Go to traditional Latin Mass

>>preist stands with his back to the audience the whole time
>>can't understand a fucking thing

>He was talking to you...

so much

learn latin

The third reich betrayed europe and lost eastern europe to communism
germancucks are nothing but filthy communist collaborators, three times they have worked to spread communism to the world, creating it, establishing it, and expanding it

>a consenting couple finding love in their faith in god
>church adjusted for the challanges of today
>bad

and still the pope didn't oppose Hitler, letting him do the terrible things he did to Poland and others without rising his voice against it

Should medieval peasants all have learned Latin?

How and why?

>Hur dur mistranslations

You fucking idiot if you wanted to preserve the authenticity of original christian teachings then you'd either be Greek orthodox, learning Koine Greek, or a follow Coptic Christianity and learn Coptic.

Church was held in Latin because the peasants couldn't understand it, meaning that the Church held all the power.

If the peasants clocked that there was nothing in the bible about tithes, indulgences, purgatory, etc, then they'd be less inclined to be raped by Rome.

Napoleon restored Church because he saw it as a useful tool.

Git gud.

He wasn't at a Catholic mass you dolts. Catholic priests face the people while serving mass.

Latin is the origin language of French, so it is pure

Germans are the original sin

You have a lot of nerve saying that when your pope is a literal commie himself. Eat shit and die.

When the Latin mass was introduced most people could understand it

>preserve the authenticity of original christian teachings

No such things, the Latin church is just another of the many regional variations of Christianity present in the roman empire and beyond

And Church members are worthless as long as you don't have anything to gain from them apparently

The Romans adopted Christianity as state religion though. The persecutions were for the most part inconsequential and carried out really inconsistently.

Really?

In the traditional mass they didn't.

>why are protestants such n*ggers

while gaudy and souless, no different in function to large cathedrals like the Notre Dame

Where is that practiced?
I know Orthodox Christians do it like that.

So much bullshit. Protestant churches are either tool sheds or giant money temples

because the mass is supposed to be a ritual ceremony, the church is like a machine built for it, the priest is supposed to face the altar and serve as a relay to god, not facing an audience and telling stories

ritualism is the absolute lowest form of spirituality.

everything loses meaning and it becomes all about the spectacle instead of the divine.

thats not realy what ritual is about

a ritual ceremony has functions, in a religious or magic sense, the spectacle is optional

So when a pastor starts going crazy, yelling, and "filled da holy ghost n shieet" that isn't ritualism as well?

youtube.com/watch?v=2af4gcS-b9Y

I got no idea where you got that from, user criticized ritualism and you came dragging with protestant snake holders out of nowhere

protestants have their own rituals as well

Yeah but user never said he was a protestant, he just opposed the old traditional mass. Stop presenting a false dilemma.

>cathedrals are not money temples
>The catholic church was not a for profit institution for most of its history

Is hypocrisy not a sin?

When did Syria attack the Vatican?

>millions of illiterate peasants sat for a hour and listened to priests prattle on in a language they didn't understand
>they all became religious fanatics
how

The more money you make the more a protestant church wants it because they're all empty (soulless) and don't offer sacrifice to the people (Communion). And I hate your attitude, an attitude common among protestants, this kinda innocent sounding, humble, "punching up to the big, bad, scary Catholic church" while protestant churches have a strangle hold on communities in the godforsaken south and mid west hillbilly country

They weren't religious fanatics. Few people throughout history were religious fanatics, probably the same proportion of people were in the medieval period, as there are today.

People change, but not that much.

>Is hypocrisy not a sin?
Also you the hypocritical ones because you people can't shut up about Notre Dame de Paris probably cause its the only cathedral you can name at the top of your head thanks to disney

in the catholic church it's a virtue

two words
heretic pyres

Non-Christian here, I really don't get what the problem is here. They appear to be large churches designed around a modern understanding of acoustics.

There's lots of loony shit in American protestantism, but this isn't a great example.

I'm not protestant.

>protestant churches have a strangle hold on communities in the godforsaken south and mid west hillbilly country

Correct. Religion is used by the powerful to extort and squeeze money out of the pockets of vulnerable people. It's strange that a Catholic would admit to this.

I guess now that you have Pope who's into liberation theology you're all becoming more self-aware.

You aren't countering anything he says, just saying the protestants do it worse then insults him because he uses a famous example.
Don't get what your problem with parking places is

The Mass is not a sermon and the priest isn't addressing the people, he has his back to them because he is at the head of the flock. Sermons are directed to the people and have always typically been in vernacular languages (and are generally independent of a Mass).

Funnily enough the word "audience" used by OP is somewhat accurate (though a better one would be "witness").

Makes sense, a design like this probably confuses the shit out a secularist

>hurr iz dat supposed to be a cross n shieet?

Protestantism is inherently irrational based on German memes of "sola scriptura" and other nonsense

you've never been inside s catholic church and read all your great 5 star amazon books. keep thinking like you do user!

I can name St Paul's, St David's, Westminster and Southwark, the Basilica in Rome, and Tours in the Loire valley (went on holiday there). That;s it off the top of my head, truly and honestly.

I'm not a protestant, i'm atheist-agnostic, so you're preaching to the choir by criticizing mega-churches.

Cathedrals are beautiful things, and should be preserved, but don't be deluded in how they were made.

The tithes, indulgences, and money grubbing of the Catholic church is what funded there grand building projects.

Your Church's history is no different to the protestant mega churches who beg money from their followers with the promise of salvation and good fortune.

>Makes sense, a design like this probably confuses the shit out a secularist

No, the symbolism of the design makes perfect sense you touchy weiner. It's just not necessarily acoustically sound; which would be preferred for preaching to a large audience.

>Protestantism is inherently irrational based on German memes of "sola scriptura" and other nonsense
>A Christian calls another Christian irrational

Golden.

>which would be preferred for preaching to a large audience.
Exactly 0% of a Mass is preaching.

>five star amazon book
five stars on amazon don't mean much

And what they do in those churches you posted pictures of is, you fucking cretin.

That's it, user, ignore me and live in denial.

I've been inside many catholic Churches because they're often stunningly beautiful buildings, when they're not too vulgar of course.

St David's cathedral in Wales was one I went to growing up as a Child, since I visited the town a lot on holidays. I've been to Rome, so I have seen all the grand cathedrals, as well as small chapels in the French alps.

My question to you is, how did the Church fund the building of the grand cathedrals, filled with treasure? Why would the vikings attack monasteries, cathedrals and churches?

>A Christian calls another Christian irrational
>Golden.
oh I bet you're so rational and skeptical

youtube.com/watch?v=o49cGq9UUBY&feature=youtu.be

that's vatican ii reformed mass . Before 1960, they never turned their back to the altar and spoke almost exclusively in latin.

*Sceptical

I don't like seeing Americans on this board, please leave.

>things I never claimed

You have to take a leap of faith to be a Christian. No matter how rational you build the system beyond that leap, you're still taking a leap. You take a leap of faith in assuming there's an external world or that solipsism isn't the truth as well (mind you, there's no reason to disbelieve in the external world or to believe solipsism is the truth, but you're still taking a leap not to believe in; there's also no reason to believe in God or the divinity of Jesus of course).

The Church doesn't use it's wealth if it did then it wouldn't be in the church but rather in a private collection. like this, imagine how much money could make by selling this sarcophagus of the superposed 3 wise men could see for millions even if there was nothing inside because its simply not sale and is available for everyone to see. The church isn't a museum also and if it is its a bad one because people don't donate shit to the church except the faithful during mass. It says somewhere in the Catechism, more elquently then I could put it that the treasures of the church belong to everyone

idk i need sleep of coffee, peace

>people don't donate shit to the church expect the faithful during mass
They had far more ways to obtain money before the church was built, when indulgences were sold for money and the church owned a third of all land in Europe

I leave with this; it takes a bigger leap of faith to claim the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was man made.Every attempt to explain it or recreate it has failed like how can anyone explain there isn't a sketch underneath the image at all, a practice all painters during this time did. I don't need to "take a leap of faith" to know Gods real

No it doesn't. We have countless images like it and we've lost countless painting and artisanal techniques over the centuries. It took us centuries to replicate the properties of Damascus steel with modern techniques for instance.

Something extraordinary is not proof of God.

nope there was no famous painter in Mexico during that time, nothing but "smelly low iq beaners with bad skill evidence by their manuscripts". Seriously the only way to explain the image is come up with a conspiracy that Spanish made it to convert the Mexicans.

>no evidence of a talented, skilled painter in Mexico at this time
>no evidence of a painter taking on this project
>no signature
>no evidence of it being transported to America from Europe
>seemingly god like skills a painter has to paint this good
>must be human

look in into although I suspect you wont
alright thats it, bye

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe#Technical_analyses

>Neither the fabric ("the support") nor the image (together, "the tilma") has been analyzed using the full range of resources now available to museum conservationists.

Already looked. It's never been seriously studied.

so all the studies before hand aren't serious, what a waste of time those scientist did!

great move there just like Christopher bitchens did, just scam over something religious and dismiss it utterly, shame on me and the religious, bravo!

Your butthurt does not serve you well. Something extraordinary is not proof of something impossible. No famous painter in Mexico? Then an obscure one, your racism also does no service. Those studies were cursory examinations with tools more limited than we have no. If you truly feel that this work is something that proves God, then advocate that it be truly put to the test.

But in the meantime, get some higher standards of proof.

See already taking a leap of faith arent you? If the image was fake it would have been disproved by the first studies a long time ago but no we need current year technology to prove and then a year from then use the current year tech to disprove and so on and so

and I not racist, i'm a spic but, a lot of people claim we're stupid and truly not single one of Mexicans ancestors during the 1400s could paint

>Varnish: The tilma has never been varnished.
>Under-drawing: PC asserted there was no under-drawing.
>Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush").

wow so easy to disprove this lol

*early 1400s

Guess I have to be that fucking specific before some one finds an artist during the 1490's

>See already taking a leap of faith arent you?
>I state at the outset we all take a leap of faith on a regular basis and outright eschew the idea that I'm sort of rationalist sceptic

You're not a smart one, are you?

>If the image was fake it would have been disproved by the first studies a long time ago but no we need current year technology to prove and then a year from then use the current year tech to disprove and so on and so

Of course the image isn't a fake, it's a very real icon using an unknown method of painting and pigments.

>truly not single one of Mexicans ancestors during the 1400s could paint

Well that's a fucking moronic assertion. You were colonized by the Spanish and had Spanish clergy and nobility present; it's not as though figures of wealth and education were absent in the region.

>wow so easy to disprove this lol

Again, with things I never said. But it was examined in the late 80s with limited technology. We have better tools.

>60s tech
>bad and not creditable enough, must use current year tech

Also your claim earlier that "we lost techniques" and using the Damascus steel example is bullshit because there multiple attempts to recreate the image DURING the 1400's and theyall failed

>multiple attempts to recreate the image DURING the 1400's and theyall failed

but nah its just an elaborate conspiracy where they purposefully failed to get the Mexicans to submit the papist cult lol

Unless those attempts were done by the artist or a student of the artist, that's not even remotely unexpected.

And yes, technology has gotten better since the sixties. You can tell by the fact you're currently being a whiny bitch over a sophisticated personal computer that isn't the size of a fucking small house.

>who taught this artist
>who comiisioned this artist
>did this artist even exist
>why didn't a super skilled artist use his talents to make money and gain fame (waaah this doesn't fit inmy evolutionary, Dick Dawkins meme mind frame where people do whatever to spread genes, memes and their dna, waaaaa why couldn't the anonymous artist of Guadalupe be rational)

>self-taught, inheritor of a family tradition, who knows
>they painted for the love of their craft
>presumably, the painting exists
>didn't want to taint their craft with lucre or fame

All perfectly plausible, and require smaller assumptions than "God, LMAO."

>let's do it in Greek
>hurr durr you're just doing it so the peasants won't know it
Latin was the language of peasants until they made their own local tongue from their accents

>not spending time in awe of God's glory
What a waste of time m8

I was attacking the user's logic. Catholics always say that they did it in Latin to preserve the true meaning of scripture, so if that was the case you wouldn't do it in Latin, you'd do it in Greek or Coptic right?

Latin was not the language of northern european peasants. Even if it was, then that's still a fucking retarded argument. Why shouldn't the Church change?

It's like your blaming the peasants for stupidly changing their language.

Moron

>says the protestcuck who interprets the Bible literally and doesn't accept "idolatry" like Mudslimes

>use language of the commoners as these are your followers
>new people convert
>they start making changes to it
>don't even speak Latin

IF JEEBUS WANTED A TEMPLE HE WOULDNT HAD BROKEN THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM, YA HEAR ME NIGGERLOVER, BOY YOU EVEN STARTING TO SMELL LIKE A NIGGER JEWBOY

All those things would be hard to figure out, but assuming some sort of holy fraud takes far less assumptions than assuming God beamed down a painting, one that is clearly based on recognizable European styles of the time

Are you comparing your religion to a hobby?

unbelievable

No, I thought this comic would be the easiest way to explain my point of how dumb peasants are for not learning Latin then making their own decadent churches for lack of Latin
Latin is to have continuity from the church fathers to the modern day, at least until V2 came along
>tfw not allowed to slap women on the head for not covering their hair in church

The Catholic Church might as well be dead. But I do find it kind of funny that it is the most passive of things is what killed it.

You shouldn't adjust the values of God for any age.
Those fags might have love for God but God has no love for those fags

>takes far less assumptions

Not when Our Lady of Guadalupe is considered within the continuum of Marian Apparitions, which have continued up to the present day. Holy Mother Mary routinely does what is impossible for man, through the power of Christ, her son who is God.

>Not when Our Lady of Guadalupe is considered within the continuum of Marian Apparitions

Which have also never been proven to come from God.

>religion
>proof
I don't think you're in the right thread

Yeah let's not pretend going to Church in any capacity isn't fucking cancer.

How the shit are you supposed to have a personal relation with God when you're surrounded by other people?

Also don't blame Protestantism for American problems.

Why would someone go to that kind of mass?
I mean if you are a Catholic wouldn't that be against the rules? It's how the Orthodox do it.

>It's how the Orthodox do it.

If that was the sole criteria for disallowing something it'd be an even bigger clusterfuck than it already is. Catholics and Orthodox did come from the same roots you know.

Why are christians on Veeky Forums so childish?

Raised protestant, went to a Catholic university surrounded by other Catholics, even went to mass a few times with friends. While its nice and all, I would say Catholicism isn't as personal as Protestantism. For one, I like praying directly to God and I wouldn't like needing a priest to intercede on my behalf. I also don't like the ceremonies and decorations like the altar boys and gilded candlesticks. They seem to be extraneous and vaguely pagan.

The truth is very few people have the Spirit in them. Right mind leads to right action. Action without mind is mindless obedience. No matter how Catholics spin this one part, it will always remain true. Most Catholics are culturally Catholic and not much else. They don't have spirituality. If anything, Catholicism struck me as extremely mystical and esoteric, handwaving complex theological questions as something laypeople shouldn't worry about and just do what they're told.

I appreciate the Catholic Church as an institution of learning, culture, and history, but not as one of worship.

Because more people are starting to view vatican ii as a bullshit PR stunt to get more normies to subscribe (which is absolutely true), there is literally no theological basis for the reform apart from making mass more approachable to outsiders.

Pretty sure most decently sized churches offer it at least some of the time.

You sound like one of those dudes who runs a prodie 'church leadership program' or other such nonsense.

You can't force people to have faith affirming understanding of God. You can brainwash them to believe that they do, but this isn't really the same thing.

ask to borrow a missal