If you Catholic anons keep posting stupid memes like this one and gushing about the greatness of the church fathers...

If you Catholic anons keep posting stupid memes like this one and gushing about the greatness of the church fathers when you haven't even read them, I am going to become a Protestant

Other urls found in this thread:

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/apologetics-with-st-ignatius-of-antioch
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

typical Veeky Forums 'traditionalist':

[x] likes bad Doric architecture
[x] talks about the "grand European tradition"
[x] uses "degenerate" as a noun, rarely or never says "regenerate"
[x] insists the main property of poetry is "rhyme"
[x] voted for Donald Trump
[x] thought he was going to get laid by going to church but it turns out his 'traditional church' is 90% men

Catholics in general don't read or even learn about any Church Father except Augustine. Sometimes a little Jerome

Don't become a Protestant. Be Orthodox

>becoming a protestant
Don't do that to yourself. Sedevacantism and the Orthodox church are the ways to go.

God bless them, may they never yield to the evil hordes of progressivism!

I'd like to defeat progressivism too, but "non tali auxilio"

>become a protestant

That's heresy, kiddo

lazy, dismissive responses like this are why Protestants hate us and don't respect our doctrine

>generalizing the psychology and motives of a group

Really stupid thing to do unless you can actually shape those factors

Protestants are just as lazy and dismissive

Anyone who seriously cares will find out which Church is the ancient Church of Christ through heavy research as opposed to memes

Who gives a fuck what protestants think; they're a bunch of heretics. Catholics are truly the devoted ones, whereas protestants are the lazy ones.

>Anyone who seriously cares will find out which Church is the ancient Church of Christ through heavy research as opposed to memes

Anyone interested could read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, circa 115AD which are quite interesting and not especially long (what, less than 50 pages?).

Those letters make very clear what Newman meant when he said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/apologetics-with-st-ignatius-of-antioch

>Catholics are truly the devoted ones, whereas protestants are the lazy ones.

It's often the other way around. It shouldn't be like that, but it do.

These letter give a very different idea of the Episcopal mystery than Rome does today. Rome, in her catechism, says each bishop has "part" of the Church (the Pope having all).

What does Ignatius say?


Also, it's pretty hypocritical for Newman to appeal when he was the one who popularized the idea of dogma as something that changes over time

>[x] thought he was going to get laid by going to church but it turns out his 'traditional church' is 90% men

Eh if you go to any Church there's way more girls, this is just a fact

>appeal
To history

Can you children don't fighting over your petty christcuck denominations?

I thought that christ-chan was a Protestant meme.

>protestant becomes an atheist because of his pleb tier faith

>church is 90% men
You've obviously never been to church

I'm legitimately clueless to why he didn't take 3 seconds to google church attendance by gender.

Can you speak English?

He mentioned traditional Catholicism, meaning parishes that have the Tridentine rite. And he's right, the gender ratio is, from my experience mostly men or women who accompany men as wives, girlfriends, daughters and so on. Not to say you can't find quality qts there.

>These letter give a very different idea of the Episcopal mystery than Rome does today. Rome, in her catechism, says each bishop has "part" of the Church (the Pope having all).
>What does Ignatius say?

At a minimum, Ignatius posits a hierarchical church, with a *very* high teaching authority vested in bishops and priests:

>See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests, or priesthood] as you would the apostles.
—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

I'm not sure how this differs from the teaching of the Catholic Church. Ignatius seems to me consistent with the Catholic Church's understanding of its teaching authority, the Magisterium, as set forth in paragraphs 85-87 of the Catechism, here: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Too, Ignatius of Antioch's view of the Eucharist evidences a radical understanding of that sacrament that is consistent with the Catholic idea of the Real Presence:

>Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.
—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Ignatius also grants a particular authority to the Church of Rome that supersedes the authority of the other churches, as discussed in the aforementioned link: catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/apologetics-with-st-ignatius-of-antioch

>Also, it's pretty hypocritical for Newman to appeal when he was the one who popularized the idea of dogma as something that changes over time

I'm not sure if that's a fair summary of Newman's position -- or at least, your description could be misconstrued. Newman's development of doctrine approach can be compared to Jesus's various explanations of the growth of the Kingdom of God. Comparing it to a seed, for example, which image Newman expressly invokes, if memory serves.

Thus there is a *development*, an unfolding, or a growth of doctrine. In that sense there is change, but there is also *identity* in that the seed becomes the full-grown plant. The difficult part of his theory, which he spends the most time developing, with great nuance and detail, are the particulars one should look to in trying to determine whether a specific development of doctrine is consistent with the seed, so to speak, or whether it parts company with the original deposit of faith.

I went through 7 volumes of Church fathers this year, also got 3 more I'll read after what I'm currently reading. Looking forward to Chrystosom.

Seriously guys, I'll deny myself salvation if you don't stop being stupid on the internet.

Modernists took the wording Newman used to place it within a hegelian dialectic. The first Vatican Council failed to condemn Catholic hegelians as it did for kantians and fideists and the Second failed to bring anything good, including condemnations of communism and hegelian theology. The good parts about it are just repeating the old stuff to a contemporary context, but sadly had crushing ambiguities.

typical Veeky Forums 'progressive'

[x] pretends to understand abstract impressionism, actually loves game of thrones and takes prestige tv really fucking seriously
[x] talks about the "lived experiences of marginalised folks"
[x] uses "problematic" as an adjective
[x] unironically identifies as a 'nerd' or 'geek'. says reddit isn't that bad
[x] pretends to like Beyonce
[x] insists the main property of poetry is "self expression", claims to have learned a lot from WoC poets like Maya Angelou and Rupi Kaur
[x] Thinks Trump is a fascist white supremacist KGB Russian spy, LARPs as le resistance. Owns at least three (3) ''pussy hats'
[x] His 5/10 intersectional feminist polyamorous partner fucks him with a strap on every once in a while, as a means to 'queer the gender binary' or whatever. god, you people ruined sexual depravity by turning it into joyless performative bullshit

>to the Church of Rome that supersedes the authority of the other churches
Incorrect. He posits each bishop as the basis of the whole Church, particulatized.

>Thus there is a *development*, an unfolding, or a growth of doctrine. In that sense there is change,

This is a major point of contention among the Orthodox contra Catholics

>'traditional church' is 90% men
you got shit on twice for this post but its so true
(latin mass at a basilica is a different story)

maybe you should listen to because that is exactly what drove me to orthodoxy even though im of western european stock. ive read church fathers, ive read encyclicals, but i have never once in my life heard a layperson say something intelligent about the Catholic faith

the ancient church of Christ was basically une huge hippie commune, the host was psychobilicin mushrooms and everyone was into free love and sex magick. true facts

You always baptized children, had the Divine Liturgy of John Chrystosom, allowed any number of sacraments of confession?
So what drove you to Orthodoxy was not truth, but ignorant plebians?

I'm Orthodox as well, I'm getting baptized next month. I'm just saying Protestantism is hardly less dismissive than Papists. Protestants will just say Mary is the Whore of Babylon and things like that. They're no more thoughtful.

Orthodox converts are generally more thoughtful because Orthodoxy is mostly found through reading

>You always baptized children
Yes. If you can circumcize them, you can baptize them

>Divine Liturgy of John Chrystosom,

No, and that isn't our only Liturgy, just the most common. It is not doctrinally required, it is canonically used. Other Liturgies can be valid.

>allowed any number of sacraments of confession?
Yes, Christ said as much. Some strayed from that, but there was always the True Church around, which allowed unlimited repentence. Those who did not were departing from Orthodoxy

The answer is you don't know what you are talking about. The question was did you do it, not if it was allowed- children weren't baptized until after st. Augustine, confession was a one time only up until the second century and you had a different liturgy- meaning development of doctrine.
Try reading the Fathers.

Go on user, take the protestantism redpill. Read the Institutes of the Christian Religion by renaissance edgelord Jean Calvin.

>children weren't baptized until after st. Augustine, confession was a one time only up until the second century
Bullshit

>different liturgy- meaning development of doctrine
The ancient Church had several different Liturgies. That doesn't mean different doctrine. We have the Liturgy of Saint Germanus too, it's one of our Western Rite liturgies, it doesn't mean a different doctrine

>So what drove you to Orthodoxy was not truth, but ignorant plebians?
the idea that Christianity is perfectly rational and systematic is a joke. it is beyond our comprehension. we are called by God, we don't make a rational choice. That would be anathema to Eph 2:8. Besides, what do we have that we have not received?

i am not of such stature to comment on the legitimacy of church dogma. i think amongst all the major denominations (cath, orth, most prods) adherence to dogma tends towards the refinement/purification of the soul. the health of Christian practices is born out routinely by the social sciences, but that's not why we engage in them. We do these things out of obedience to our leaders, and because we see the good fruit borne in our own lives and the lives of others as a result. That is the litmus test: whether adherence to dogma produces good fruit.

I felt more welcomed at the orthodox church. I had a better feeling about the parishioners at the orthodox church. I believe the Holy Spirit led me to the particular orthodox church I am attending in this season of my life.

I will tell you what breaks my heart: that Catholics won't accept a baptism performed outside of the Church, and that Orthodox and Catholic pastors will generally not offer mass to anyone who has not been 'confirmed'.

1 Samuel 21:6
>Since there was no other food available, the priest gave him the holy bread--the Bread of the Presence that was placed before the LORD in the Tabernacle. It had just been replaced that day with fresh bread.

Mark 2:23-27 (abridged)
>Jesus said to them, “Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ... The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath."

I'm spiritually hungry and I want to take Communion, but I'm still praying over confirmation and want to respect the congregation, so as not to cause others to stumble as in 1 Corinthians 8:13. I'm sick of doctrinal disputes; so many Bible verses about arrogance and quarreling and yet people can't just chalk up relatively inconsequential issues to local color (Catholics will literally schism over the direction the priest faces at mass)

>I will tell you what breaks my heart: that Catholics won't accept a baptism performed outside of the Church, and that Orthodox and Catholic pastors will generally not offer mass to anyone who has not been 'confirmed'.
Catholics recognize non-Catholic baptism.

"Confirmation" accompanies baptism in Orthodoxy, even for infants. If you're baptized and Orthodox, you are also Chrismated

take the Muntzer pill and OMNIA SVNT COMMVNIA. “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?”

>yfw the protest ants win the jesusb owl

hey guys just wanted to say that every christian is a saint, even steve who is currently fucking my sister before leading our wednesday night bible study.