Catholic Veeky Forums General

Just finished that about a week ago. Good stuff. The first section is the best. I feel like it doesn't get heavy with the Catholic themes until the last section.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.'

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

What did he mean by this?

Did somebody say Catholicism?

Why not Catho/lit/?

A fig tree is a traditional symbol for Israel. "Fruit" in the gospels often symbolize things like grace, true belief or repentance and stuff like that and the story is stressing that Israel is not bearing good fruit, that it's not in season. Jesus then says "May no one ever eat fruit from you again," meaning we shouldn't follow Israels example. Jesus cursing the tree, and the tree withering could be seen as a prophecy of doom for Israel and I think it points forward to the crucifixion.

The Name of the Rose never gets mentioned in Catholic lit threads even though church history is a major part of the novel.

Indeed.

You're on to something there, user.

What's the best translation of the Divine Comedy? I think I'm finally going to try an tackle it.

>tackle it

it's quite easy reading

there's a chart floating around somewhere

>Shusaku Endo writes about how God exists to suffer with humanity
>Graham Greene was a "Catholic athiest" who cheated on his wife
>Flannery O'Connor wrote edgy southern gothic
>Augustine literally wrote "confessions" of his sins

Why are Catholic writers so fucked up?

ALL CATHOLICS MUST FUCKING HANG

i believe the everyman library edition is the best

>hang
>not be crucified

ffs user

Have you all read Nietszche? How do you reconcile his criticisms of Christianity with your beliefs?

meh.

Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation are such bullshit as to invite constant crises of faith.

No I never heard of him. What criticisms did he have?

I can't think of a single criticism of Nietzsche's that doesn't hinge on atheism being correct.

The whole reason God could ever be dead, and Christians could ever be reviled for servility, is if God doesn't exist. If he does exist, and certainly if Christianity is true, then Christians are justly reverent and obedient to him, and he's not only not dead culturally, but sooner or later he's going to ruin the day of everyone who presumes he's not around.

All men answer to the Almighty sooner or later.

It's light reading like Shakespeare is, superficiallt.

>Catholic
not going full monism and heresy tier desu
>Plotinus, Enneads
>Nag Hammadi
>Origen
>Tertullian
It's like you want to stay on this ecumenical shit that is Roman Catholic Church.

>If he does exist, and certainly if Christianity is true, then Christians are justly reverent and obedient to him

At the risk of sounding too edgy for theist tastes: why is this so? (assuming your 'justly' refers not merely to being justified in being reverent and obedient, but to the idea that it is the right thing to do).

>tfw complete historical-critical heretic

g'bye faith

Ciardi is good

Why would we mention an anti-Catholic book in a thread about Catholic literature?

Because if Christianity is true, God is all-good. Christ tells us that God has provided a place for us if we accept him, and that he loves us despite anything we may do. According to Jesus, God is the ultimate good, which is why it's so easy to identify him with the Form of the Good in Platonism. He's the source of all goodness, and therefore if one wants to be good one should devote oneself to God.

Do you mean "why do Catholic authors often explore the issues of sin and suffering, two of the most constant and puzzling aspects of the human condition"?

Why dont individuals who explore suffering take Job at face value? IE, im G-d, shut the fuck up...

the bible is good

Not for Catholics

Take Matthew 5:33-37 vs the Nicene Creed

>protestant wonders why his denomination never writes good books

his criticisms of Christianity are the criticisms you can level against scientism and fedora atheism (which he also makes). people need to believe in something, but it doesn't have to be nihilistic and absolutist. a lot of catholics lapsed because they object to the nihilism and didndonuthin of the church as an institution, but still believe in a spiritual progression, which can lead to a transvaluation of values equal to what Nietzsche describes in terms of the overman.

Nietzsche would be abhorred that people would use him as a new prescribed method, and if you tried to bar someone from reconciliation merely by categorising them as a religion, since he's tsundere as fuck about all religion and religious rhetoric. most Catholics are basically born into it and reconciling that with the formation of your values and continued belief despite the institutional problems is kind of an act of amor fati. i think Nietzsche would like people resolved to go to hell on matters of principle.

What's some essential literature on Catholicism and the Catholic church? I was raised in a Catholic family but was an atheist through most of my life, I recently rediscovered the church but I know very little about the structure, the mysteries, and such. A history of the church would be best too.

What's the problem with the Nicene Creed?

is walker percy good or bad

These are the books I find most useful because I'm always rereading or referencing them.

The Fullness of Truth by James Seghers
The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam
Hard Sayings and Answering Atheism by Trent Horn
A Pocket Guide to the Bible by Scott Hahn
The History of the Church by Eusebius
The Last superstition and Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser

But any sincere Christian would be horrified at someone who wanted to go to Hell for whatever reason, because they would know something of the terror and torment of Hell and wouldn't want to see anyone in it, even their worst enemies.

Sure, it's preferable that nobody go to hell but the reality of the world is that some people are going to reject God. That's what hell is, the absence of God and because God loves us he gives us the choice to not spend eternity with him if we don't want to.

good

He isn't criticizing Christianity, he's criticizing a communal circlejerk that is completely divorced from Christianity in everything but name. He equates Christianity to Platonism because it has permeated European culture dogmatically. The fact that Christianity developed its theology from Platonism is just a side point.

Some millionaire airhead that fucks a dozen guys a week, smokes weed among other things, has absolutely no faith and probably couldn't differentiate any book of the Bible from a secular book other than Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, the Divergent series, the series that fat man wrote, and 50 Shades, something something etc, is not Christian by anything but name.
Would you say a woman that sucks a dick and smokes a joint before going to church because it means her grandparents will include her in their will is a Christian?
God is dead because God cannot even be said to exist without committing heresy. When one speaks of God truthfully, they are left speechless.

What do you mean by your last sentence?

Thanks user-kun

>human condition
Fuck off

"The Everlasting Man" -G.K. Chesterton

"Confessions" -St. Augustine

"The Consolation of Philosophy" -Boethius

"The Christian Idea of Man" -Josef Pieper

"Europe and the Faith" -Hilaire Belloc

"Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church" -H.W. Crocker III

Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins

"The End of the Affair" -Graham Greene

Because the primary focus of Catholicism is sin and suffering. Self sacrifice and guilt have become so fetishized in Catholic scholarly culture that it dominates most non-biblical literature.

You mean like when Jesus became man in order to tell us to stop whining about suffering?

Fuck, meant to reply to

>only real christians
get a load of this guy

...

bad

Is this book any good?

Also, where to start with Augustine, I already have City of God but it looks very dense and pragmatic, not sure if I'm ready to tackle it.

I want to get this straight, the proof that Jesus is God's son is that he did miracle's right?
Also, in Christianity, is there any other proof for God other than prophets and miracles?
Not to imply those wouldn't count as proof, I'm just wondering if there is more.

Also excluding the teleological and Aquinas' five arguments, since those are not specifically Christian.

>Not to imply those wouldn't count as proof, I'm just wondering if there is more.

The existence of the Jews.

How so?

Oh Origen is so good desu

>Also, where to start with Augustine, I already have City of God but it looks very dense and pragmatic, not sure if I'm ready to tackle it.
read the basic works of Plato (euthyphro, apology, crito, meno, phaedo, symposium, and timaeus) and you'll be good to go

its very accessible, just long, and the earlier books (2-8) can be a bit discouraging because theyre all about pagan civic religion.

also im assuming youve read the bible when i say this

The proof within Christianity is the resurrection

Well shit. I've read Plato but I'm only partway through Exodus in the NOAB. I guess I'll push City of God back, then. Thanks.

>God is dead because God cannot even be said to exist without committing heresy. When one speaks of God truthfully, they are left speechless.

But we have revelation. We know God is real because he's told us. We also know certain things about him because he's told us, and we've been able to extrapolate certain other things about him by taking the things he's told us and applying our reason to it.

>proof
Fuck off to reddit

That's still giving qualities to God.
>extrapolate
>reason
Why do you dopes think this is somehow divine? It's foul.

How is it giving qualities to God? It's God giving qualities to himself.

Many beliefs that protestants hold rest solely on tradition and not the bible, for example:

-The determination of which books belong in the bible.
-The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
-The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
-Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
-The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scripture."

Putting aside the fact that this contradicts sola scriptura, how do protestants select which traditional beliefs to accept and which ones to disregard?

>The determination of which books belong in the bible.
The canon itself is not inscribed in the verses of Scripture, sure, but it doesn't rest on Catholic tradition either, because they get rid of the apocrypha. And the Jewish and Christian canons for each of the two Testaments were closed well before the word pope began being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome in the 5th century.

The canon is kept in the Protestant confessions of faith because the goal is to reform, not to reinvent.
>The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
Let the children come to me, Gen 9:6, Jer 1:5.
>The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
It's simply because everybody after is fallible, case in point the "aerial toll houses" that you can find in patrology, the one example of an actual extra-Biblical "apostolic" tradition, but isn't followed by Catholics either, only a select few Orthodox care for it that doctrine this point.
>Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
Christians all over the place are just following Col 2:16–17 and Acts 20:7
>The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scripture."
Jesus said one flesh, not one flesh and a half. Lutheran theology is not Scripture nor infallible, he isn't followed even by Lutherans today, just ask them about their views on predestination.
>how do protestants select which traditional beliefs to accept and which ones to disregard?
By testing them against the Bible and leaving neoplatonism, Aristotle, patrology alone.

No wonder these threads never suggest one should read the Bible or even the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

>The canon itself is not inscribed in the verses of Scripture, sure, but it doesn't rest on Catholic tradition either, because they get rid of the apocrypha. And the Jewish and Christian canons for each of the two Testaments were closed well before the word pope began being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome in the 5th century.

What do you mean when you say Catholics got rid of the apocrypha[ha/deuterocanonicalbooks? They're still in the bible and were removed by protestants in the 16th(?) century. I agree that the word pope came much later but it's merely a word to describe an office or role in the kingdom as described in Isaiah 22.

How do you know the canon for scripture is closed? Before the bible became what it is today there were over 70 gospels that were seriously considered for the New Testament. Without the magisterium to declare the canon closed how would a protestant argue against adding books to the bible? You would have to invoke tradition but this contradicts the "bible alone" doctrine.

>read aCfL
>start autistically categorising and buying books

>What do you mean when you say Catholics got rid of the apocrypha[ha/deuterocanonicalbooks?
The "they" that "got rid of the apocrypha" in my previous post refers to the Protestants. That said the Catholic canon does have less OT books than the Orthodox, for example.

The OT authority for the Protestant canon are the Hebrew writers and speakers. The word "apocrypha" comes from the prologues of Jerome, the very man that gave the Latin world the Bible after the Vetus Latina, who knew Hebrew and was in contact with churches that also knew it. Unsurprisingly this canon is coincident with the TaNaKh or Hebrew Bible.

>What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us
This and other Greek crap was added by the Catholics, not removed by the Protestants.

>How do you know the canon for scripture is closed? Before the bible became what it is today there were over 70 gospels that were seriously considered for the New Testament.
By listening to the historians of the Church and the Bible, instead of Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code. Find me a Chruch Father that quotes from these seventy gospels as Scripture, will you?

The NT canon of exactly 27 books goes all the way back to Athanasius, if not even Origen - another guy who could read Hebrew. Augustine himself also declared the canon closed. Finished. Done. The Church in the East had a problem with Revelation for another century or so, but we don't care.

There's a reason the New Testament is the best preserved book in all of antiquity and the gnostic "gospels" are not.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that the scriptures of the first Christian centuries was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books. It was well into the third century when Jewish rabbis started rejecting these books as part of the Jewish canon.

The noted protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly affirms that the Christian church of the first two centuries accepted the deuterocanonicals as inspired, and the Baptist scholar Lee MacDonald affirms that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had a different canon from the Septuagint between the period of the second century BC to the second century AD. The Septuagint was widely used by Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and it was also commonly used in Israel. This explains why its use spread with amazing rapidity among Christians even where the Hebrew texts were available. All the evidence points to the fact that the scriptures for the early Christians were "the same widely diverse body of scriptures that were considered inspired and therefore authoritative by Pharisaic Judaism or the various Jewish sects that existed before the separation of the church from the synagogue."

The recognition of the inspiration of the books that make up the NT and their acceptance on a par with the OT developed gradually. The Catholic church needed to sift through more than 50 Gospels, 22 Acts and many other writings during the gradual process of determining which Christian writings should be included in the NT. This process was completed by a decree of Pope St. Damasus O in 383, and confirmed at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419. Subsequently, the councils of Second Nicea in 787, Florence in 1441, and Trent in 1546 approved the identical canon of the bible that Catholics still recognize today as divinely inspired. The Church made this determination by drawing on sacred tradition.

In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the bible alone, but the bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture: along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched sacred scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.

Since protestants teach that the bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?

>the scriptures of the first Christian centuries was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint
It doesn't explain why the Gospels, for example Matthew, would occasionally quote the (proto-)Masoretic Text instead of systematically always agreeing with the reading from the LXX. For example in 2:15 and 2:18. Again, proven wrong by the text of the Bible itself.

>there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had a different canon from the Septuagint
I just gave you the quote from Jerome. Duh.

Would you at least listen to your saints, once in a while?

>This process was completed by a decree of Pope St. Damasus O in 383, and confirmed at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419.
I told you it was Athanasius, already calling it a canon.

>In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years
That's my point, yes. The NT canon was already there, long before Trent.

>isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors?
The historical authority is not Luther, it's Jerome and others in the 3rd to 4th century, that could read Hebrew without the need for a translation, and were looking for the "Hebraica Veritas" as Jerome called it.

Today, the OTs of the latest Catholic Bibles are translated not from Greek or Latin, but from Hebrew and Aramaic whenever possible.

>for example Matthew, would occasionally quote the (proto-)Masoretic Text instead of systematically always agreeing with the reading from the LXX. For example in 2:15 and 2:18

Assuming Matthew did use the Hebrew text what does that prove? It doesn't say anything to what books were canon especially when you consider the historical evidence that the Jews accepted the same canon that the Septuagint used. Your logic is tenuous in this matter because you're operating under the false assumption that the Hebrew canon then is the same as it is today when all historical evidence suggests that this was not so, but instead that the Hebrew canon was exactly the same as that in the Septuagint in the first and second century. You make another assumption that because Matthew used one over another that means he "disagreed" with the other despite no evidence to support it. It is pure conjecture on your part.

I can't tell you anything about the book itself since I haven't read it but I do know Diarmaid MacCulloch has a bit of an anti-Catholic bias, so at least be aware of that while reading it.

>Assuming Matthew did use the Hebrew text what does that prove?
That the LXX isn't "the Scriptures", it's just a translation, and when given the opportunity New Testament writers would go for the Hebrew.

The LXX is not the Old Testament of the Catholics either, because it contains the 3rd and 4th books of the Maccabees, and they aren't in the Catholic canon.

>the Jews accepted the same canon that the Septuagint used
No. The apocrypha are called that way because the Jews copy and transmit the TaNaKh and do not copy the Greek books. Jerome calls in the prologue to his edition of the Vulgate and in his letters to go with the Hebrew precisely because that's what the Jews, and the churches in contat with him for that matter, are doing. This is the very circumstance the word apocrypha came to designate that. They're hidden books, hidden away from the canon. Listen. To. Him.

Not all Hellenistic Jews could read Hebrew, of course, this is true for all of the Jewish diaspora through the ages, but no Jew ever goes for a translation disregarding the original if he can read the latter, and this was true for Christians too, such Jerome, Origen and all Biblical translators, including today's Catholics.

>You make another assumption that because Matthew used one over another that means he "disagreed" with the other despite no evidence to support it.
I'm using the word "disagree" as Biblical scholars use it. The LXX says one thing, the (proto-)Masoretic Text another, the Gospel writer quoting the OT goes with one and not the other.

You're talking past me. The conversation is about which books belong in the bible, not which translations are the best, or which translations were commonly used because it's ultimately irrelevant. It would have been perfectly acceptable for early Christians to use either the Hebrew or the Septuagint because the canon was the same at the time, and both of the canons included the 7 deuterocanonical books and were considered inspired by both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries. I've given you two prominent protestant sources that affirm this, J.N.D. Kelly and Lee MacDonald.

You seem to be using the word apocrypha as evidence in itself that the books shouldn't be in the bible. This is a circular argument because you name the books apocrypha and then you reject the books for being called apocrypha. You can call them whatever you want but this doesn't change the fact that first and second century Jews and Christians accepted these books as inspired regardless of what translation they preferred.

>-The prohibition against polygamy,
Adam and Eve not Adam, Eve, and Janet.

I understand this argument, that because God in the beginning only made Adam and Eve, that this was the ideal way that man and woman should relate to each other. It's reasonable until you ask why God would later allow or permit polygamy among the Jews. If polygamy is intrinsically disordered or immoral then how could an all-good God explicitly permit it at any point in salvation history?

Jews had a different culture and they needed polygamy for their society to function.

It means the possibility of more sons even after one's wife is past child-bearing years.

>you name the books apocrypha
My name is not Jerome.

>you reject the books for being called apocrypha
I reject them because Jews and Christians reject them, and Jerome was ordered to put them into the Vulgate against his will and their input. A historical mistake that Protestants sought to reform. I, like him, go for the Hebraica Veritas.

>You're talking past me.
No, you're just too Catholic.

I agree, you hit the head on the nail. Polygamy is not inherently disordered or immoral because there are certain circumstances where it could be morally acceptable. This explains why God could allow it.

The reason it was important to point this is out is because when you use the Genesis argument to support the idea that polygamy is bad or shouldn't be accepted you're setting the standard for the way men and women should relate to each other, which would automatically make any deviation from that intrinsically disordered. By invoking Adam and Eve as an argument against polygamy you create a problem of evil where God is encouraging people to commit evil acts so I think it's reasonable to conclude that you were reading into scripture something that isn't there.

>you hit the head on the nail

I mean head of the nail, or whatever that stupid expression is.

more like KEKOLIC. Pope and vatican are memes. Orthodox is the way to go.

Insightful post

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/2

2/2

Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

Proddies #BTFO

3/2

Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

Proddies doubly #BTFO

>>Laurus
This is Orthodox, not Catholic, mon ami.

Care to explain why, friend?

You can't actually.

>go to confession on Monday
>have probably committed several mortal sins just by browsing this board