/lit/ - Literature

>>20952143
>Why do Protestants exist?
They read the bible. That’s all it take

>>20952157
What do you mean?

why do catholics exist their beliefs are absurd they will literally sit next to a bread wafer for hours they call it adoration lmao

>>20952170
Transsubstantiation may be an absurd belief from the perspective of an atheist, but it shouldn’t be absurd from the perspective of a Protestant. A Protestant may think it’s incorrect, but they also believe in a God that can do anything, so it’s not as though God couldn’t really make himself present in the wafer if he wanted to.

>>20952186
>A Protestant may think it’s incorrect, but they also believe in a God that can do anything, so it’s not as though God couldn’t really make himself present in the wafer if he wanted to.
So if I say God is present in my dick will you suck it? That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

>>20952194
Not sure if I’m being trolled here. I’m making a distinction between “absurd” and “incorrect.” Protestants think it’s incorrect that Jesus is really present in the wafer. I think it’s incorrect that Jesus is present in your dick. Neither is absurd in the sense that God could do either one if he wanted.

Transubstantiation is a reasonable belief for a Christian to hold in the sense that it is an orthodox Christian belief that was unanimously held by the church to be the correct interpretation of scripture for 1,500 years. On this measure your example of your dick would be absurd, since there is no scriptural basis or historical basis to believe that it is true.

>>20952208
>it is an orthodox Christian belief that was unanimously held by the church to be the correct interpretation of scripture for 1,500 years
Which a Protestant won't recognize as being relevant. Putting the belief in transubstantiation on par with my holy dick.

>>20952194
>>20952214
>if he wanted to
I'm not even Catholic but don't be a retard

>>20952217
It's not being retarded. Traditional Catholic teachings are not recognized by Protestants only the Bible is the inspired word of God. Transubstantiation is an absurd type of sorcery that no rational Christian should believe in or practice.

>>20952143
Can a christian explain to me what the holy spirit is? Of course I do not believe in it but what the hell is everyonw talking about and how is it differenr from god itself

>>20952214
Right, and OP’s whole point is that it’s absurd for Protestants to believe the following two things at the same time

1. The Holy Spirit fulfills Jesus’s promise to lead Christians into all truth by guiding Christians into correct interpretations of scripture
2. Protestant interpretations of scripture are novel and contradict the theology that literally every pastor and theologian arrived at by reading scripture for the first 1,500 years of church history.

What was the Holy Spirit doing that whole time? Was he sleeping?

>>20952229
Your example is
>if God is so real why doesn't he give me wings right now!
It was terrible

>>20952235
>What was the Holy Spirit doing that whole time? Was he sleeping?
God can do whatever he wants. Believing a piece of bread contains Jesus is absurd and blasphemous.

>>20952235
>that literally every pastor and theologian arrived at by reading scripture for the first 1,500 years of church history.
Nigger do you even know who St. Augustine was writing against? Do you seriously think that theology was a unified field until some autistic German guy blew it all up?

>>20952237
My example was in response to this >>20952194
>A Protestant may think it’s incorrect, but they also believe in a God that can do anything, so it’s not as though God couldn’t really make himself present in the wafer if he wanted to.
I'm glad you agree that anon had a stupid fucking argument.

>proves Protestants are proto-atheists in your path
>proves Catholics are heathens in your path
he didn't say anything about Orthodoxoids so I guess orthos were right all along

>>20952235
I would say that it is not required that the person being guided espouse the correct conclusion. Same way David can be a man after God's own heart and still mess up. You can ignore the Holy Spirit, you can let flesh and earthly ambitions cloud your judgement. Considering God doesn't force His way upon us, if He tells you to turn left now and you turn left one min later, He'll let the chips fall where they may (to an extent)

>>20952170
>>20952194
>>20952214
You know better than literally every Church Father + Paul, cool

>>20952248
You didn't prove anything lol while I find your example blasphemous, you haven't shown how it's impossible to occur., which was his point. Prots may not find it likely or to have happened at all but we can't maintain it's impossible

>>20952143
>Nondenominational Holy Spirit
This isn't absurd, the holy Spirit is found in the Old Testament as well. King David for example harbored the holy Spirit.

>>20952284
If you don't find me claiming to have a holy dick absurd you're too far gone for help.

>>20952247
Augustine would've absolutely called modern Evangelicals heretics for rejecting the Transubstantiation. He also literally refers to himself as belonging to "the Catholic Church" centuries before other schisms and that makes both Protestants and Orthodox uncomfortable.

>>20952247
This is a straw man and a false dichotomy. No one said that the church agreed on everything for the first 1,500 years. But there were various issues that the entire church did agree on until the reformers contradicted them in the 1500s. Name one Christian that denied the real presence before the 1500s. Name one Christian that denied that baptism takes away sins before the 1500s. Name one Christian that taught that salvation couldn’t be lost before the 1500s.

Plus, the only thing you need to establish for OP’s point to stand is that important teachings of the reformers didn’t exist prior to the reformers. This is true on denying the real presence, denying that baptism cleanses from sin, and denying that salvation can be lost. If all those doctrines are the product of the Holy Spirit leading Christians into accurate interpretations of scripture THEN WHAT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT DOING FOR THE FIRST 1,500 YEARS IF CHURCH HISTORY? WAS HE SLEEPING?

>>20952297
It's absurd because it's not the case and it's beyond disrespectful to God. It is however not proven to be an impossibility which was the original contention.

Wanting to worship God, without having to pay respect to Italians.

>>20952272
Right, this is possible for each individual. But the Protestant position is that the truth on the Eucharist evaded literally every Christian for the first 1,500 years of church history, including evading Ignatius, who was discipled by John. Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have found someone that he could lead into remotely correct theology prior to the 1500s?

>>20952306
God has silenced His voice for a time so it's actually not that outrageous but a lot of people have claimed a lot of things for a lot of reasons to be inspired by God which weren't. I mean how would it be possible for their to be different functioning denominations and how could their possibly be a schism if your reasoning held up?

>>20952315
>It is however not proven to be an impossibility which was the original contention.
No it wasn't. >>20952170
Belief in transubstantiation is absurd in the way you say.

>>20952330
>God has silenced His voice for a time
No He hasn't.

>>20952330
Right, so your claim is that when Jesus said:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. -John 16:13

Jesus forgot to mention that, it’s not actually when the spirit comes, but instead the Holy Spirit was set to a 1,500 delay.

>>20952330
> I mean how would it be possible for their to be different functioning denominations and how could their possibly be a schism if your reasoning held up?
He never said that the Holy Spirit will lead all Christians into truth. He’s just saying that it’s absurd for you to claim that the Holy Spirit led zero Christians into truth for the first 1,500 years of the church.

>>20952349
No my claim is that despite the Holy Spirit being available to guide people to truth, as is His way, He does not force your hand and you can choose to ignore truth, you can mishear the truth, you can try to bend the truth to your own aims
>>20952362
I never said zero. I just said your people could be incorrect. Meaning the Holy Spirit was talking and they weren't listening. His point was that it was impossible to be incorrect because either the Holy Spirit wasn't there or everything they said is correct.
>>20952334
Well you're Catholic so you would believe that

>>20952229
John 6
>48 I am the bread of life.
>49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.
>50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
>51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
>52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
>53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
>54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
>55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
>56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
>57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
>58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
>59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
>60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum
It’s literally right there in the Bible. If you are a believer in Sola Scriptura, and you are an honest person, you will believe in transubstantiation

>>20952402
>It’s literally right there in the Bible.
It's also literally a metaphor. Do Catholics think Jesus was a loaf of bread?

>>20952306
>Plus, the only thing you need to establish for OP’s point to stand is that important teachings of the reformers didn’t exist prior to the reformers
Literally all of it is older than the reformation. The Catholic church literally agrees with me on this. Here is Wycliffe, infamous heretic often called the "morning star of the reformation" (note: this means his lived before the reformation) writing about the Eucharist, and even explicitly referencing people who deny the real presence at all.
>https://stromata.co/trialogus-chapter-1-on-the-eucharist/
So I guess that I've met your single requirement, and as OP's point no longer stands, we can be done with this thread.

>>20952399
>I never said zero.

Do you believe any of the following to be correct interpretations of scripture?

- Baptism doesn’t take away sins
- Communion doesn’t contain the real presence of Jesus
- Once a person is saved they can’t lose salvation
- Scripture alone is sufficient for establishing Christian doctrine

If you answered “Yes” to any of the above, then you do believe that the Holy Spirit led zero Christians into remotely accurate theology until the 1500s. Whether or not you explicitly said it is irrelevant.

>>20952229
Transubstantiation is taught in all four gospels and various epistles. I just gave you John, now read Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Matthew 26
>26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
>27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
>28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Mark 14:
>22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.
>23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
>24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke 22:
>17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you:
>18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.
>19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
>20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

>>20952330
I was thinking the Protestant response was gonna be "well Christianity was true in its original structures but it became corrupt over time and needed reforming" or something, not literally "Yes Catholicism was the undisputed Church for 1500 years and no God had nothing to do with it" Mormon-tier schizo shit.

>>20952417
Hello retard.

Welcome to a conversation with non-retards.

Of course people denied the real presence of Jesus prior to the 1500s. Now one said otherwise. Do you think that atheists believe that Jesus is really present in the bread? Of course they don’t. Atheists don’t believe that now and they didn’t believe that in the year AD 70.

Ok, so now you, the retard, can join the conversation. The bar is slightly higher than finding the existence of anyone that denies the real presence. The actual objective is ………. find a CHRISTIAN. We all know that non-Christians denied the real presence. Various heretical groups did throughout church history. This is why everyone in the thread, including the person you replied to, was careful to specify that CHRISTIANS did not deny the real presence prior to the 1500s. Even Ignatius, in the first century, wrote in reference to people that denied the real presence. Everyone who has looked into this knows that. The thing about the people Ignatius wrote about is: They also denied that Jesus ever came in the flesh. This is why they denied the real presence in the Eucharist too. They were gnostic heretics that denied the incarnation. Therefore, Catholics and Protestants agree that they were not Christians.

Zwingli did not deny the incarnation. That is why everyone in this thread is referring to him as the first CHRISTIAN to deny the Eucharist.

>>20952229
And if the clear words of Jesus Christ aren’t enough, let’s read the words of Saint Paul
1 Corinthians 11:
>23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
>24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
>25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
>26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
>27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
>28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
>29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
>>20952413
You’re hand waving away clear teaching. What sense does it make if it’s a metaphor? Take for instance the parable of the sower. That’s a metaphor. The apostles later ask Jesus Christ in private what He meant, and He explains it (Mark 4:10-20). Or the cursing of the fig tree, Christ immediately offers an explanation for His behavior.
But in the bread of life discourse, what does He say? “My flesh is meat indeed.” He just doubles down that He is the bread of life, and that the Eucharistic wafer IS His body and His blood. Saint Paul then affirms this, saying if you can’t discern the body of the Lord, you eat unworthily, and eat to your own judgement.
If you believe in Sola Scriptura and are honest, you have to believe also in transubstantiation, which is the clear and simple teaching of Jesus Christ and Saint Paul

>>20952418
>if you didn't say something you believe it
Though honestly, even if that's what I did believe because of the nature of God that could very well be the case
>lead no one to the exact correct theology
>creates the necessary condition create a change which leads to better theology and more importantly greater salvation
So yeah He absolutely could do that. Specially if the reason for such bad theology is the result of corruption from so called leaders more interested in rubber stamping heads of state in exchange for influence and wielding power at the expense of serving God. He let Israel fall into captivity and stay there because of their sins.
>>20952438
There were a lot of cults and people devoted to false gods in the OT and NT. I don't think God had "nothing" to do with the Catholic church but its existence and endurance is not necessarily and endorsement as much as part of what God allowed. Unless you think Islam is also inspired by the Holy Spirt because it exists and is large much like Catholicism. I, personally, don't think that's the case with the Catholic church but if you want to go down that road, there's plenty of highway to travel.

>>20952438
It’s a whole motte and Bailey thing. Prots will act like it’s the former, but when you corner them with the evidence that the early church unanimously held many views that modern Prots think are heretical then they retreat to something as schizo as what you just witnessed.

>>20952449
>Various heretical groups did throughout church history.
Holy fucking shit dude what a weasel you are. A literal Catholic priest doesn't count because the church decided he was a heretic. I wonder what they'd have done to Zwingli and Luther if it wasn't for those Germanic princes? What a magical thing you've done, making all Christians that disagree with the church mere unbelieving heretics, when these men probably felt the presence of God more intensely than the average priest does today.

>>20952460
Please show me convincing evidence that Ignatius, a man who lived in the first century, was such a corrupt evil man. He was discipled by John, he was an elder in the church, and he taught the real presence.

>>20952467
Okay, so what is a designated “heretical group” in history from before the reformation who were actually proper Christians?

>>20952143
Why do Catholics love boy butthole so much?

>>20952471
Sure thing

>>20952467
Notice that I didn’t say that anyone that denies the real presence is not a Christian and so therefore no Christians deny the real presence.

I didn’t say that because that would be stupid.

I said that anyone that denies the real presence prior to the 1500s was a heretic by the standards of Protestants. I have the example of first century gnostics, but the rest need to be treated on a case by case basis, due to the nature of the problem. Suffice it to say, Prots can’t provide a single example of a group/person that denied the real presence prior to the 1500s that those Prots would be comfortable labeling as Christians. This is well recognized in Prot scholarship.

>>20952459
So Catholics do believe Jesus was a loaf of bread. And OP had the gall to say Protestants were absurd.

>read modern theologians
>they’re all saying to believe Catholic teaching
“You can’t trust them, they’re all biased! Go back to the source!”
>read medieval Christians
>they’re all telling me to believe Catholic teaching
“You can’t trust them, they’re all biased! Go back to the source!”
>read the church fathers
>they’re all saying to believe Catholic teaching
“You can’t trust them, they’re all biased! Go back to the source!”
>read the New Testament
>it’s saying to believe Catholic teaching

>>20952487
see
>>20952208

>>20952495
Why was the source not the bible, until last? lol

>>20952494
See >>20952297. Believing Jesus was literally made of bread is absurdity on the same level as believing my dick is holy.

>>20952500
Because learning anything from the Bible necessitates and interpretation and those interpretations always come from tradition, whether Prots recognize this or not.

Prots:
>I just read the plain Bible, none of that BS tradition
Also Prots:
>Interprets the Bible exactly like John Calvin because that’s what they were told to do

>>20952438
how is that schizo
that's pretty logical when you consider that the majority of people couldn't read before the printing press, so they just had to take the church's word at face value
it's not like god can make people read his stuff for him

>>20952510
Catholics
>The last two places I will check for information are the source and the divinely inspired interpretation of that source
I get rituals and traditions and pageantry make you feel cool and seem like a substitute for actual relationship with God but I promise you God knows AT LEAST as much as "church fathers" in the "follow me as I follow Christ" you seem to get stuck on the man

>>20952157
>>20952166
They believe in a heresy known as "sola scriptura" which is "scripture alone" or "The Bible alone" which they believe that is all they need to be saved. The problem with this is that they interpret The Bible themselves because they reject the one true faith Traditional Catholicism from which we know that we ourselves do not interpret the Bible because we are not learned in that matter. No different than if I present to you Egyptian hieroglyphics and you interpret it for yourself, it does not make it true, you need someone who knows what those hieroglyphics mean to interpret them for you. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

>>20952233
Holy Spirit is incredibly vague in Scripture and really the Father (God never in the Earth) and the Son (Jesus) are much clearer. The Holy Spirit, largely speaking, is how mortals can commune with God on an emotional, spiritual, and literal level whereas the Son is how we come to know God on an intellectual level. To make this very very concrete: we forgive people whom hurt us via the Holy Spirit as told to us by Jesus (the Son) and because of that then the Father forgives us. Oftentimes you will see the Holy Spirit as "grace" and Christians don't like talking about it because the one unforgiveable sin is cursing the Holy Spirit (probably because it is the Thing that forgives, and as such denying forgiveness itself is naturally unforgiveable). Hope that helps!

>>20952527
It's actually more like interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics with the Egyptian who wrote them right next to you trying to help you. And Catholics go "I need to find out what my anthropology professor's professor thinks happened I can't possibly figure this out"

>>20952143
Protestantism is ultimately self-defeating, this is its biggest problem.
“Sola scriptura,” meaning no doctrine may be accepted outside scripture. Yet the authors of scripture themselves don’t believe in sola scriptura.
Jude makes liberal use of the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is not scripture in the Catholic or Protestant churches. If Jude believed in sola scriptura, he wouldn’t cite Enoch. If you go into any Bible-believing fundamentalist baptist church, you will NEVER hear them preach out of Enoch.
This isn’t the only example of this sort of thing. Saint Paul makes use of Greek lit and Hebrew apocrypha in his epistles. You never see Protestants use these in their sermons, and for good reason, they’re not scripture.
If the Bible had been written by sola scriptura believing Protestants, it would be a very different book. By believing in sola scriptura, you’re applying a standard to these writings that the authors themselves didn’t believe in.
This is beside the point that the Bible contains many Catholic teachings, that baptism saves, the real presence in the Eucharist, that Mary is explicitly called the Mother of our Lord, and various other things.
This is why there is a tendency towards regress in Protestantism, it can’t stand up to any scrutiny
>Only the Bible matters
Why?
>Ok, only the New Testament matters
Why?
>Ok, only the Gospels matter
Why?
>Ok, only the red letters matter
Why?
>Ok, it’s not about the book, it’s about your special relationship. If you feel saved, you’re saved

>>20952527
Not a Prot, but in fairness to them, sola scriptura is a little different than interpreting Egyptian. I mean the Bible has been translated into their language, and some things that are in it are clear.

That said, sola scriptura is pretty brain dead as a belief. The funniest part is that it’s not in scripture. And the other funny part is that scripture doesn’t have the canon in it. So somehow they believe that scripture is sufficient to establish all Christian doctrine, except this one, or the doctrine that tells us which books are scripture. But other than those …

>>20952533
>>20952233
Double 3 dubs - blessed checked. I would also add that the Catholic Church maintains that it is guided "by the Holy Spirit" which means that over time its doctrine is divinely revealed, albeit that is a very very nuanced and complex process, but it is miraculous in terms of its historical duration and size. Additionally, the Holy Spirit is what comes down when Christ is baptized - in most icons in Christianity you will see this as a dove (pic rel).

>>20952233
>>20952533
It's also the mechanism with which God works through us to allow us to be used by Him. He (the Holy Spirit) is both guide and presence of God on earth.

>>20952537
The Egyptian who wrote them right beside you? Whom are you referring to? Is this some weird way of saying that Jesus is reading scripture with you? Because Jesus did not write the Bible

>>20952537
Until you autistically decide to ignore clear teaching
How about this, you love the Bible right? And the Holy Spirit? What do you think of this passage
>39 And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.
>40 And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
>41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
>42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
It seems to be saying Mary is the Mother of God, and that the Hail Mary was given to Elizabeth under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Would you accept that? Why or why not?

>>20952544
>Ok, it’s not about the book, it’s about your special relationship. If you feel saved, you’re saved
Why can't you end right here? How has Protestantism defeated itself at this point?

>>20952564
You're not actually that obtuse right? You understand an analogy don't you?

>>20952569
Why do Catholics insist on taking the slightest exchange of words in the Bible and making an austistic ritual out of it? Elizabeth blessing her sister is not the same as the practice of praying long repetitive prayers to Mary instead of God.

>>20952569
I don't accept that primarily because I don't believe in veneration of the saints. Mary has no power to do anything. You may as well pray to your grandmother
>>20952574
What do Catholics think the point of Christianity and dying on the cross was exactly?

>>20952574
Because it’s regressed into nothing. You start off with a group united by a belief, and are left with no group, no unity, and no belief. So it’s self-defeated.
Oh and “end it there” never works out. It never ends there. The next step is crystals and tarot and new age garbage
99% of modern Protestants would be deemed completely non-Christian heretics by 1600 Protestants.

Catholcucks massacred their protestant brethren for almost thirty years straight because they couldn't cope with a different interpretation.

Fuck Catholic hipocrite scum.

>>20952575
It's a fucking terrible analogy because one involves the presence of a physical person speaking undeniable, objective words to you, and one is just the intuitive feeling that the Spirit of God is guiding your understanding. Try as you might, you cannot read the Bible with the same forceful interpretation that a physical hieroglyph writer would give you. You only (and this is not even guaranteed) have a slight gut feeling of how you ought to interpret what you're reading.

>>20952585
She was literally filled with the Holy Ghost
When you say a Hail Mary prayer, you are quoting an angel and the Holy Spirit
Now answer this question directly: do you believe the Virgin Mary is the Mother Of God?

>>20952604
No, I think she was the mother of Jesus, but that's beside the point

>>20952585
So sola scriptura except those passages, right? The Holy Spirit was just working on a filler episode when He wrote that bit of scripture, right?

>>20952609
Okay, but now let’s look at what the Bible says. Cause we see what you say, but the Bible says something different
>39 And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.
>40 And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
>41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
>42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Inspired by the Holy Ghost, Elizabeth called her “the mother of my Lord.” I.e. the Mother of God

>>20952609
>Jesus =/= God ... ?
The lengths Prots will go to ...

>>20952603
This isn't that hard for you is it? Maybe I don't understand Catholics. You guys believe God doesn't speak and effectively doesn't exist outside of rituals? Because it's not a gut, you're being directed by the Holy Spirit through faith. You guys have faith in your religion right? So to clear this up, when you study scripture earnestly God will help you interpret through the Holy Spirit for both your edification and when you spread His truth (tell me you believe in that at least) it's correct. And since it's His word you have the equivalent of someone who wrote something you're looking to decipher with you. Is this too much? Should I talk to your priest instead?

>>20952611
No, I'm saying: why does it have to be made into such an important ritual? It's such a relatively inconsequential episode in the Bible that is taken out of proportion because medieval women felt more comfortable approaching a divine female figure. There are all kinds of quotes in the New Testament of people speaking with the Holy Spirit. Some of them are praising God or Jesus or both. If we need to make the Hail Mary a ritual, why do we not have to make all the other praise quotes into similar prayer rituals? What makes this one episode so important that we have to repeat it to Mary more than (or almost as much as) any prayer to God or Jesus?

>>20952620
Do you think Mary gave birth to God? So when Jesus referred to "my father" what do you think He meant?
>>20952617
What power does Mary have that Jesus doesn't and when did Jesus direct us to pray to other beings?

>>20952617
I'm not arguing what the Bible says she is you autist. I'm not a Christian so I don't accept what it says about the mother of God. Even if I did accept that she was the mother of God, I wouldn't say that that one inspiring episode provides the basis or the requirement for an overemphasized Mariolotry ritual

>>20952484
>I said that anyone that denies the real presence prior to the 1500s was a heretic by the standards of Protestants. I have the example of first century gnostics, but the rest need to be treated on a case by case basis, due to the nature of the problem. Suffice it to say, Prots can’t provide a single example of a group/person that denied the real presence prior to the 1500s that those Prots would be comfortable labeling as Christians. This is well recognized in Prot scholarship.
Wow, nigger, it's almost like I cited a guy that's not recognized as a heretic by a protestant church:
>Wycliffe is honoured with a commemoration in the Church of England on 31 December,[44] and in the Anglican Church of Canada.[45]
>https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/wycliffe-john/

>>20952625
Look into the concept of private revelation, cause I’m surprised you’re not familiar. In fact, I think you are familiar with it and you’re just forgetting about it.
Saint Joan of Arc, ever hear of her? Have you heard her story? God spoke to her… this ringing any bells?
St Francis of Assisi, St Thomas Aquinas, St Margaret Mary Alacoque, St Faustina
God speaks to lots of people lots throughout history. It’s quite common really

>>20952625
>Maybe I don't understand Catholics. You guys
Not a Catholic
>You guys believe God doesn't speak
No, I believe (rather, I KNOW) that he does not speak the interpretation of scripture into my brain with the same objective forcefulness that a REAL, PHYSICAL, SPEAKING PERSON would provide me with.
>God will help you interpret through the Holy Spirit
Perhaps implicitly, or nonverbally, but by no means with the same objective forcefulness or with the clear, direct words with which a human writer would be able to provide the interpretation to his writings

>>20952639
>Do you think Mary gave birth to God?
Yes
>So when Jesus referred to "my father" what do you think He meant?
God the Father

>>20952620
Not a Prot

>>20952641
>argues that Protestantism is true
>gets absolutely btfo
>“Ack I’m not even a Christian I’m just an interested third party”
Kek, many such cases.

>>20952663
Why would He refer to 'the Father' and make a point of showing submission to God the father when He was God the father. He is a triune being but His role and place as Jesus was distinct and specific. Mary is not above God. God has not creator. You guys believe in Jesus right?

>>20952659
>>20952668
This thread was arguing Catholicism vs Protestantism. If you’re some weirdo third party, get the hell out of here. People will assume you are whatever you argue for. You can’t argue for Protestantism, then hide behind “I’m not a Protestant” when somebody proves you wrong

>>20952681
Trick question, He isn’t God the Father. He’s God the Son. What do I win?

>>20952677
You are quite literally mistaking me with someone else

>protestants this
>catholics that
it's not even your volcano demon; he has no covenant with you whatsoever

>>20952625
>when you study scripture earnestly God will help you interpret through the Holy Spirit
This is empirically bogus. Why do Prots disagree with one another on fundamental Christian doctrines. Do all 100m Baptists really believe that not a single one of the 100m Anglicans is earnestly reading scripture, and therefore those 100m Anglicans are prevented from discerning the Baptist truth that Jesus is not really present in communion?

And like OP said, if your interpretations are naturally arrived at by an earnestly reading scripture, then why did they fail to emerge from any Christian reading prior to the 1500s?

>>20952694
Okay let me follow this reply chain.
You’re replying to >>20952677 (Me)
Which is a reply to >>20952641
A reply to >>20952617 (Me)
A reply to >>20952609
A reply to >>20952604 (Me)
A reply to >>20952569
Which was replying to >>20952585 (Me)
And that post was replying to >>20952537 (an argument that Protestantism is the true faith, and Catholicism is false)
So at some point, I guess the Protestant anon ducked out, and you decided to take his place. Weird, strange anomaly. I think you went wrong by jumping into the middle of the argument. It made me assume you were the original anon I was replying to

>>20952510
Lol you are literally a pharisees. Hope you enjoy your brother's in satan.

>>20952683
>People will assume you are whatever you argue for
I wasn't arguing for Protestantism, I was just questioning the hilariously flimsy justification that Catholics use to worship Mary all the time. It's weird.
>nooo you can't join the thread if I can't use my usual anti-protestant arguments against you
>nooooo you can't join the thread if you're not going to join the ridiculous interdenominational bickering that shits up half the boards on 4chan

>>20952701
Because I wasn't alive prior to 1500. If there is disagreement it's because one person is, or both people are, wrong. I think most people don't come to their positions because they took 2 Timothy 2:15 seriously but because they fell into it. Considering we're warned that men can have the form of godliness but deny the power, and that few find the narrow gate, yeah there could 198m wrong in both those groups.

>>20952712
Kek
You got lost here my friend

>>20952715
Well you’ve put me in a bit of a bind here.
I started out arguing with this Protestant, right? So both he and I believe in the Holy Trinity, that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that the Bible contains reliable accounts of these events. So I was arguing with the assumptions of that common ground.
But the Protestant left, and you jumped in. So now, I don’t know if you believe in God, Jesus, Mary, the Bible, or anything.
So I’d need to write basically a giant theological essay just to get you to start believing in my basic premises. And I’ll just be honest, I don’t have the time nor energy to do that right now.
How about this, we’ll truce. I’ll admit that I wasn’t able to convince you that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, if you agree that, if hypothetically you did believe in the Holy Trinity, that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that the Bible contains reliable accounts of these events, then you would be forced to accept that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God.

>>20952740
Yeah that last one was a mistake. Here’s a screenshot so it’s easier
I really wonder where that Protestant went though. Why did he abandon thread?

I have to say, even though I don't agree with you Caths I appreciate the discussion. Pretty good stuff and much better than what you normally find on this Tibetan anime plushie forum.
>>20952751
I'm still here. You must have missed my reply or I wound up dealing with another response and forgot. Though as a point of clarification I don't necessarily think Catholicism is false per se. You make nice buildings.

>>20952650
Wycliffe did not deny real presence, he denied the Catholic articulation of the transubstantiation.

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right (you’re not). Congrats, you just shortened the length of time that the church was in unanimous heresy from 1,500 years to 1,300 years. Huge difference.

>>20952743
(me who posted the screengrab)
Yeah sorry mate I just joined the thread to call out a couple of flimsy arguments. I just wanted to push back on a point made by the protestant anon, and one by you. I see why it would be confusing. You're good. I argue too much once I get going.
Against the Protestant anon I was pushing back on his claim that reading the Bible uninitiated is enough for one's clear interpretation because it's like having the "author" of a text right beside you to walk you through it. And I was clarifying why one short episode of Holy-Spirit-inspired speech provides the basis for an (in my opinion) overemphasized ritual prayer to Mary.
>I’ll admit that [...] if you agree that
You don't need to admit anything, I would happily agree that Mary is the Mother of God if I was able to buy into the Bible. But I can't fully convince myself of its claims.

>>20952802
You misunderstand the bible itself isn't having the author next to you, the Holy Spirit is having the author next to you. It's the only way you could gain a deeper understanding of the word. That doesn't mean every first thought you have is correct nor that you won't have questions but when you study you seek guidance from God and the Holy Spirit.

>>20952696
Y-y-ou become part of his covenant when they cut ur pp!

Religion is mental illness

>>20952235
>literally every pastor and theologian arrived at by reading scripture for the first 1,500 years of church history
never happened

>>20952840
kek, what?

>>20952774
This is one of the more literal examples of moving goalposts that I've ever seen. I met your challenge, and will be leaving you to your stupid thread.

>>20952526
Catholics simply recognize that Jesus didn't write anything down, or command that anyone else write anything down. Rather, He established a teaching authority -- the Apostles. The Apostles in turn had successors, the teaching authority was handed down.

Thus, Paul wrote to Timothy:
>“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

In this passage Paul refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Further detail here:

>>/lit/thread/S19483891#p19489172

>>20952889
>Show me an example of a Christian denying the real presence prior to 1,500
>Wycliffe
>Wycliffe did not deny the real presence
>WAH WAH WAH, YOU'RE MOVING THE GOALPOSTS

>>20952948
You should practice being a good Catholic by reading more Aristotle.

>>20952166
>What do you mean?
They read the bible. That’s all it takes

>>20952533
Thanks. I think I get the gist. Another question? So is holy spirit synonymous with the individual spirit itself. Or does the divine inspiration come at particular times?

>>20952988
Why didn’t this work for anyone that read the Bible prior to 1,500? How come they all had orthodox Catholic beliefs? Why isn’t this working for most Christians today? Why are most Christians not
Protestants?

>>20952888
holy digits… but there never was any ‘universally’ arrived at theology anon, it never happened.

>>20952399
> He does not force your hand and you can choose to ignore truth, you can mishear the truth, you can try to bend the truth to your own aims
And *literally every single* Christian did this for the first 1,500 years of church history wrt the theology of the sacraments, soteriology, church authority, etc.? Including Clement, Augustine, Aquinas, and more? Protestants are cute when they’re being absurd.

>>20952948
>The consecrated Host we priests make and bless is not the body of the Lord but an effectual sign of it. It is not to be understood that the body of Christ comes down from heaven to the Host consecrated in every church.

>>20953048
> there never was any ‘universally’ arrived at theology anon, it never happened.

Let’s pick one issue as an example. Protestants say that communion does not contain the real presence. This is a new belief, and only several hundred years old. Prior to that, literally everyone believed in the real presence. Read through this:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Protestant scholars agree that Zwingli and Bucer were the first Christians to contradict this and teach that the Eucharist is merely a memorial. So several hundred years ago, supposedly, the Holy Spirit decided to finally lead a couple people into truth after abandoning all those Christians in the link I sent you to unanimity on heresy for 1.5 thousand years? Hmmm, sorry bud but that’s nonsense.

>>20953067
>Thus when we see the Host we ought to believe not that it is itself the body of Christ, but that the body of Christ is sacramentally concealed in it.
^ Also Wycliffe. He believed that in the Eucharistic meal you literally ate Jesus. You guys are so retarded it’s hilarious. If you spent more than 5 mins on this topic you’d know that Wycliffe never denied the real presence, he denied transubstantiation. Conflating the two is a brain dead move. Notice that literally no one in the thread said “Provide me an example of someone denying transubstantiation prior to 1,500.” Everyone asked for denial of real presence and you failed because it doesn’t exist. It’s a rhetorical question. Quit tiring yourself trying to dig up what isn’t there.

>>20952544
>If Jude believed in sola scriptura, he wouldn’t cite Enoch
Or only what he cited is inspired.

>>20952143
>another Roman Catholic starts a "let me tell you what you believe thread"

>>20953119
You are literally playing word games that are only available to you due to Vatican II. The church literally had to drop it's Aristotlean autism around the eucharist because the reformation rightly pointed out how retarded it was. Catholics are literally so stupid that they split their own church into thousands of splinters simply to appease whichever guy had declared himself pope that month.

>>20953137
OP here. Where was I wrong? These are of course implicit beliefs, but they are necessary beliefs of accepting Protestant doctrine.

>>20953146
Your total inability to differentiate between transubstantiation and the real presence is laughable.

This is the theological equivalent of if I said “Show me a Christian that denied rectangle.” And you said “This church father denied square.” And I said, “Yes, ok retard, but he didn’t deny all rectangle.”

>>20953147
>all pastors and theologians to unanimous agreement on various heresies regarding fundamental Christian doctrines
And no, using the fact that someone was condemned as a heretic is not proof they are not Christian.

>>20952157
You forgot the bit about not being able to pray on anything regarding life decisions, scripture, or being able to do a public confession (aka no balls) and refuse to talk with their pastor/priest about anything personal/spiritual ever because they're just way too busy with all the chaotic super important nonsense in life like going to social meetings, watching movies, and gossiping with friends.

Who honestly has time for a personally responsible relationship with a deity? Uh, unless it involves cool rocks and animals (furries). Then we suddenly have a huge amount of time on our hands to discuss how interesting our star signs are.

>>20953155
Your reading comprehension is absolute dogshit. The word “heresies” used there was referring to heresies in the eyes of Protestants.

>>20953165
>heresies in the eyes of Protestants.
Which ones you fucking moron?

>>20953168
Depends dude, very difficult to write anything that adresses all Protestants because they can’t agree with each other on any foundational Christian doctrine.

Chances are though that if you’re a Prot you disagree with the unanimous consensus of the early church on the nature of the sacraments (baptism and communion), whether or not salvation can be lost, and many more.

>>20952143
Protestants, catholics, jews, muslims, it doesn't matter. It's all the primitive worship of anthropomorphic magical beings. It's primitive trash.

What separates your ancient, middle-eastern superstition from someone elses? What makes your belief in magical super-beings more true or less absurd?

>>20952143
>unanimous agreement
ayyyyyyyyyyyyyy lmao
If you believe this I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you

Stop talking to protestants that think God "can't" and "wouldn't" do something simply because they think they understand God better than anyone else. Aka pope syndrome. Ignore them and instead chat with the ones that know Hod can do all things but only according to His promises that He set forth, clearly, for the world to see, so that we might know Him. He is UNCHANGING and despite being a mystery and unknowable, knowledge of God is a GIFT FROM GOD. So we need to do as the Bible and CHURCH teaches, by cross referencing, asking questions, praying, and learning. Enough of the same demonic cycle thinkers and deniers. If they can't accept that God is unlimited then they don't understand one of the most basic things about Him and will further refuse to accept anything else. This isn't meant as judgement but as an observation, having been there myself. It's a "if u nous, u nous" kinda thing.

>>20952186
So, which body-parts of that Yeshua bloke have you had in your mouth?

Do you know anyone that's trans-substantiated his foreskin yet? I hear those parts are REALLY sought after by your cult. There's a good twenty or thirty different verses dedicated to foreskins. What's the fucking deal?

>>20953186
As has been brought up numerous times in this thread, provide one example of a Christian denying the real presence prior to the 1,500s. If that’s not unanimous consensus then idk what is.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

>>20953191
*tips fedora*

>>20953192
There's nothing separating this from the "presence of the holy spirit" as felt or experienced by Mormons.

I doubt you think THEY have a legitimate claim to the truth, do you?

>>20953199
I think that you don’t know what “real presence” means …

>>20952282
>literally every Church Father
Except origen, iranaeus, tertullian, justin martyr, eusebius, augustine and others who plainly state the symbolic nature of the eucharist then yeah literally every one.

>>20953202
It's only real when members of YOUR cult say it is?

Cute.

>>20953180
>unanimous consensus of the early church
You would have to be a literal retard to believe that the church had consensus on any topic that wasn't just dogmatized to avoid attacks by pagans. The first Bible was published by a nontrinitarian lmao.

>>20953204
All those guys are in here.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

This is seriously your brain on Protestant.

>DUHHHH! IF THEY SAY IS SYMBOL THEN THEY IS SAYING IS ONLY SYMBOL! DUHHH! SURELY THEY CANT BELIEVE THAT ITS BOTH A SYMBOL AND CONTAINS THE REAL PRESENCE! DUHHHHH!

Hate to burst your bubble, but they all believed both and. To all of those guys it was a symbol and it contained the real presence.

>>20953210
see
>>20953192

>>20953220
Sorry, do you know who Tertullian was responding to when he defended the real presence? It was that same pesky dualist that published the first bible. Now, is he not a Christian, simply because others disagreed with him? And if he isn't, then how did he manage to get a Bible out before the real ones? How did there exist this gap between the total unity of believe between crucifixion and the establishment of the real church?

>>20953228
I don’t know who Tertullian was responding to, who was it?

>>20953228
The church was established by Jesus in Matthew 16 and there was no gap. Since then, right theology was always held and enforced by the See of Rome.

>>20953237
>Cathotard doesn't even know who caused his church to form it's obsession with canon and documentation
Ask your priest!

>>20953251
I’m not even Catholic. Thanks for being helpful kind anon.

>>20953246
>right
What a nice qualifier! Surely nobody published anything between the crucifixion and 382!

>>20953253
Marcion of Sinope. Not exactly an Orthodox theologian.

>>20952743
>reliable accounts

>>20953259
Dude looks interesting. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

>>20952143
Did you really have to make your point using this cringe & gay twitter format?

>>20952143
Read Ellul.

>>20952574
Because this point doesn't require the scripture -at all-, and if you're going to found a religion on Sola Scriptura then it stands to reason it must necessitate that Scripture.

>>20954461
Isn’t it more self-defeating that the Bible is itself a product of tradition and the only reason we can rely on it is because people decided by committee the correct books?

>>20952424
Serious question. Since this was done before the actual crucifixion, do you believe the bread and wine were symbolic or not?

>>20954635
It’s hard to understand John 6 if it was just symbolic. Why did so many people abandon Jesus if he was just speaking metaphorically?

>>20952399
>Well you're Catholic so you would believe that
No I'm not.

>>20953002
>So is holy spirit synonymous with the individual spirit itself. Or does the divine inspiration come at particular times?
Again - fantastic question. So the core here is you have identified actually the first debate in the Church. What you're asking, indirectly and moreso this is me indulging a thought than answer your question so forgive me, is if the Holy Spirit "takes over" for us? This is a classic antimony within Christianity, so from John we have:
>I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
So this strongly implies it's the Holy Spirit acting through you - but:
>“My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
So we see clearly that Christ is both human and man - the core of this is so crucial but it is that the Holy Spirit essentially is every soul in its most perfect essence, so when one is filled with the Holy Spirit then one both becomes perfectly yourself and perfect. Two additional passages that drive this home:
>But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
>But by the grace of God I am what I am
"I am what I am," mimicks the name God gives us to call him, which is "I am that I am," and as such we see this as both working simultaneously where divine inspiration is both fully your soul and fully the Holy Spirit in total alignment. The Nag Hammadi codex summarizes this very well but it's not authoritative:
>Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me, and I myself will become like them; then, what's hidden will be revealed to them."

>>20952465
>IT WAS UNANIMOUS
Sure spent a lot of time killing and exiling muh heretics for no reason then.