > Church

"But the sectaries,who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning their Faith..."
Contra Gentes,6(A.D. 318),in NPNF2,XIV:7

Except that his statement is that those who adbandon the Church's preaching ends up in a shipwreck

And that to understand Scripture you need to know how to intepret it which is basically, Tradition

This is why he mentions the works of the holy fathers that aid this process

Christianity picked up some pagan elements in the early years. No, protestantism (any flavor of it) didn't flush those pagan elements out. For that matter, ancient Judaism was born out of other semetic religions and still has some features of those religions. Christianity retains some.

"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me."
Vita Antony 89 (A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:220

Scripture > Church = Scripture > Tradition

Rituals can easily be repurposes especially in the idea of assimilating a large population.

We dont worship this whore you speak of, we worship the One True God, who is made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The celebrations involved, although originating somewhere else, doesnt invalidate them as they have been repurposed, of this purpose being at first assimilation, nowadays its more for religious identity. Which itself is vital for a sustainable and profitable community.

Here Tradition fills the role as the guide to the Scripture

In fact Anthony's student is basically taught by the monk himself how to read Scripture hence the statement "which you been put to mind by me"

Who defines and interprates tradition?

The problem is EVERYONE believes that

Tradition is simply means to understanding Scripture

Such presupposes Scripture having the highest authority

>Scripture having the highest authority
Hey, there's a term for that!

Tradition is defined as mechanisms to read Scripture and stuff handed down

This takes the form of Regula Fidei or the way the Church approaches it

This is Tradition in Irenaeus and Athanasius

Yes it's called PRIMA SCRIPTURA

"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth...."
Orationes contra Arianos III:28(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409

WRONG
Sola Scriptura = Scripture as the supreme authority of the church
Sola Scriptura =/= Solo Scriptura
I hate to break it to you, but that's not the Roman Catholic view of tradition.

That supports Sola Scriptura

It Doesn't because Athanasius is saying you read Scripture based on HOW the Church sees it

Not Scripture plain text

I am NOT defending the Catholic view of
tradition moron

I am merely showing how Sola ScriptUra
Contradicts the Early Church.

Sola ScriptUra IS Solo Scriptura since Traditions are only accepted if
They agree with Scripture

The Early Church says that to read Scripture, you read it as WE read it and follow our mechanism to do so

BIG DIFFERENCE

Nowhere does it say that. It doesn't even use the words tradition or church

. Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor, or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius, Bishops of the East, or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Moesia, or Pistus and Aristaeus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Caecilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Paederos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these;--there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements, for the character of APOSTOLICAL MEN is sincere and INCAPABLE OF FRAUD"
Ad Episcopos 8(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:227

No the early church never said that
Also good to know you recognize your own religion is contra reality

It does when he talks about the "Scope" of reading Scripture

I already shown how such is their beliefs

I schooled you on Irenaeus and now I school you in Athanasius

"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' "
De Synodis 14

"But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever."
Ad Afros 2(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:489

REALITY

"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious."
Orationes contra Arianos III:58(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:425

Roman Catholicism is truly a mental illness

You are a mental illness

Stay mad I schooled you in sola ScriptUra

Mary was a whore who fucked 500 Roman cocks at once. I know, it's Apostolic Tradition.