Is Catholicism a polytheistic religion?

...

>falseflagging this hard

NO, BUT IT IS A FALSE RELIGION.

CATHOLICISM IS A JUDEOCHRISTIAN RELIGION; JUDEOCHRISTIANITY IS A CORRUPTED JUDAIZED VERSION OF AUTHENTIC GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY; JUDEOCHRISTIANS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE AWARE OF IT, WORSHIP YHWH, NOT GOD.

nice caps abdulaziz

I genuinely don't get this. Why does the church supposedly founded by Christ/Peter be so obsessed with gold and jewels? I understand the real reason, but I don't see the internal logic.

t. pagan

Ask the God in the Old Testament. He asked for as much on at least two occasions.

The God in the old testament never seemed to care particularly about the plight of the poor only rarely about hypocrisy compared to how concerned Jesus seemed to be, so there's no real contradiction if you take the OT in isolation.

>pagan

t. retard

Idk if OP is trolling, but I'll bite.

Catholicism is monotheistic, but it absolutely displays multiplicity in the various forms of sacred power available to be worshipped. Although The Trinity is one, the separate sacred powers that act as one could be seen as polytheistic since one can pray to an individual sacred power of the trinity. Of course there are also saints and the Virgin Mary, which can all be prayed and worshipped separately. Worship, in this case, is mostly veneration through sacred rituals and prayers, not necessarily admitting they're the one God.

So is it polytheistic? Not by definition, but I think it would make a good claim to say that there is solid evidence for polytheistic traits. That is to say, you could say Catholicism is polytheistic based on the actual physical rituals and traditions of sacred worship, not just what the CCC says.

He cared.

So you said all that to say its Henotheistic.

Worship to saints and the virigin mary is mostly veneration yes, but you can also pray to the saints in the hopes that they improve your life (for lack of a better term) this paints them as interventionist deities with superhuman powers limited to a specific area of expertise, much like those found in a demi-god of a polytheistic religion.

...

Then the hypocrisy extends back to the OT. Doesn't do much to fix the problem though.

No, I think henotheistic implies there is a pantheon from which one is selected while the others are acknowledged.

I'm saying that Catholicism recognizes the Trinity, but the manifestation of Catholic worship resembles something almost polytheistic, whether one consciously recognizes that or not.

Its not hypocritical. Christianity isn't communism.

God is never offended by beauty.

Actually if you think about it, you aren't praying to Mary or the saints. You're actually asking them to pray for you. "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners..."

I-IT'S JUST VENERATION GUYS!

That's like saying you don't pray "to" Athena, you merely ask her to exploit her position as Zeus's favorite child to get him to do something he otherwise wouldn't be inclined to.

You can't on the one hand say that it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, and have Jesus advise the rich man to sell every one of his possessions if he wants to follow the path of Christ, and then turn around and deck out your church in the most expensive gaudy baubles.

No, you are worshipping them. Whenever you engage in a ritual for the purpose of connecting with the sacred, you are engaging in worship.

It's about hierarchy you dimwit.

Not even bothered explaining to you in detail, as I do not perceive you as being an enemy, therefore I do not respect you, therefore I will not argue with you, as I only respect those who are equal.

Why should I strike a thumb tack with a sledge hammer?

Whatever the fuck it is, it's not Christianity.

>muh out of context quote
whoa. Profound.

So is the official position of the Catholic Church that the needle quote is mistranslated and it actually refers to a wide gate, thus it is easy for the rich to enter heaven? I always thought they made fun of protestants for things like the prosperity gospel but I guess they aren't so different.

...

Poverty isn't an issue solved by giving away jewels to the poor. It's only through societal change that such a thing can be eradicated.

Also, is there anything wrong with reserving your most beautiful art to be for the lord rather than for kings?

Why is an expensive diamond considered more beautiful than an inexpensive quartz?

>instead of answering question you ask "what is beauty?"
wew

No.

You venerate saints.
You worship God and recognize him as the only God, and Chirst as the messiah. There is a clear divide.

False equivalency. Athena was a goddess, and while she was lower in the pecking order, she was still a goddess. Saints are not gods. God is a god, and the only god. The relationship is not the same.

not him but what about Theseus or Jason, both were humans elevated to demigod status similar to humans being elevated to sainthood.

John 10:35 — If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

If your definition of beauty requires wealth, then there is a problem.

Demigodhood is still not godhood. Bottom line is that to pray to saints is misplaced worship that should be directed at God. Saints are objects of veneration, respect, and role models but there is a clear divide between them and the omniscient divinity of God itself.

the catholic church gives billions to charity

>omniscient divinity of God itself.
And there is a clear divide between ancestor worship, animism, personal devotion to more minor gods of the patheon and one omniscient divinity. The clear division makes it okay to do, right? So God won't begrudge anyone a little Athena or Guanyin worship as long as it's in a distinctly secondary capacity.

John 10:35 makes sense in context to Jesus specifically, but that cannot be said for Athena. Jesus is part of God himself; he is one part of the Trinity. He is inseparable from God itself as an entity. Athena is a divine entity entirely in and of herself; she is Zeus's progeny, yes, but she is not part of Zeus, she is her own separate goddess.

>Trinity
Nice meme.

No that is also incorrect. Thinking in a Judaeo-Christian sense, God is the only God. There are no other gods, no secondary gods, the only god is God himself. To worship anyone or anything else "on the side" violates the Ten Commandments, as it implies you are putting another entity before God himself.

"You shall have no other Gods before me" could be interpreted to imply that there *are* other less Gods and may very be what it meant originally.

Not an argument.

We're having a discussion about Catholic theology, how the hell can you not bring up the Trinity?

No, it's okay. There is a clear divide between the saints and an omniscient God, right? Well there's also a clear divide between Athena and an omniscient God. She's a created being, not omniscient or omnipotent, and has a distinctly human mindset compared to the unknowable "mind" of God. Nobody could possibly confuse the two, thus there is a clear distinction, and worship must be okay.

> There is a clear divide between the saints and an omniscient God, right?

There is, but there is also a clear divide between veneration and worship. Saints are venerated in recognition for whatever it was that made them a saint. God is worshiped because he is God, the omniscient divine entity. Worship is distinct from veneration in that worship recognizes God's place as the supreme being, for whom there exist no other gods.

>Well there's also a clear divide between Athena and an omniscient God. She's a created being, not omniscient or omnipotent, and has a distinctly human mindset compared to the unknowable "mind" of God.

So she is not a god, then. Not in a Christian sense.

>Nobody could possibly confuse the two, thus there is a clear distinction, and worship must be okay.

No, because she is not worthy of worship. Only God is worthy of worship. To worship any other entity but God violates the Ten Commandments.

>Not in a Christian sense
Exactly! So we agree that Athena is not a God, merely at best she's a god, but whatever the exact case may be she is clearly not a supreme being. And because she is not a supreme being, as long as God is acknowledged as The Supreme Being, the comandment against worshiping another God "before" him is not violated. It is just more convenient to ask Athena to intercede on our behalf, because she is clever and compassionate and worthy of esteem on a much more personal level. We could call her St.Athena if it would make you more comfortable, but at the end of the day we're just adding another intercessor/auxilliatrix. What's one more for the pile?

I'll put it this way. If I gift the church with a wonderful painting of the Holy Family, I'd be pretty pissed off if they decided to sell it for loads of cash instead of using it to adorn a church or other institution. These gifts are for the veneration of the Lord, not to be sold to a collector so it can rot in their private estate as a conversation piece.

But beauty IS wealth, in the sense that beauty is often coveted by the world.

It doesn't matter what form that beauty takes. It could be a gold crown studded with jewels, an expertly carved statue of a saint, or a pristine landscape admired by viewers. Beauty has worth, and thus it cannot be separated from value.

>If I gift the church with a wonderful painting of the Holy Family
How much did you spend on it? How much higher is that figure than the total cost of the materials, the artist's wages, taxes, upkeep etc., and why?

How much cash did they get for it? And what did they use it on? Did they buy another gold trinket, or did they feed and clothe the homeless? Does it bother you that your money would go to those people?

>It could be a gold crown studded with jewels,
So let's imagine we have two crowns which are aesthetically identical. One is made with "genuine" diamonds worth a fortune, the other with compressed carbon diamonds normally made for industrual purposes that cost significantly less.

Is the crown with the genuine diamonds more beautiful than the one with less expensive industrial diamonds, despite the fact that you visually cannot tell the difference? If in the dead of night when nobody was watching, the Vatican replaced their diamonds with the industrial ones but didn't tell anyone, they would still have lost beauty even thought nobody could notice?

>So we agree that Athena is not a God, merely at best she's a god,

She is not a god at all because there is only one god.

>. It is just more convenient to ask Athena to intercede on our behalf, because she is clever and compassionate and worthy of esteem on a much more personal level.

There is problem that you assume a saint may be able to bargain on your behalf, but that's beside the point.

The main problem here is that all worship that is not off God is against the Commandments. God is the only people, the sole being, worthy of worship. Also in the example your are providing the role you place upon the hypothetical St. Athena is already filled; that is the role of Christ. You do not need any other entity to "intercede" on your behalf because Christ already did that for the entirety of humanity. All you must do is recognize God as the only god, and Christ as the messiah. It's quite simple. St. Athena is figure for which we may venerate for her wisdom and compassion, but it is only an admiration and recognition of these traits, not a recognition of being God.

>There is problem that you assume a saint may be able to bargain on your behalf
Sure they can, that'a the whole point isn't it? God won't answer my prayer, so I ask Mary to pray on my behalf instead. Because Mary is more merciful than God, she listens to my prayers, and then she asks God/tells her son to do something, and he is more likely to listen. But there's a problem. Mary is a sweet old lady, to be sure, but maybe she's not so much a fan of how people talk these days or the Internet or whatever. You know how it is when people get old. So instead, I ask Guanyin to ask Mary to ask God. Guanyin will take all comers, and Mary is probably more likely to listen to Guanyin than a degenerate, and Jesus is more likely to listen to Mary. It's the only way to cut through the celestial bureaucracy, by using intercessors and mediators. And since there is a clear distinction between created beings like Guanyin and Mary and the Supreme God, whatever I do with Guanyin and Mary is clearly not whatever is done with God, thus, even if it is called worship it is actually just veneration, and thus okay. Mary is just a woman, not God, and Guanyin is just some sort of vague eastern deity/specific cultural concept who is certainly not the omniscient and omnipotent God. Like you say, there is only one God, and we can't lump all divine beings into being God otherwise angels couldn't exist. So I recognize Guanyin for extending out her thousand hands, helping where Mary might feel uncomfortable and Jesus might not care. Certainly can't be anything wrong with that, it's just veneration.

Reminder that most christian saints are just pagan gods/heroes with a changed name so the plebs can keep worshiping them while remaining christian™.

Ask humans why they value actual gold over something that looks identical but isn't gold. I still haven't figured out why, but we for some reason prefer the real deal over a perfect replica, and the only thing I've been able to come up with is beauty is not just in the visual representation of the object, but also a function of scarcity.

For example, I would say theoretically, a mighty oak tree is something awe inspiring, but due to its common nature, people value it less since the concept of a beautiful oak tree can be seen anywhere. In the same way, processed silica is also in its own way amazing, but beauty comes from taking that silica dirt and creating something marvelous from it. Beauty itself is a strange, subjective concept by humans and closely related to the concept of "value," which is determined by many factors.

Assume it was something I created with a paintbrush and canvas and it became semi-renowned. I only use this example because a real life example happened similar with another institution.

A local family in my town had gifted our chapter of boy scouts with a lush 200 acre wilderness to be used as a wilderness campground for local and neighboring scouts sometime in the 60s. Legally, the transfer went to the Boy Scouts of America of the Gulf Coast Region, headquartered in a city over a hundred miles away.

When the scouting organization of the region fell on hard times in the late 2000s, in order to preserve the region's scouting as a whole, it was decided to sell off this land to a private entity in order to protect the headquarters' activities. This caused great unrest to the family that donated the land in the first place, since now a place that was given with the understanding it would be used by the locals for a specific purpose was now being sold away as an auction piece for an unrelated matter with said locals having no say in the sale or who would buy it.

Gold has inherent value due to its properties such as conductivity and ductility, and in a more abstract sense scarcity makes it a useful marker or symbol of value, but in terms of pure aesthetics there is no reason to value it so high, which is what its purpose in art is. Diamonds even more so, because the cheaper industrial diamonds can be of much higher quality for a much lower price. If part of the value of the art is "I could have chosen to house the homeless but instead chose to have a shiny thing" that is a bit of a problem for an organization that claims to be the sole legitimate moral authority on the planet. That's the sticking point here, that God's voice on earth needs to be decked out in fancy trinkets and sparkles while directing their much poorer congregation to donate to them. You go to Latin America for example and people donate to the church far beyond their means because "it's the right thing to do, God provides" and then that money gets turned around and re-invested in another diamond-studded crucifix. How much is enough?

In the boy scout example, there was an explicit betrayal of the intended land use. But part of the stated goal of the church is the elimination or least the lessening of poverty, isn't it?

No and anyone who says it is has a hilariously uninformed view and probably is thinking of deliberate misinterpretations of Catholic dogma created to attack the Church and try and make the Protestant reformation look like a good idea in hindsight.

To be fair, Christians is a polytheist religion.

Pretty much. Jews back then did believe in multiple gods. This also helped to make the switch from polytheism to what is effectively monotheism less jarring.
So technically, belief in other gods isn't unbiblical.

If I did with Jesus what the Catholics do with Mary, you would say I'm worshiping Jesus.

Conductivity wasn't a big deal back in the medieval era and before, and as far as I can tell, it's primary purpose was in the creation of art, and for that, it commanded a impressively higher value than more useful metals such as iron. Why it was valued for jewelry and other effects over other metals, I cannot say. Myself, I find beauty in practical things, though I suppose in a way, owning such a rare item such as a gold ring or crown has a practical purpose in itself -- to proclaim one's ability to obtain something so valuable, one must have considerable sway. There is certainly a trend such as that among African nations most obviously, but everywhere seems to put stock into the notion to various degrees.

As for the eradication of poverty, it's not a problem that is simply fixed by handing a man a stack of bills and telling him to buy something nice. Poverty comes from disenfranchisement in the system, alienation from the community, and a lack of value of one's talents. Even though it's incredibly trite, I would say the old adage applies: "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry."

The Church certainly has organizations within itself to lessen the direct effects of poverty. After all, humans have to eat to stay alive, and shelter is important to the security of all individuals. But it is also on a higher level that the Church campaigns, one that seeks to change the social order so that the poor might find themselves one day no longer in such a state. How to accomplish that task is disagreed on by many within the ranks, and on a wider scale, by nations, governments, and individuals. No one quite knows how to ensure that all humans have wealth in the world, and entire wars have been fought over ideology of the issue. Parts of the church in different locales attempt varying methods: Some campaign for socialist systems, others for the creation of jobs and worker rights in capitalist ones.

Moreso, there's even disagreements over what constitutes poverty and when enough is enough. Everyone seems to agree on the obvious, men need food to sustain themselves, a roof over their head, clothes to wear, and all that jazz. But then we find ourselves looking at poverty as a relative issue; if a man cannot afford the same lifestyle as 95% of his peers, but still has the previously mentioned things, is he poor? Do people require modern conveniences such as a privately owned vehicle, a TV, or a computer? How much healthcare is a person entitled to before they can hang up their "poor" status?

Ideally, conditions for humans of all classes should improve as much as we are able to, and over the year, for the majority of people in the west at least, things have. While we certainly have our share of vagrants and citizens living in shelters and outside, the majority of those we consider poor are people who still own either a small apartment or other rental property, who might still have a family vehicle, who still have access to TV, news, books, and the works, even if they must go to a library to utilize the latter. We consider them struggling, and to some degree they are, but often they are much better off than the majority of the developing world. It is a relative poorness they are undergoing, and while we certainly want to improve their conditions, we must at some point draw the line and move to providing other services, such as the spiritual and moral health of individuals and families.

One might argue a priest could conduct his services without any sort of gold studded jewelry or implements, or that marble altars are too extravagant, or that the church building and property itself is too opulant, and if need be, those thing can be forgone as well. But their utilization is in itself a reverence to God, in that we put Him over the material things of the world.

/thread

I see what you did there.

Woah take it easy

The phrase means "don't worship anyone/anything other than me". For example material wealth, like many people do today. Or TV. Or politicians.

There is no need to think of implications. People back then worshipped multiple gods.

A) because most of it is gold gild (leaf) not solid gold
B) The ones who are solid gold are probably historical artifacts entrusted to the Holy see in the name of the Italian people
C) The church is the single largest charity

Are saints and the virgin mary gods by definition to you?

Not yet.

Yes it is. Pagans in asia/pakistan actually consider catholics as kin because they see them as fellow pagans.

Yes
Also it's not Christian

It literally means "in my presence", retards

Varg Vikerness made a video about how he believes Catholics to be pagan

damn the fedora is strong with this post

>my church is Jesus
Really makes me think

Christcucks are the real fedoras.

Case in point.

to be fair, christianity as a whole is very pagan like, those pagan tribes consider all christians to be pagans

Return to your echo chamber → archive.is/6BLJY

Yes, Nicolaitan, it is.

Now find out what Jesus said about Nicolaitans.

You can call your shoes your god, if you'd like. Won't make them God, but they will be your god.

Get out, papist

The Holy Roman Empire that's why

>we don't have to follow our own rules because reasons
t.christianity

>Christianity derives exclusively from autistically following a compilation of spiritual text and isn't the result of several civilizations worth of thought formulating into a religion.
WHEN. WILL. THIS. MEME. DIE!?!

"Or to put it another way, wherever you go; there goes the church. This raises questions about Matthew 18:19-20, which says that wherever two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, He is there with them in their midst. This verse is often used in one of three ways."

>If I did with Jesus what the Catholics do with Mary, you would say I'm worshiping Jesus.
We ask Mary to pray for us. If you asked Jesus to pray for us you woud be denying his divinity. So no, you are wrong.

>But their utilization is in itself a reverence to God, in that we put Him over the material things of the world.
I guess this is my actual fundamental objection and everything else is mostly ancillary. If you yourself give up an item of material value, that is in some sense putting your God above your wealth, but if you can afford it then it's just a way of pridefully showing off your wealth, and if you can't afford it you're being exploited by an organization guilt-tripping you beyond your means. And it would be one thing if those resources were re-invested into the community, or into the poverty problem at large. But getting used as fancy baubles doesn't mean you're putting God above material things, because you're using the material thing to carry out the worship in the first place. It's like the difference between handing someone an expensive gift vs a thoughtful one, but on a societal scale. It is in and of itself a re-enforcement of the reverence for the material, to hoard it and show it off, with disastrous consequences for the ones who contribute to it.

>if you asked Jesus to pray for us you would be denying his divinity.
Jesus prayed to God the Father numerous times. Why wouldn't you be able to pray to Jesus specifically to pray for you to God the Father while in heaven? When he prayed was he denying his own divinity?

>wby would the so called vicar of christ surround himself with such Pomp and opulence?
Because the Vicar of Christ is surrounded by the Church, and the Church is the earhly mirror of the heavenly kingdom in heaven. The heavenly kingdom is something so beautiful we can't even grasp it, so it makes sense for the Church on earth to try and be aestheticlly pleasing and worth of its character as much as it can. God himself in the Bible clearly points out that he likes gold and things dedicated to him should be made of worthy materials.
Neither the Pope nor the clergy own that wealth, in fact they can't even have children so they couldn't even pass down the priesthood thus becoming religious welfare dinasties or something. But that is also critisized by the atheists and the heretics. You'll often find that the Church is accused of doing bad things always on both sides of the spectrum, so as to cover all political leanings and ideals of those that satan tries to distance from the Church. Not an accident that all protestants parrot the meme "get out of here" when talking about the Catholic Church. That's exactly because it's the True Church and Satan hates whoever is in it.