/lit/ - Literature

Kierkegaard is pretty based, although your mileage may very depending on how much you can stand Protestants and Existentialists

>>13653797
What are the main differences between the Geneva bible and the KJ bible?

Dont have sex

>>13654052
based

>Christianity

>>13653797
Thinking of getting pick. What do you guys think of Abraham Kuyper?

>>13653797
>not including Reformed Standards of Unity in confessions

I'm genuinely sick of protestants. Where's the protestant mysticism? where's the protestant tradition and cultural heritage? oh, that's right, the protestant heritage is the soul sucking capitalist work ethic and crushing individualism.

Reject protestantism, reject literalism, reject sola sciriptura, reject fundamentalism, reject the 'american way', embrace distributism, embrace the catholic workers' movement and embrace the counter enlightenment. Protestantism got us into this mess: time to return to tradition.

>>13654909
American christianity is fucked, doesn't matter if its catholicism or protestantism

t. European living in USA who misses my countries churches

>>13654939

>american _____ is fucked

ftfy

>>13654909
>where's the protestant tradition
There are literally 3 different examples of Reformed tradition in the OP.
Scripture textline tradition, confessions of faith, and a reformed theologian.

>>13654909
t. believes what is "interesting" and "socially beneficial" instead of what is true

>>13653797
Is Augustines Confessions any good for Christian literature

I have a(retarded) question:Why didn't God create Adam and Eve as he did Christ, so that they had perfect divinity, humanity, and free will? Would the fall have happened?

>>13654143

"The Jews, by rejecting Christ, were changed from children into dogs, the Gentile dogs were changed into children. The Jews refuse to accept Christ, whom they crucified, because they are grown carnal-minded; this is also why they have experienced catastrophes and been slaughtered by the Romans. In O.T. times, they failed to keep the Law; now when it has been abolished they insist on keeping it, but nevertheless during their fasts "dance barefoot" in the square and behave licentiously. [This is of course an interesting passage from the point of view of historians of Jewish liturgy, as are Chrys.'s remarks about the "theatricality" of the synagogue. Hence the oddity of Parkes' statement: "There is no material in these sermons for a study of contemporary Jewish life."] Jews do not worship God, because they reject the Son who alone reveals the Father; that they have the Law and Prophets just makes their impiety worse. What's really bad is that Christians admire them, think of them as holy people with a special relationship to God, attend their festivals, regard their holy places as holy, etc. This is tantamount to sharing their rejection of Christ. No benefit, such as healing powers possessed by the Jews, is worth the blasphemy of endorsing the Jewish rejection of Christ. Beware lest your wives, etc., are getting involved in Judaism, and even leading you into it!"

Truly a Jewish conspiracy.

>>13654990
God didn't create Christ
God is Christ
John 1:1
Although Arians claimed that Christ was created in time, but there's not much a basis to that

>>13654990
Christ isn't a created being. He is eternally begotten of the Father.

Nag Hamadi

>>13653845
Broadly speaking, the Geneva Bible was written by Englishmen exiled by the crown, the 'Authorized Version' as its name implies is an edit of it and the other previous English translations by government bureaucrats removing language here and there that could be perceived as anti-royalist. Both work from the same manuscripts and previous versions as I recall, it's just that the editorial choices made in one were under the watchful gaze of King James and not in the other. If you're an American, know that the pilgrims used the Geneva Bible.
>>13654858
Did you read Bratt's biography of him?

>>13655010
>wasting time on Gnosticism

>>13654143

>>13655016
It should also be noted that the Geneva Bible had commentary in it.

>>13654909
high church lutherans / anglicans i can fuck wit though. the high church lutheran mass is very similar to the old roman mass. pretty based. Western catholicism had gone to shit by the 16th century anyway, it was needed.

Fuck radical reformed ‘tradition’ though.

>>13655027
Right, sorry, should have mentioned that clearly.

God isn't real.

>>13655068
why are u in a /christian/ general

>>13654909
>>13655047

>>13655022
Gnosis the truth.

>>13655101
Satan be gone.

>>13655047
>"Trad" fetishists talk like niggers and don't know the difference between tradition and liturgy
woah

>>13655085
where to cop marie-marguerite alacoque gf?

>>13655002
>>13655003
Right, but can God create new "parts" of Himself that are both fully man and God? Or is that not possible? Not trying to be argumentative btw

>>13655141
Jesus was not a creature

>>13655132
liturgy is not mere outer appearance or aesthetics though, but means of sacramental grace and a large part of transmission of tradition.

>>13655016
So what version would be considered the most true to the original scripts?>>13655027
What kind of commentary?

Reminder that Catholics worship a wafer.

>>13655113
Satanism...like the Catholic Church?

>>13655161
Between the two? I would say KJV. It took 47 learned scholars 7 years to translate the thing. There were even puritans on the translation team. If you read The Translators to the Reader which is the letter to the reader found in older KJV bibles you can see they were sincerely faithful men.

>>13655149
Yes. What I'm asking is if God could have created man with a divine knowledge sufficient enough to have prevented the fall, while still allowing for free will.

>>13655161
We have more manuscripts available to us now than the translators working hundreds of years ago did, so if you want a Bible that's a collation of as many early manuscripts as possible get an NASB. That's not to say that the KJV or the Geneva or other Bibles of that era are invalid in totality or even in part. I own one of each of those (also 1611 and later KJV's, even) and compare them when I'm curious. You just need to be aware of the historical factors that led to any discrepancies between translations. Look into the Textus Receptus that nearly all translations of that period are based on, for example. There's fascinating history there that's sadly overlooked by most Christians.

The commentary in the Geneva Bible, as you can imagine, was not very friendly to the crown that persecuted and exiled its authors, hence the crown needing to curtail its influence by sponsoring an "authorized" version. It's all fascinating history like I said.

>>13655161
>most true to the original scripts
The original scripts. And even then, you're looking at copies and second hand accounts in msot cases. Realize that the text is dead and only useful in aiding you to receive revelation and truth directly from the Holy Ghost. Taking the text literally and as the sole source of truth is how you end up Jewish. That's not to say the scriptures are of no use and outdated, they are crucial and everything you feel as revelation or hear should be compared against them as a benchmark. Personally I study from the KJV because it's poetic nature helps me connect spiritually with the text. If you're interested in theology than you should pursue study of the available manuscripts instead of taking some random translator's interpretation as authoritative.

>>13655214
>>13655230
>>13655269
Thanks for the replies. I'll look around for copies of those three.

>>13655269
why should the poetic nature of the text have anything to do with the Holy Spirit speaking to you? Seems more likely you're mistaking your emotions as the guidance of God.

I like The Gospel in Brief. Tolstoy's reading of the koine greek exclude all supernatural aspects of the gospels like Jesus divine origins and ability to perform miracles and focuses exclusively on the teachings of Jesus.

>>13655085

shows you that God sanctifies sexuality into divinity as well. how is it so hard to understand that god gave sexuality as the physical representation of the love between the Trinity? Read "Love and Responsibility" and Karol Wojtyla and study the Theology of the Body. protestants are gnostics: "no, sexuality is bad!! only the *spirit* is good! you're not supposed to received a resurrected body and sensual functions too NOOOOOO!!!"

Only catholicism has the true both/and understanding of the body and the spirit, not heretical gnostic/pr*testansts' 'if/or".

>>13654990
Nigga was busy and didn't think Humans would fuck themselves over by violating the one rule he gave them.

>>13654961
>>13654977
>>13655047
>>13655085

t. seething protcucks. 'uh hagia sophia? duh lol what's that? uh divine ecstasy? lol just read romans bro, you're *instantly* saved! don't you know that once ur saved you can never lose it? haha that means I can get a divorce and attend my female-led christian rock group! score! did I mention that everything we do must be exactly in the bible btw?'

^this is what protestants actually believe. many such cases!

>>13655141
God is eternal and therefore uncreated
Anything created must be external to God

>>13655306
don't listen to these guys, they're shilling hard for translations with a protestant/reformed bias.

I highly recommend the NABRE Study Bible 3rd Edition from Oxford, also look into the NRSVCE or an edition from apocrypha, the NCC generally made good, textually unbiased and modern translations.

also worth looking into the Jerusalem Bible and Knox translations for vulgate readings/with modern textual cfs. much better than the absolute dogshit that is the KJV and Geneva bible. here's a rule: always be suspicious of people who recommend the KJV. it uses outdated texts, has thousands of translation errors, and is really only used by agnostics and fundamentalists these days. be critical.

Will there ever be even one of these threads that isn't dominated by larpers of different kinds one-upping each other with le funny internet jargon? Most of these posts are made by atheists that just like shitposting, right? Nobody who thinks like this could possibly have the pretension of thinking they're saved, right?

>>13655449
The NASB is a fine translation, though.

>>13655476

>he thinks 'getting saved' is an event and not a process that continues until the moment you die.

look into mortal v. venial sin

>>13655570
>he thinks salvation can't be both

look into justification, sanctification, and glorification.

>>13655593
>he thinks once you become 'saved' you can't lose it

i bet you think all who say 'lord, lord' get into heaven too.

>>13655427
>lol just read romans bro, you're *instantly* saved! don't you know that once ur saved you can never lose it? haha that means I can get a divorce and attend my female-led christian rock group! score!
You would be hard pressed to find a Reformed service like this. On the other hand I can find a thousand examples of charismatic inspired Catholic services lol

>>13655449
>they're shilling hard for translations with a protestant/reformed bias
That poster asked a question about the differences between the Geneva and King James Bibles so I answered his question, when he asked which would be closer to the source material I offered the NASB as a modern example and said to read all of them and why. What you're doing is recommending a modern translation approved by your church with commentary from your church and calling it unbiased. The KJV remains widely popular in America and Christians should be familiar with it, and the differences between it and our modern translations are not nearly so many that you should be able to call it "absolute dogshit" while calling yourself a faithful Christian. We should be thankful that we've been provided older, clearer, etc. manuscripts in recent times, but (hundreds of thousands? millions? of) people worshiped for hundreds of years using the KJV and they knew God, do you?

And you do realize that your NABRE's and NRSVCE's use nearly the same source material as my NASB, right? We're all reading Nestle-Aland now, Papist.

>>13655449
>>13655427

>>13655613
>he thinks the Good Shepherd can lose his sheep

i bet you haven't read Romans 10:9

The Catholic mass is idolatry. Catholics worship a wafer.

>>13655570
>>13655613
That's not what I believe at all nor is it normative reformed belief, go shitpost on /pol/ epic tradcat bro

>>13655630
>papist

I'm sorry, who preserved the texts and commentaries for over a thousand years? who complied the canon? who created the liturgy of the word? oh, that's right, the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic church. shouldn't you be ordaining female 'bishops' and 'speaking in tongues'?

rewrite history harder

>>13655644
>he relies solely on the text instead of reading commentaries from the Fathers and Saints and thus misinterprets verses

cool 'theology' you got bro.

>>13655652
>what is transubstantiation

protestants really are heathen materialists.

>>13655657

sorry, my bad, reformed belief is even more insane: you're predestined to be saved or damned from before you were born! nice free will you got there-oh wait. compassionate divine mercy? never heard of it

>>13655659
I would never participate in a church that did either of those things, where do Catholics hear these lies about me? Why do you talk in memes? Your roman church as you understand it didn't exist until the Counter-Reformation, and I rewrite history by mentioning the Nestle-Aland?

>>13655659
Since we're going to just make unfounded accusations here, I guarantee I've read more of the Fathers than you have.

>>13653797
>Protestant Bibles
Cringe.

>>13655674

you're a fiesty little protcuck, you must've had *two* praise and worship band sessions today! the textual basis is not the problem, i'm in agreement with you that modern scholarship is necessary. Read Dei Verbum. the problem is you shilling for the inaccurate majority text that is KJV and pretending youre 'just trying to help' bet you think they're called "deuterocanoicals" too

>>13655693
notice how he dodges the points I make.

>>13655668
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

>>13655710

>600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. classic sola scriptura idiocy. thanks for proving my point protcuck

>>13655710
James 2:24

>>13655706
Come on, this is really silly, I've never attended a church with a "worship band," whatever that is. You need to examine what's written in your heart if you feel the need to act like this. Picture yourself saying exactly what you just typed to a Christian face-to-face, is that a brotherly discourse? Is that who you want to be?

>>13655724
>muh protcucks, i’m so self-righteous yeeeah
Not him, but what a good fucking catholic u are! I thought your works really did matter?

say “fucking protcucks” to christ’s face.

>>13655738
>>13655740

>shifts into appeal to emotions.

you're the one saying papist, you're the one posting meme images. take note everyone, this is *exactly* how protestants operate. when the going gets tough, they take home their inaccurate theology and cry foul. you can't address any of the points I make, you attack the Church, you attack me, really I'm done here.

>>13655754
good be done

>>13655659
If it is the flesh and blood of Christ then why doesn't it taste like flesh and blood you retard?

>>13655759

essence, not substance.

read aristotle.
john 6:54-56

The absolute state of C*tholicism services
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diKu6G1nSSI

some prots believe in transubstantiation too

>>13655769

1 Chronicles 15:29

>>13655769
lmao what am i watching

>>13655769

The Mass is a celebration. why are pr*tcucks are puritans? why don't they have diversity of rite?

>>13655754
I didn't do any of that and you didn't make any points, all you've done is misrepresent my reply to one of two posters in this thread asking genuine questions and lie about normative reformed belief. There are many good Catholics and you're doing them a disservice by playing the meme kid on the internet, your priest would kick your ass if he knew about this.

>>13655759
>why isnt spirit the same as flesh

>>13655783
Catholic mass. I think this is just before they worship the wafer.

>>13655759
Substantial change means something is no longer what it was before. You must understasnd the difference between substantial and accidental change. “Accidents” are modifications of that substance.
A thing may undergo accidental change without substantial change (a skinny dog can grow into a fat dog), and a thing might also undergo substantial change without immediately noticeable accidental change (as when a sleeping cow dies).

>>13655769
That's a Novs Ordo mass. Post the Tridentine Mass instead.

>>13655791
>>13655788

protestants are delusion. "no you!! you're the meanie!! i'm telling your papist-i mean priest on you!!".

pathetic. seriously. you try to play both sides and then you cry. honestly no wonder SJWs have their root into protestant hyper-individualism, I can easily see the connection now

>>13653797
>christ-tards FINALLY came up with the idea that adding "literature" or "book" to their post MIGHT spare them from a ban
The incels, the marxists, the /pol/ reddit migrants, the blog posters, and the retarded basedjak posters were all months ahead of you guys. I'm kind of surprised that Christians are the most retarded of all those groups I mentioned, honestly.

>>13655814

OP is 'Reformed', what do you expect?

>>13655405

This is absurd. Catholics were Chabadniks regarding sex before Vatican 2 and still ARE, their sexuality only overflowing in extremely morbid ways, like the examples above, and/or confined to taboo by introjecting "secular" attitudes, under which it no doubt overflows in even more morbid ways. Not that there even IS a Catholic argument regarding Christian sexuality, as there is no actual Catholic argument regarding anything, but to accuse Protestants of all people of being against sex takes the cake.

The Mass is Idolatry. All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry. The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God; therefore it is idolatry. - John Knox

>>13655820
The Catholic position about sexuality is that if you take sex out of the marriage, it becomes degenerate and sinful. You can have sex as much as you want with your wife.

>>13655820
>he can't even address the LANDMARK works on catholic sexuality that I posted

classic. there's a reason all the female mystics were catholic. The church is the body of christ, the mystical union between the believer and her divine spouse. sexuality has *always* been sanctified in the Church, both in the East and the West. Puritanism and "purity rings" and "birth control" and all that were *directly* championed by protestants.

>>13655833
>da mass is worship da bread!

the mass was essentially codified by 100AD. read polycarp and ignatius. read justin martyr. the liturgy of the word and Eucharist are ancient. it's the puritan/quaker gnostic mindset that's the new innovation.

>>13655833
John Knox was a descendant of Sephardic Jews

>>13655659

Who destroyed all but a handful of texts? Who rebuked all but a handful of those? Who was so paranoid that he wrote a phone book for every letter therein just in case people actually read them and realize he is the Antichrist?

Post what you think is the best bible for your denomination.

>>13655846
>the mass was essentially codified by 100AD
Imagine actually believing this.

>Secondly, I desire to be certified what they call their Mass whether [it is] the whole action, with all ceremonies used now of old, or a part thereof? It will not satisfy the hearts of all [the] godly to say, "St. James and St. Peter celebrated the first Mass in Jerusalem or Antioch." If it were so, one of the two celebrated first, and the other after; but neither of the two can be proved by scripture. Great marvel it is that so manifestly men shame not to lie! Peter and James (say the Papists) celebrated the first Mass.

>But I shall prove that Pope Sixtus was the first that did institute the altars. Felix, the first of that name, did consecrate them and the temples both. Bonifacius commanded the altars to be covered with clean cloths. Gregorius Magnus commanded the candles to be lighted at the Evangel, and did institute certain clothes. Pontianus commanded Confiteor to be said. And wherefore should I trouble you and myself both, in reciting what every pope added. You may for two pence have the knowledge [of] what every pope added, until at last was compact [put together] and set up the whole body of that blasphemous idol. And yet shame they not to say, "St. Peter said the first Mass," although that many hundred years after him no such abominable ceremonies were invented.

>But they say, "All these ceremonies are not the substance of the Mass, but are added for good causes." What commandment have they received to add anything to the ordinance of God, for any cause appearing to them? But let them certify [to] me what is the Mass. "The canon," they will answer, "with the words of consecration."

>>13655852
>phone book

what are you even babbling about? the councils decided which texts go into the canons. but noooo, *you*, a scholar and a protestant gentlesir, certainly know better than dozens of councils and church father commentaries! 'uhh tradition? durr whats that?'

>>13655866
>Who is the author of the canon, can they precisely tell? Be well advised before you answer, lest by neglecting yourself you be proved liars. Will you say that the apostles used your canon? So you have affirmed in times past. If the canon descended from the apostles to the popes, bold and malapert impiety it had been to have added anything thereto; for a canon is a full and sufficient rule, which in all parts and points is perfect. But I will prove diverse popes to have added their portions to this holy canon. If they will deny, advise what Sergius added, and what Leo added, and what the two Alexanders added; for I may not abide presently to recite all; but if they doubt, their own law shall certify them.

>Secondly, the remembrance of the names of such men, who were not born [until] many hundred years after the days of the apostles, declares the canon not to have been invented [for] many years after the apostles. For who used to make mention of a man in his prayers before he is born? And masteris memorie is made in the canon of such men and women whose holiness and godly life credible histories make little mention [of], which is an evident testimony that your holy canon is vain and of none effect. And if any will take upon him to defend the same, I will prove that therein is indigestible, barbarous, foolish congestion of words, imperfection of sentences, ungodly invocations, and diabolical conjurations. All this is that holy canon whose authority excels all scripture. O! it was so holy, it might not be spoken plainly as the rest, but secretly it behooved to be whispered! That was not evil [poorly] devised, for if all men had heard it, men would have espied the vanity thereof.

Papists btfo by Knox again.

>>13655872
Why are you quoting a jew as some credible source for Catholicism?

>>13655866

>what is diversity in rites

bet you think the latin rite is the only rite.

>>13655872
>quoting a guy born over 1000 years after the apostolic fathers

yeah i'm sure this knox jew has direct access to things that apostolic fathers didn't. I'm sure i'll trust one subverter over hundreds of years of councilar history.

you really seem to like this John Knox guy. is he a 'saint' to you?

>>13655878
>>13655882
Show where the mass was codified in scipture you kid diddling papists.

why is 'reformed theology' easily the most cringe out of all christian branches? serious question.

>>13655794
It also turns out that this change is completely unverifiable and that there is no logical reason to make a distinction between substance and accidents.
>>13655724
I've read the Catechism before, maybe you should read the Fathers.

Augustine-
>This is the predestination of the saints, and nothing else: the foreknowledge and preparation of the benefits of God, whereby whoever are set free are most certainly set free. . . From this, it seems that certain people have naturally in their minds a divine gift of understanding, by which they may be moved to faith, if they hear the words or see the signs which are adapted to their minds. But if, by virtue of a divine judgment which is beyond us, these people have not been predestined y grace and separated from the mass of perdition, then they must remain without contact with either these divine words or deeds which, if heard or seen by them, would have allowed them to believe.

Or maybe try the Councils

The 2nd Council of Orange-
>If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, y which we believe in the one who ustifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which corrects our will and turns it from unbelief to faith, and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for the blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a god work in you will ring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."

Sure sounds like Calvinism to me.

>>13655769
Good reminder why I love the Divine Liturgy.

https://youtu.be/e6pJbOUr0qE

>>13655890

>sola scriptura again.

you really are mind boggling dense. there's two sources of truth, sacred scripture and sacred tradition. what part about 'sola scriptura is a heretical belief' don't you understand? where in the bible is sola scriptura supported?

>>13655868

Repeating what I said in a sarcastic tone and using awful grammar, though a Catholic classic, is not a rebuttal.

>>13655896
If you want scientific proof, there are plenty. Just search "Eucharistic miracles". Here is an example:

>One such miracle happened in 8th Century Lanciano, where a priest who was doubting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist saw the bread and wine transform into human flesh and blood as he said the words of consecration.

>Over 1,200 years later, that flesh has not decomposed and is still preserved at the Church of San Francesco in the Italian town. Odoardo Linoli, a professor of anatomy, conducted a scientific analysis in 1971 and concluded the flesh was human cardiac tissue of blood group AB. The blood was still fresh, yet contained no trace of preservatives.

>The AB blood group, which is relatively uncommon, does indeed keep appearing in reported miracles.

>In 1996, a woman approached a priest in a Buenos Aires parish to say she had found a desecrated Host in a candleholder at the back of the church. When the priest put the Host in a glass of water to dissolve, as is specified in canon law, it appeared to turn into a piece of bloody flesh.

>Three years later, after the flesh had not decomposed, a certain Bishop Jorge Bergoglio sent a sample for testing in California. The results came back that the blood was group AB, and was indeed human.

>Another sample was later to Dr Zugiba of Columbia University, a renowned cardiologist, who concluded the tissue was a fragment of heart muscle that had “been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest”.

>A later analysis of the results from the Buenos Aires miracle and that of the Lanciano miracle over a millennium earlier, found the tissue samples had the same DNA.

>>13655900
>you really are mind boggling dense. there's two sources of truth, sacred scripture and sacred tradition. what part about 'sola scriptura is a heretical belief' don't you understand? where in the bible is sola scriptura supported?

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

2 Tim. 3:16–17. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the
man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Gal. 1:8–9.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now
again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let
him be accursed. 2 Thess. 2:2. … that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
hand.

>>13655896
>>13655909


where does *the bible* say predestination is predetermination? since obviously you're sola scriptura we'll ignore the fallacy and play your little game.

>http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num21.htm

read this link. it'll clear some errors up for you.

>>13655890
>At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us
Sacrosanctum Concilium 47

>>13655912

where does the bible teach sola scriptura? I don't see an answer to that question.

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate11.htm

read this.

>>13655912
Spare your protestant blog copypasta and cite the passage of the Bible which says "The Bible will be your only source of authority". Did Jesus Christ leave a Bible when he died?

>>13655912

https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/the-rule-of-faith-in-patristic-thought/..

>>13655934
>cite the passage of the Bible which says "The Bible will be your only source of authority"
Okay
2 Tim. 3:16–17. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the
man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Gal. 1:8–9.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now
again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let
him be accursed. 2 Thess. 2:2. … that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
hand.

>>13655910
Funny how all of these miracles directly contradict Catholic dogma on transubstantiation, which is that there is no accidental change. Honestly, just imagine believing that there is a difference between the substance of things and the accidents of things, and then try to show that the substance of things can change based on observable, accidental changes. You don't even believe that the two are necessarily tied to each other in the first place.

>>13655912
>>13655943


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

https://www.catholica.com/sola-scriptura/

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-the-foundational-error-of-sola-scriptura

>>13655949

the accidental change is to *show* people like you that the substance really does change into the body and blood. you're confusing cause and effect. same reason people get the stigmata.

>>13655951
Maybe I should make it clearer.

Gal. 1:8–9.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

>>13655943
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

>>13655949
I thought you wanted scientific proof that the Eucharist is the body of Christ and I gave it to you. Now you're going back to theology?

>>13655835

Yes, that's what I meant by "confined to taboo by introjecting "secular" attitudes".

>>13655846

I am very prudent in reading Catholics since the Church letting any of them live is by no means a stamp of approval and could just as easily be a fluke, plus most of them are in Hell, according to themselves, so it further corroborates my suspicion. Not to mention that reading any Catholic would entail reading the Catholic afterbirth of phone books about said Catholic first, which, in the interest of approaching Catholicism in good faith, I can only decline until I've read the afterbirth thereof, and so on and so forth.

>>13655972

Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the TRADITION that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by word, OR by our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:14-5)

>>13655995
And you further proved my point. The traditions received from US. From Christ and his apostles.

You are the brother living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition received from Christ and his apostles.

>>13655914

We're not the same person, I myself am not even a Protestant. But I am very confused as to what the issue has to do with Catholics destroying and parsing texts regardless: >>13655852 .

>>13653797
What kind of loser prefers Calvinist intellectualism to the mystery of free will? You'd think after all that talk in Leviticus about how burnt offering must be freely willed, frenchy would get the picture

>>13655985

you're literally a fucking fundamenalist. seriously. you refuse to read anything outside of your little john knox bubble since you KNOW it will refute your positions. if your theology is so strong, won't it stand to reason? won't it be able to refute the 'papist' positions?

>>13656001
I'm sorry, where did jesus write down his teachings? that's right, they were TRANSMITTED THROUGH TRADITION. that transmission continues today through the teaching office of the Magisterial. 'you are Peter, upon you I build my Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'.

>>13655914
Lol the author doesn't even understand Calvinism (ie. not all Calvinists are double predestinarians). Secondly, that quote from Augustine they use misses the fact that he clearly thought there were people who would respond in faith when presented with the gospel but also were not predestined to be saved. I already quoted it before but I'l repeat it:
>From this, it seems that certain people have naturally in their minds a divine gift of understanding, by which they may be moved to faith, if they hear the words or see the signs which are adapted to their minds. But if, by virtue of a divine judgment which is beyond us, these people have not been predestined y grace and separated from the mass of perdition, then they must remain without contact with either these divine words or deeds which, if heard or seen by them, would have allowed them to believe.

>>13656017
>'you are Peter, upon you I build my Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'.
There it fucking is. I'm surprised it took you that long papist.

>>13656032
>imagine spending 500 years to come up with an argument to debunk Matthew 16:18 and failing to do so

>>13656021

imagine thinking God doesn't give free will to respond to his saving grace. you're honestly a satanic gnostic. 'no bro you're either destined to be saved or not!! god dooms people to hell! noooo god can't offer universal salvation he must be conformed to my human and limited understanding of free will!!! NOOO!!!"

>>13655962
But an accidental change cannot show a substantial one, s
>>13655979
I wasn't asking for scientific evidence, I was saying it's impossible to show evidence for transubstantiation by definition, which your post doesn't address.

>>13656047
I literally don't believe any of those things and neither do most Calvinists.

>>13656017

You're way off track. Last I heard Catholics rebuke Reason, both in the intuitive Dialectical sense, per Plato, and in the more Object-based reified sense, per Luther, according to them, though I myself disagree. One of the most pestilential Catholic doctrines, in fact, is self-imposed agnosticism and hatred of Philosophy outside of maudlin diary entries.

>>13656052

>the substance changes
'lol bro are you dumb the accident is the same'

>numerous miracles show the accident in essence is the same as the substance
'oh lol well that doesn't prove the substance changed'

^this is you.

>>13656046
>>>/lit/thread/S13449721#p13451902

>and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
>has to share claim to christianity with orthodox and protestant churches
>has to share claim to abrahamic monotheism with judaism and islam
>is morally bankrupt as an institution
>massacred 5 digits worth of cathars teehee LOL

>I would assume the premise is from the top-down and "immanent", that is to say not even the gates of Hell shall prevail against it, never mind anything else, not from the bottom-up and "transcendent", that is to say everything but the gates of Hell shall prevail against it. Not that it matters much, since the Catholic Church is an even worse candidate for the latter than for the former.

>>13656060

seems like you've never heard of nouvelle théologie.

read Rahner and von Balthasar

>>13656015
Read the filename retard

>>13656071

>his timeline only extends to present day.

laughing at your "understanding" of the divine plan

>>13656071
The Catholic Dogma still stands and the Catholic Church is still around, no matter how corrupt it has become or how many freemasons have infiltrated it.

>>13656071
Redpill me on the cathars

>>13656084
How am I supposed to tell one lithograph of a bearded guy with a stupid hat from another?

>>13656060
Thomas Aquinas alone is enough to prove your statement wrong.

>>13655931

Indeed, Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural. But would it matter if it was? If, say, Matthew 23 isn't enough to make the Catholic pause, what difference would it make?

>>13656061
Lol I'm not >>13655759, I don't make me meme arguments like "durr, if it's supposed to be flesh and blood why doesn't it taste like it." My only point is that if substance and accidents are not necessarily tied to each other, then there is no reason to believe a substantial change takes place.

>>13656100

protcucks worships their own little "reformed" icon depending on what branch of heretism they subscribe to. luther, calvin, zwingli, arminius etc.

>>13656107
Matthew 23 is about the Pharisees.

>be me
>go on 4chan
>see a general
>it's shit
>despite this a ton of replies constantly to the point that two of them show up at a point daily
>hardly anyone complains

Every time.

>>13656107
>Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural

so he finally said it. so if sola scriptura is not scriptural, where is the authority for the belief?

>>13656108
I think you don't have a real understanding of what substance or substantial means. You should read this article if you are interested:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

>>13656115
Imagine posting this unironically.

>>13655865

>>13656129
Trust me I do, your article even agrees with me.

>The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ's body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can't prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change: we know it only by faith in God's word.

>>13655405
Jesus Man, Gnostics hypostasise sexuality above all, read the actual Gnostic Scriptures and if you want to be quick about it, Samael Aun Weor

>>13656123

Mostly in and of yourself, which IS Scriptural.

>>13656164
Don't you agree that our sense are confined to phenomena? Our eyes can't see in the dark, while felines can. Snakes have infrared thermal senses, while we don't. That statement is a fact, but if you keep reading that article, it will do a good job explaining why Transubstantiation is reasonable.

>>13656172

>circular reasoning

yep, protestants are smart.

>>13653797
>/Christian/ general
>entire thread is catholic bickering over protestants

This is why we can’t have nice things.

>>13656093

I can't even comment on the tragicomedy of using others as scapegoats for the evils of the Church and the ominous irony considering how scapegoating relates to Christianity because there are so many alleged others that it reads like a bad joke. I'm sure the Armenian Church was formally spared on geographic ground alone.

>>13656187
I did read the whole thing and I would not call the idea unreasonable, but I see no reason to believe it either. I do thinks it's unreasonable for the Catholic Church to have made it dogma when it has absolutely no basis in the Early Church or the Fathers (speaking specifically about transubstantiation here not the general doctrine of the real presence, which is absolutely present in both of those), thereby condemning "heretics" to hell.

>mfw all the papist refugees from 8ch /christian/ have fled to /lit/
>mfw they can't ban Reformed Christians here
Must be infuriating to actually have to defend your idolatry.

>>13656216

>what is the John Bread of Life discourse

look up the koine for the word Jesus used for "eating" his body. the greek means gnaw, bloodily eat, devour like an animal. but 'this is a hard teaching, who can accept it?' <this is you.

>>13656224

protcucks need to have their safe space, i'm sorry if we're making you uncomfortable. but keep saying "papist", youre cool and not at all cringe.

>>13656238
You are so smart bro, dayum. I wanna be like u.

>>13656238

>>13656210
Read the "Permanent Instructions of the Alta Vendita", a freemasonic document about infiltrating the Catholic Church

>>13656232
No it's not me, I actually do believe that the bread and wine are flesh and blood, I just don't believe in transubstantiation. Leave it to a Catholic to not understand the difference.

>>13656260
This guy did a DNA test and came out Ashkenazi Jew. Ironic, isn't it?

>>13656265

how do they become the bread and wine then? obviously the appearance doesn't change. it's almost as if....the substance changes instead!

>>13656194

I disagree that individual Epistemology is circular, Scripture disagrees too, incidentally, but even if I concede the point, what would make "circular reasoning" worse than Catholic massacres, or more embarrassing than their Doctrinal flip-flops?

Roman Catholicism is beautiful

>>13656232
also the greek in John 6 is esthio and it does not usually carry the connotations you claim.

>>13656294
Name one (1) doctrinal flip-fop.

>>13656296
wtf i hate catholicism now and those forum posts just debunked 2000 years of theology!!

>>13656303

Jews.

>>13656275
Brainlet tier take my friend, as if that's the only possible explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transignification

Of course there is also the Orthodox solution "It's just a mystery, bro."

>>13656307
What are you on about? I said Roman Catholicism is beautiful.

I would never expect a Pr*t to be as loving and forgiving as that husband.

>>13656294

>moving the goalposts
>fails to address the non-scriptural basis for sola scriptura
>acknowledges the argument is circular but 'uh umm ackshully it's not, it's 'epistomology'.

sorry protcuck, where does the scripture say the individual is the sole authority for interpreting scripture? where does it say only that which is written in the bible is to be believed? how did the NT get written down if jesus didn't write it himself? was it transmitted by, dare I say it, tradition?

the protcuck cries out in pain as he strikes you. he's crying out so loudly because he knows that his entire heresy falls apart if he has to actually address this point

>>13656310
Nostra aetate didn't change the Catholic doctrine about jews.

>>13656323

So "there is a Jew inside every Christian" is a statement that every Pope could have made?

>>13656314
A good catholic would have rejected his wife, asked for a divorce and the Church would have allowed him because his wife was unfaithful. Obviously, he can't get married anymore after this, but its better than living with that whore.

>>13656330
Statements are not bounding. The Pope is infallible only when he acts ex cathedra. There are various degrees in which he can do that and the highest one is a Council. That's when Doctrine gets defined, not when he gives an interview or a speech that gets taken out of context.

This entire thread
>muh protcuck
>muh protcuck
>muh protcuck
>cuck heheh cuckoldry lolol old cucky
>cuck heheh cuckoldry lolol old cucky
>protestantism bad, protestantism bad mujajaja
>i’m so righteous kek

>>13656307
Both the Didache and Justin Martyr show that credobaptism predates paedobaptism.

>>13656339

unfortunately I don't think infidelity is a reason to have a divorce

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." mat 5

>>13656356
meant for >>13656303

>>13656352

>protcuck got btfo and resorts to babbling

classic.

>>13656352
The papists don't know what to do now that /christian/ is gone and they can't ban protestants.

>>13656358
Matthew 19 explicitly allows it
>8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

>>13656369
>The papists don't know what to do now that /christian/ is gone and they can't ban protestants.

>>13655852
>>13655909
>>13655985
>>13656013
>>13656060
>>13656071
>>13656107
>>13656172
>>13656210
>>13656294

>>13656315

I know that Catholics don't like reading, but where exactly have I said that I am a Protestant or that I affirm Sola Scriptura? Calling the Pope the Antichrist is by no means innovative or even recent.

>>13656358
I used the word divorce, my bad. I meant separation. Canon law allows for separation from a spouse that committed adultery against you, provided the other spouse did not approve, reconcile, or commit adultery in turn.

>>13656387
agree with you.

re: divorce
>See Dt 24:1–5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

>>13656345

You haven't answered my question.

>>13656385

>no no i'm not protestant!! i'm not sola scriptura!!! you're just misreading me!!!

>>13656399
We were talking about Doctrine and a statement made by a Pope during an interview and taken out of context does NOT change doctrine or define it.

>>13656385

>pope is the antichrist

I think Pentecostalism or JW is more your style.

>>13656410

I must confess that this all the more confusing given that Protestants all but deny free will, think themselves bad, and treat Logic very cynically. So asking asking me about the Scriptural basis for individual authority while accusing me of being a Protestant makes no sense at all.

>>13656379
Sorry you lost your position as /christian/ janny

>>13656411

Would the reaction or lack thereof been the same had Benedict XV said it?

>>13653797
Obligatory Urantia post

This book is the spiritual successor of the Bible
and surpasses it in authority, wisdom, and religious truth

You shouldnt expect anything less from a book written by angels

>>13656440

are you sola sciptura or are you not? stop squirming protcuck and answer.

>>13656461

I am not.

>>13656467


good, you accept the teaching office of the magisterium. I'm glad we concur.

>>13656411
>>13656452

You know what? Don't even answer. I'm going to bed. This thread sucks.

>>13656472

No, I don't.

>>13656452
Funny that you mention Benedict XV because he actually did say something similar:
>Nor less appropriate are the words which the same apostle addressed to the Colossians: "Lie not to one another: stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds. And putting on the new, him who is renewed unto knowledge according to the image of Him that created it. Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all."
PACEM, DEI MUNUS PULCHERRIMUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV - Given at St. Peter's, Rome, on May 23, the Feast of Pentecost, 1920, and in the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

>>13656480

solid refutation

Truly the RCC is the true church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgKweu0ZWVs

>>13656540

protcucks can't resist thinking about the HRCC CONSTANTLY

>>13655949
I'm going to quote the Desert Fathers on this one, specifically Father Daniel:
>God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.

>>13656548
Huh? I was just showing how beautiful the Catholic mass is.