The Tolkien and CS Lewis relationship is evident

...

Just because he studied something doesn't mean he believed it. He was a very devout Catholic, in fact it was his faith that actually brought CS Lewis into Christianity, though Tolkien was very disappointed that Lewis chose to join the church of England.

>this is what bagans actually believe

He was so Catholic he even lamented on the Church's decision for mass to be held in native languages, making sure everyone heard him participate in Latin.

Prots BTFOFTB

...

You don't pray to saints and the virgin Mary?

What primarily destroyed the legitimacy of the church (aside from the heresy) was the use of papal infallibility to affirm the lifelong virginity of Mary. Jesus clearly had biological brothers.

>the use of papal infallibility to affirm the lifelong virginity of Mary
What a tool.
Papal Infallibility was used to declare the Immaculate Conception, not the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The perpetual virginity of the Theotokos was a formal dogma in the Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Churches from the Fourth Century on and is still a core dogma of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the contemporary world.
The dogma of Papal Infallibility was not developed until the First Vatican Council in 1870, more than 1,500 years after the dogma of Perpetual Virginity.
Or - you're wrong, you're ignorant, and you should stop posting and thinks you don't know.

It's still the official stance of the church. The church is still professing false doctrine to its members. Does this make it more palatable to you?

Considering Protestantism was founded by disobedient Catholics, if the Catholic Church is heretical then Protestantism is doubly so.

Not disobedient. They renounced their Catholicism and brought the word of Christ and his original apostles back into Christianity.

"There is a postscript or smaller point to be added here to this paradox; which I know that many will misunderstand. Becoming a Catholic broadens the mind. It especially broadens the mind about the reasons for becoming a Catholic. Standing in the centre where all roads meet, a man can look down each of the roads in turn and realise that they come from all points of the heavens. As long as he is still marching along his own road, that is the only road that can be seen, or sometimes even imagined.... For instance, I felt it necessary to be perpetually pitting Gothic architecture against Greek architecture, because it was necessary to back up Christians against pagans. But now I am in no such fuss and I know what Coventry Patmore meant when he said calmly that it would have been quite as Catholic to decorate his mantelpiece with the Venus of Milo as with the Virgin."

-G.K. Chesterton.

>It's still the official stance of the church.
That is what I said. I wrote
>[it] is still a core dogma of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the contemporary world.
in the post you are referring to, you dolt.
>The church is still professing false doctrine to its members.
No; you are rejecting a truth of the Faith if you deny it. Every Christian in the world accepted this as true until after Martin Luther went all heretical.
Luther, Zwingli, and even Calvin all also taught that Mary was Ever Virgin.
Lattimer, Cranmer, even John Wesley ALL taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. It wasn't until the late 19th Century that anyone but cranks thought anything else seriously.

Right, except that while papal infallibility was indeed only explicitly declared at Vatican I, it was still held throughout the history of the Church.

So your claim is that where Jesus failed to found a lasting Church, Martin Luther succeeded?

...

>it's a pagan claims to be intenilogent episodge

>Right
So you are admitting you were wrong?
>[Papal Infallibility] was still held throughout the history of the Church.
Nope - you;re doubling down on the ignorance.
While the concept of Papal Infallibility was touched on in theology as early as the 14th Century (1,000 years after the dogma of perpetual virginity was developed, may I point out) it was not formally made a dogma until the 19th, meaning claiming it had anything to do with something that happened one and a half millennia before is simply wrong.

I chose to believe this is bait

So the formality of the dogma made it valid? God just decided to bestow this papal infallibility in the 19th century?

>Papal infallibility was always true, it just became formally dogma in the 19th century. That's how doctrine works.

>Jesus clearly had biological brothers.
Not at all.
1) Neither Hebrew or the time nor Aramaic have words for 'cousin', so the term 'ach' is used for brothers, cousins, and even more tenuous relatives. 'Ach' is typically translated as 'brother' in English, but that does not change its original meanings of 'broad relative'.
2) There is no mention of Mary having any children other than Jesus. At the death of the Christ he gives her to an Apostle for care, something typically done for widows with no sons.
3) When Christ visited the temple and stayed behind there is no mention of any siblings as the family is mentioned travelling, etc.
4) Culturally younger brothers were strongly prohibited from chastising older brothers, so when Christ's 'ach' chastise him this indicates they are no closer than older half-sibling, perhaps from a previous marriage of Joseph; they cannot have been younger siblings or commentary would have been made of their scandalous behavior.
So - no, there is no evidence that Mary had any other children and plenty that she didn't.

The truth was always there but dogmas are only announced when they need to be.
Let me put it this way - North America existed in the 4th Century - did it have anything to do with the dogma of perpetual virginity?
No.
Likewise, Papal Infallibility was not used to declare the dogma of perpetual virginity, either.
>I am pretty sure the original poster thought 'Immaculate Conception' means 'Perpetual Virginity'

>Right
>So you are admitting you were wrong?

Yes, when you take a single word out of context of the immediately following qualifying statements it does sound like I'm admitting I'm wrong.

>While the concept of Papal Infallibility was touched on in theology as early as the 14th Century... it was not formally made a dogma until the 19th

>Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.
-Thomas Aquinas

Why are you quoting St. Thomas pointing out that if you disobey the Catholic Church you are disobeying God?

>es, when you take a single word out of context of the immediately following qualifying statements it does sound like I'm admitting I'm wrong.
Of course, the real problem is - your statement is just a repetition of something that has been proven wrong

I'm pointing out that the infallibility of the Church - and therefore the leader of the Church - was commonly accepted long before Vatican I. Vatican I was simply them going "Look: just to be absolutely unambiguously clear on the matter..." If you had denied the infallibility of the pope before then you still would have been in heresy.

Don't use a word like "proof" if you can't actually provide proof.

>If you had denied the infallibility of the pope before then you still would have been in heresy
False. You have to formally reject a *dogmatic teaching* of the Church to be in heresy! Rejecting a doctrine or discipline is not heretical.
This is Catholic Theology 101, pal.

>"What primarily destroyed the legitimacy of the church (aside from the heresy) was the use of papal infallibility to affirm the lifelong virginity of Mary...."
this contention,
>'Papal Infallibility was used to affirm the lifelong virginity of the Virgin Mary
is demonstrably false.
It is proven wrong.
>You thought 'Immaculate Conception' meant the virgin birth, didn't you?

If only Hitler would have stayed neutral with the Soviets and decimated the west entirely, I wouldn't have to read this kind of shit.

You're confusing the posts of two different people. I'm the first guy.

>the word of his original apostles back into Christianity
>ignore everything his apostles and their disciples said
>ignore everything the church fathers said
HURPADURP THIS IS TRUE CHRISTIANITY

...

If only my mother had gouged out my eyes with a spoon at birth.

I am responding to posts, not people
Who wrote it is immaterial

>Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith

-Code of Canon Law, 751

>Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.

-Summa Theologica, II-II Q5 A3.

When we say that the Church has the "fullness of grace and truth" (CCC 819) that means that the Church contains and has always contained every article of faith, whether explicitly declared or not. So if at any point one denied such an article of faith one was in heresy, whether or not they are culpable for it.

>>"What primarily destroyed the legitimacy of the church (aside from the heresy) was the use of papal infallibility to affirm the lifelong virginity of Mary...."
>this contention,
>>'Papal Infallibility was used to affirm the lifelong virginity of the Virgin Mary
>is demonstrably false.

That was somebody else that said that, genius. The virginity of Mary is a matter of faith, but yes, probably that guy was thinking of the immaculate Conception, which I am aware refers to Mary being without sin, not to her virginity.

I don't have a problem with papal infallibility or the virginity of Mary. I am a Catholic. I think you think I've been disputing the authority of the Church, but I've been defending it.

Who wrote what is pretty important when you're treating a claim made in one post as if it was meant in support of a claim in another.

That statement from the user law does, yes, refer to dogma. In the 4th Century denying papal infallibility would have been incredulity
You're a tool that needs to calm down
> I am an actual Catholic theologian and you're waaaay off base

What 'claim'?
Are you unbalanced?

"Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt... of some [i.e. any] truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." Notice that there is no mention of whether or not the truth is explicitly defined or not.

> I am an actual Catholic theologian

And I'm a Doctor of the Church. Credentials mean nothing on this site.

Actually, strike that. You don't understand the actual meaning of the teachings because of your obstinate technicalism and equivocation, so I have no problem believing that you're a contemporary theologian.

Aren't Anglicans just Catholics without the Pope?

You sound like a guy that doesn't understand how email works arguing that you grasp IPv6 better than a network engineer

You sound like a guy that has to make silly appeals to authority when his arguments come up short.

>when x happened x wasn't illegal so it wasn't a crime
This is a simple concept you can't seem to grasp
Until 1870 papal infallibility wasn't dogmatic so denying it was Incredulity
Now it would be Heresy
That is a fact

I assume you mean argumentum ad verecundiam (an informal fallacy). If so, being a theologian is a perfectly valid claim of authority.
You truly are ignorant of the topic at hand

>doesn't know the first thing about European Paganism and cannot see the OBVIOUS parallels to Tolkien's writings.

>probably hasn't read the Silmarillion

>probably a christcuck

>Tolkien heavily borrowed from Celtic mythology in writing his fantasy series
>oh wow he was pagan! Nevermind all the blatant Christian themes running through his work! And especially ignore his personal life!
user...

A) There's no proof that you're a theologian.

B) For all you know I'm a theologian as well.

C) Even a legitimate claim of expertise wouldn't undo your bad arguments.

AUTISM
U
T
I
S
M

btw you're both wrong. Catholicism is both Christian and Pagan.

Translation
>"I know I'm wrong and won't admit it"
Everyone knows, pal

>'it's up AND down!'
>'it's black AND white!'
>'it's to the left AND to the right!'
No.
The Catholic Church is not pagan

I have this image of you googling that phrase, reading what it means, and muttering 'oh, shit. what do I say to cover this up?'

>absorbs a million pagan traditions, ideas, values and gods
>b-but we're totally not the pagan ones, I swear!
Nothing two-wayed about it. Christianity and Paganism are no more opposites than authoritarianism and Marxism.

Oh
You're one of those
No, Christmas trees, may poles, easter bunnies, etc are not Pagan. Those claims are all bullshit made up by Protestant halfwits in the recent past

That may be so.

But praying to saints/Mary/your ancestors def is.
As is the Trinity.
And transubstantiation for that matter. And confession.

George MacDonald wrecks them both, desu desu kawaii desu.

Catholics don't pray to the saints, the ask saints to pray for them.
The Trinity is not pagan.
Transubstantiation is CERTAINLY not pagan.
And the people of the day freaked out over Confession

>Tolkien
>pagan

You absolute pleb. KEK.

>Catholicism isn't Christian

Even the Middle Earth is excessively Christian in its teachings and values, especially on the nature of man.

you do know he just rewrote the bible with the silmarillion, yes? clearly you're not that retarded?

Tolkien was a hardcore traditionalist catholic

>can't understand how a christian writer can use pagan imagery
atheist intelligence, everyone

kek.

>one bunch of believers telling others why they're silly
meta-kek.

>Christmas and Easter derive from pagan festivals

>Christians now celebrate them

>Christians are pagans