Catholicism

After studying philosophy and theology for most of my life I have arrived at Roman Catholicism as the most valid school of thought. I consider the bible to be, undeniably, the greatest piece of Yea Forumserature ever written. What say you?

Attached: barcelona_cathedral.jpg (1300x866, 238K)

I'd say that too, but I'm actually not a pedo

strawman, and not even a good one at that.

Have you talked to a priest recently?

Aside from that, Catholicism is nothing more than poor sophisms to cover up the fact that their foundational book is a bunch of Jewish folklore written by and for desert peasants who didn't know the first thing about the universe, humanity or anything of substance. It was considered pleb tier philosophy even 2000 years ago and has been completely eclipsed by the scientific revolution. Now all there's left is a bunch of whiny contrarians and a bunch of old people. Sad!

You use all of these assumptions and yet cannot provide an argument. Emotionally charged words such as your continued strawman are how the foolish are deluded into believing into the true sophistry which is the lack of belief in the one objective truth.

You obviously did not study that much because there are 0 reasons why the church should behave a pope.

Why do countries have presidents? Why do corporations have CEOs? Because there needs to be an authority backing final day-to-day operational decisions. This was always the design of the church.

The Bible says turn the other cheek and give to whomever asks (or takes), but how are these ethical? The Qur'an says forgive wrongs but don't let people push you around, and give generously but to the right recipients and not so much that you cannot support yourself and your family. And why do Paul and the Pauline version of Jesus say it is better to not have children? Having kids is part of maturing, people who never have that responsibility often get very warped thinking. Paul won over the Gentiles by abolishing the law but he ultimately doomed Christianity

Aquinas' theory of the persons of the Trinity as merely relations is not workable, you can crucify a being, you cannot crucify a relation.

To say Jesus ≠ God but rather Jesus ∈ God is flagrant polytheism. But if Jesus = God ∴ the Father = Jesus, thus undermining the Trinity.

The idea that Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) was married is pure cuckery

Attached: 1560187386927.jpg (1150x2896, 713K)

In Romans 4:25, of the Christian New Testament, Paul says,
>Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Interpreted by most Christians to mean Jesus was put to death to atone for humanity's sins, then raised back to life because those sins are wiped clean.

However the seventeenth Sura of the Quran, al-Isra, says in verse 15,
>Whoever is rightly guided is only rightly guided for the sake of his own soul, and whosoever is astray is only astray to its detriment. None shall bear the burden of another. And never do We punish till we have sent a messenger.

How is there any justice to what Paul is saying here? Killing an innocent man for another's crime is not justice. If someone murdered your wife, would you consider it justice if someone innocent were put to death for the crime? It certainly would not.

Paul's central premise is that Christ dissolved law, which is in fact the opposite of what Christ said, Matthew 5:17-19

>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Fulfil (also complete, perfect, finish) refers here to the end of the world, not the crucifixion, as explicitly stated, and . Jesus seals this point with the injuction to NOT teach people to break the law (which Paul not only does, he demands, in order to appeal to Greeks). His fulfilling the law is explained in al-Ma'idah, the fifth Sura of the Qur'an, verse 46,

>And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before, and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is a guidance and a light, confirming the Torah that had come before him, as a guidance and an exhortation to the reverent.

The fulfilment Jesus brought was the Hikmah as contained in the Gospel, originally dictated by Christ but expanded and corrupted into narratives full of alteration, deletion, interpolation . He also was a *messenger*, as spoken of in the first quoted Quranic verse, to warn the Jews to repent. Because they refused, God destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, which Jesus warned about

How are sins repaired if no one is punished? Simple: forgiveness. Or punishment, if you don't repent, however if you are punished under Sharia in this life, you won't be held accountable in the next, and in the next your punishment in hell will not last forever if you have even a mustard seed of faith, it will eventually end and you will be taken to heaven.

Attached: 1559204223806.jpg (1241x1183, 124K)

How do you interpret Matthew 23?

>Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
>5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
>8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted

Yes but it's not ment to be global and have final power of dogma

>After studying philosophy and theology for most of my life
Genuinely? I don't doubt this happens to quite a few people, but this meme is too common for it to be true in most cases, and your post doesn't give off learned vibes.

Its a passage on earthly glory and how the pharisees were only using their positions for gain. Basically condemning the fact that any man should be "raised" above another. Ordained men are not supposed to be raised over other men. This is clericalism and is widely denounced.

Yes most of what I know from philosophy is a combination of rigorous personal research and listening to hours of others give their own interpretations on many philosophical view points. I have found that the catholic theology provides very satisfying answers to all of the classical philosophic questions. Its apologetic philosophers have been just as convincing throughout the eras and have handily refuted anti-theist arguments as they have appeared. viewpoints have held up through the ages. Combining the strict logical soundness of the religion and the observed benefits of society being guided by it, the Catholic church provides an unmatched ideology in terms of its practical and metaphysical implications.

It's Orthodoxy.

120 IQ post
145+ IQ post

I honestly believe the Catholic church and orthodox Christianity are the same church just with a few inconsequential differences.

I doubt my IQ is that high but i appreciate the implied support of my position. God bless you

Then you are a heretic in both!

>the most valid school of thought

this doesn't mean anything. valid on what terms? at what period of time? for whom? you wanna argue for the validity of something you gotta give conditions. tomato sauce is the most valid sauce. for what???

OP here, most Catholics would be fine attending Mass in an Orthodox church if they could not find a Catholic Parish and vice versa. The Orthodox Mass is valid as well as the Orthodox Eucharist in the eyes of us Roman Catholics

Many ideologies and belief systems are internally consistent and philosophically rigorous, and many also have (assuming commonplace value judgements) observable social benefits as well as detriments -- Catholicism included. The difficulty is that you can't determine the truth-value of a belief just by its structural integrity.

Catholicism is the most complete body of truth and is universally valid as a personal belief system. This is my assertion

Both churches sharing sacramental validity isn't the same as doctrinal compatibility. Also as far as I know Orthodox don't allow their churchmembers to accept the Catholic Eucharist, so it is a one-sided thing.

I see Catholicism as an ideology that has been taken to its extreme and tested at its very core and still stands to modern scrutiny and application in society. Many belief systems have been through their logical conclusions and have not survived. Personally I have not come across another complete belief system such as Catholicism that has been tested in such a way

So are you just gonna ignore the part that says “call no man Father” ?

Nice dubs, im glad you responded. Jesus uses hyperbole to proclaim that nobody should equate anyone on earth to God the Father. We can literally use the word father to describe humans just so long as we do not conflate them with God the Father. St. Paul calls himself St. Timothy's father in the faith. This is simply the wording the Catholic church is emulating. We definitely do not believe that priests are God or even above the members of the Church in any way.

It's a transactional misnomer(in my language it's teachers) and taking it litteraly is wrong, it clearly refers to God and as long as you do not equate people to God it's no problem.

Thank you other user, idk why some protestants cannot understand this

80IQ post

Whatever your excuses are, I see no reason to risk having the wrong interpretation, going around calling priests “Father.” Seriously, why not just call them Brother? Is that so hard to do? It’s the easiest path. If you just do what the Bible says, all the confusion goes away.

have you ever had a vision of god? few people, even catholics, are interested in such a meeting. i can certainly tell you that there's nothing more important that you could possibly experience. are you looking for god or are you just looking for ideologies to uphold? you don't need to the bible to find god, but it can help. i think more often that not, though, religious practice makes it harder to meet god. people begin to think it's not necessary, or even worse: not possible!

how's freshman year going?

70IQ post

Because you are stuck on semantics, as I told you it's not even father in language. You have to see the essnse of it. Words can be misleading.
If you call them brother but still equate them with God it's bad no question about it.

>They love to be called “Rabbi”
Do you really think Jesus is saying that loved to be called God? That’s obviously not the issue. They love their title of spiritual superiority. Their egos are fueled by that title, and the way they dress, and how they are greeted. Jesus said we only have one Teacher, and that we are all BROTHERS. How hard is THAT to understand? So WHY would you dare call any priest father instead of brother?

You’re the one playing semantics and twisting the words of Jesus. What he said is clear to anyone who isn’t a Catholic. If he truly meant that it was only important that we don’t equate people to God, then that’s what he would have said. Obviously, you can still call people rabbi and father and teacher without equating them to God, but Jesus simply said not to do it, period. Call no man father. It’s that simple, but you have to bend over backwards to deny it.

Most Catholics I've met are morons. I like a lot of Catholic philosophy but to being Catholic seems to turn people into morons

>After studying philosophy and theology for most of my life I have arrived at Roman Catholicism as the most valid school of thought
You must be one of those extremely stupid people who sincerely believe they're smart then.
>I consider the bible to be, undeniably, the greatest piece of Yea Forumserature ever written
That's easy to deny. The Quran is better in literally every possible way.

I'm not a Catholic. But it's clear that words are not the problem but pride of the once who demand that specific word.
You can go on and say that you are not addressing the priest personally, they are just a vessel for your words with God.
Sure you can call th brothers there is no problems with that but disrespectimg other because they use different words is no good ether.

Do you think Jesus meant not even to call your own literal father 'father'?

What do you call your biological father?

50IQ post

I believe the opposite. I am truly in awe of others who have so much more natural intellect than myself. Many atheists have far more talent for debate than I do. I am however a rational human and can use my ability to reason well. I subscribe to Catholicism because it has been proven to be an objectively good lifestyle and belief system. It is also irrefutable in modern philosophy which is bent on trying (in vain) to discredit believers of any religion. I do believe that the Quran contains a lot of truth but as a Catholic I cannot (and have not) seen any religious belief system to be more true. That being said i have an incredible respect for believers in Islam and think (like most other christians) that anyone who believes in Allah/Elohim is likely going to be saved.

It's a form of speech called hyperbole. If Achilles were to tell Patroclus, "call no man friend except me," that wouldn't be forbidding Patroclus literally never to use the term friend in reference to men other than Achies, rather it means, "I am far and away your greatest friend, I belong to a higher category than all your other friends." Similarly, what Jesus is saying is not that you literally cannot call any other father, but that God is your Father in a primary sense, and in a much higher category than any earthly father.

Of course not, why do you even bring that up? The common theme among those titles was a spiritual teacher, someone who is somehow more superior than the common believer. We are all brothers in Christ, who is the real Teacher. It is not prideful for a biological father to be called father or dad or pop, because this has nothing to do with spirituality at all. It’s just a name, a way to reference your parents.

I have seen a great exodus from atheist thought back to the Christian belief system in high academic culture. The most educated and well respected people I know are Christian or thinking about converting.

Please read 1 Timothy 5:17

Strangely enough, I actually don’t call my dad anything. You see, he split with my mom before I could remember, and I didn’t spend a lot of time with him as a child, I guess. So I never got into the habit of calling him dad. Every time I’m around him, I simply don’t call him anything, or his wife, or anyone by any name when I’m around him. I know this is horrible, there’s something wrong with me, it’s made a lot of awkward moments, but I’ve never been able to deal with it properly. Pathetic, I know. I hate divorce

Doesn’t say anything about calling the elders by spiritual titles

>The common theme among those titles was a spiritual teacher
But now you are interpreting it. It says "call no man father", not "call no man your spiritual father". So you are a hypocrite and not following what you preach.

So you have daddy issues, that is the real reason why you don't want to use the term. Got it.

The word itself isn’t that important. According to this guyit doesn’t even say father apparently. “Master,” “Rabbi,” “Teacher,” “Instructor,” “Father,” all spiritual titles that aren’t belonging to a human.

It's not proudful for a spiritual father to be called a father, just like it isn't for a biological father. They are both fathers. You can't make a special pleading for one and not the other.
The early Christians used the term all the time to refer to those who had instructed them in the faith.

I’m sure the early Christians didn’t follow Scripture in many ways

>All those titles created to explain the role of a person in relation to another do not belong to humans
jesus

>spiritual titles

I think that you would find a lot of answers by talking to a Catholic priest. At the very least you will encounter a new perspective, but you could find peace my brother

>God never gave spiritual titles to anyone
lmao
>I know better than the martyrs and champions of the faith that got instructed by the apostles themselves
protestantism is a mental illness

Attached: St.Iranaeus.png (2807x747, 314K)

Attached: Clement of Alexandria.png (2785x780, 345K)

OP here, unrelated to all of the wonderful discourse in this thread, I would like to say that God loves you and has provided a path for those to find him to those who seek. I also will always remain your brother and love you regardless of your beliefs, I want people to find happiness and my personal search for happiness led me to the true church. I unfortunately have work tomorrow and must sleep. God bless you all!

Attached: Alexander of Jerusalem.png (2736x837, 147K)

A lot of early Christians disagreed on a lot of things. That’s why their writings aren’t part of Scripture. It takes minimal effort to call priests “Brother X” instead of “Father X.” With a conservative approach to the Bible’s direct teachings, i don’t see why you would opt to say father instead. If I ever had to address a Catholic priest, I would call him Brother.

Yea Forums is a catholic board. Bump catholic threads and shun athiest posts

The priest is a spiritual father, whether you like it or not.
Again, in front of the evidence you just move the goalposts. You are not taking the "simple words of the Bible", you are just using your own flawed interpretation and disregarding any proof that it's flawed. This kind of hard-headedness is not a mark of faith, you are not fighting against le ebil complex heretical Catholic Church. You are just being a dumb dumb. Suit yourself.

Attached: DqM-YyKWoAACEm4.jpg (1024x658, 178K)

The Bible doesn’t ever say to call your priests by a certain title, but it does say to not call them certain titles, since we are all brothers. I’m taking the safe approach. I cannot sin by following Jesus’ commandment, but you can, if your interpretation is flawed. But it isn’t an issue, everyone sins. But I won’t call priests special names, and if I ever became a priest, I wouldn’t go by any special names either. Goodnight

I was disgusted by the lutherean churches teachings as a teenager and so I left the church.
I'm considering joining an Eastern Orthodox parish near me.
What are the theological main differences and conflicts between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox?

I saw this shit post picture, what is a good refutation of it?

Attached: 6587e372fb801d08c3d086d59b4479c3788a5aac66307a206ed9a6b3b54e773d.jpg (720x896, 162K)

Imagine how simpler things would be if Jesus laid out the papal system in the Bible for everyone to see. Makes you wonder why he didn’t

Whether you can use leavened bread for communion and the primacy of Rome. Orthodoxy restricts catechumens from rites more strictly too.
>consider the bible to be, undeniably, the greatest piece of Yea Forumserature ever written. What say you?
I say that is one of the more protestant things I've heard all day and it's the 11th of July.

Athiests unironically post this filth expecting to be taken seriously

Do athiests actually attack Catholicism on the grounds of Papal Supremacy not appearing to align with scripture?

no, more on the grounds that it is all a load of bollocks

Eastern Orthodxy's structure makes a lot more sense IMO.
>le desert peasants meme
Midwit detected.

50IQ

No pope supremecy
Filioque, slight difference the interpretation not the trinity
No original sin, only inherited ability to sin.
Lots of liturgical difference because of the 1k years of the Catholics trying to be different.

>pleb tier philosophy 2000 years ago
So I guess you haven't heard of Clement and Origen.

>After studying philosophy and theology for most of my life
Said by 20something at best.

>I have arrived at Roman Catholicism as the most valid school of thought.
Does not understand logic, arguments, coherency or any meaningful way of communication. Also doesn't meanings of words and concepts.

>I consider the bible to be, undeniably, the greatest piece of Yea Forumserature ever written.
Again no criteria or anything or even saying why, just an opinion of nobody.

>What say you?
I say this is a bait or you are a retarded teen.

>21st century
>unironically believing in god

>thinking the date is relevant to truth

bump

Attached: IMG_3958.png (1288x1732, 656K)

Can you take the Protestant out of the American? I'm beginning to think not. And I'm American.

agree

No. Even American Catholics have become incredibly influenced by Protestantism (egalitarianism in parish communities, anti-traditional liturgical singing, emphasizing moralism while downplaying mysticism, etc.). Obviously this doesn't apply to any traditional Catholics who know their faith, but if one doesn't read up on religion to distance himself from it, Protestant work ethic, social values, etc. will all by default be ingrained in the American. I don't think this is a good thing, but you can't change it easily.

i wanna get out of here and never look back

It's not the land, it's the state of mind. You can change your mind regardless of your location. I don't think there is any country anymore that is run and inhabited by truly religious men

>emphasizing moralism while downplaying mysticism
thats the biggest mistake burgers make

Bumping for an answer to this

Christianity is dumb because the Prots think the Caths are going to hell, the Caths think the Orthodox are going to hell, and the Orthodox think the Coptics are going to hell. Any christian message board devolves into a low-iq republican dipshit fest of who can be the most pure human being asking stupid questions like "can i watch an anime because of its material".

Literal cuckery your whole life. Read Guenon idiot.

THE PAPACY BELONGS TO AVIGNON

Attached: 1536978300186.jpg (734x468, 93K)

Orthodoxy has too much of an issue with ecumenicalism and infighting for me to be comfortable with recognizing it as the universal church. Is X church in communion with Y church? Different orthodox churches use different bibles and recognize different saints. I found it to be too scatterbrained when I looked into it.