Any good books on refuting popery?
The Protestant Reformation
Oh pardon me, I read "refuting *poetry*
Carry on
>waaaah why catholics kill peepl
daily reminder that killing protestants is righteous malecide
cringe thread
The Reformation removed the obstructions which the papal church had interposed between Christ and the believer. It opened the door to direct union with him , as the only Mediator between God and man, and made his gospel accessible to every reader without the permission of a priest. It was a return to first principles, and for this very reason also a great advance. It was a revival of primitive Christianity, and at the same time a deeper apprehension and application of it than had been known before.
There are three fundamental principles of the Reformation: the supremacy of the Scriptures over tradition, the supremacy of faith over works, and the supremacy of the Christian people over an exclusive priesthood.
.
History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation
ccel.org
What’s the scriptural source that says that scripture supersedes Magisterium and tradition?
Back to your general christshits.
It's fucking amazing to me that Prots (correctly) identified the Church as corrupt and in need of reform and then set about ruining it and making it worse in every way. Good show, dudes!
>t.
I aint a papist -- nice try
There is no refutation which is why so many protestants won't touch it. Whenever they do they end up making some very stupid mistakes like with that "big rock, little rock" nonsense which assumes Jesus was speaking Greek. Check out "Upon This Rock" by Stephan Ray because it is very thorough. If you're going to refute the Papacy then you better see just how much evidence is against you.
Ironically, the counter reformation takes literally every good part of the reformation and implements it and trashes the bad stuff.
Daily reminder that Muhammad was the world's first protestant.
Go tell your local bishop that you post things like this online so he can excommunicate you.
Scripture is the word of God and that supersedes anything that is not. The magisterium and tradition are not. inb4 you say they are. Find me a Catholic dogmatic statement that claims that.
>which assumes Jesus was speaking Greek
This is basically a concession that Catholics cannot win this argument based on Scripture, since you have to attempt ruling it out entirely.
quick rundown? big if true
No, this is problem of interpretation. The protestants have this weird esoteric take on the "rock" which requires that they ignore the language and historical context of scripture. In Aramaic there is no distinction between "big rock" and "little rock" but in Greek there is. "Little rock" had be used by Matthew when translating the conversation because "Big rock" is feminine in Greek and isn't suitable for a male name.
The New Testament, which is the word of God, was written in Greek, not Aramaic. The *Greek text* is the word of God. You have no Aramaic text to interpret, as God did not inspire that it be written. Anything you could possibly say in this regard is a mere hypothetical based upon something that is not real.
Yes it was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic and that must be taken into consideration. If there is no possible distinction between big rock and little rock in the language Jesus spoke that has to be accounted for if you're actually seeking truth.
Where are Jesus's words in Aramaic? You do not have them. The only words that you have of Jesus are in Greek, as God inspired them to be recorded. Also I'm not sure what you're even referring to as I've never heard a Protestant make an argument based off of some distinction in rock sizes. The "petros" is just a pun referring to Peter's name, and represents his confession faith. Likewise Christ gives him the power of the Keys, which he also gives to the other apostles, who share his confession. There's nothing special being anointed upon Peter.
Why are you autistic fucks going on a tangent about the size of rocks? Even if Jesus considered Peter to be a foundational person for the church, how does that imply a succession of popes?
It of course does not. A common Catholic argument is to try to read a small aspect of their theology into some verse or two, and then magically import everything else even though it does not follow in any way.
The words we have of Jesus are a translation and the only possible word he could have used is "Kephas." Early Christians understood exactly what it meant which is why none of this "big rock, little rock" stuff existed until protestants came around in the last few hundred years.
On the one hand you have the Catholic interpretation which takes scripture at its word, that the message is simple and clear. Then you have the protestant interpretation which requires you to ignore evidence and make unclear distinctions and further suppose that those distinctions are meaningful. It's gymnastics. They're looking at scripture and making it mean what they personally want it to mean.
The argument for the papacy does not rely on a single verse. Earlier I recommended a book which compiles almost all of the historical and scriptural evidence, it's Upon this Rock by Stephan Ray.
Well it's the early church and the ecumenical councils did not establish it as cannon.
if only it did. Celibacy makes priests weird. Paul said bishops were supposed to be married and most of the Apostles were married. Catholics are taught that God is literally inside the crackers and the tabernacle, cf Paul's sermon in Athens, and Catholics practically worship Mary as a fourth person of the Trinity.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Shias are just Muslim Catholics if you really think about it, Sunnis are closer to protestantism, and Wahhabism the closest to Calvinism
There's nothing more cringe than catholarpers trying to pretend its not pedo central
Anywhere that's insular attracts abusers, same with Hollywood and every billionaire, FIRE executive, and British MP, the catholic church isn't special in that regard
I don't know, the mean quality of Catholics is much higher than that of Protestants, just in terms of general theological knowledge and not constantly contradicting themselves. I've heard Protestants saying really ignorant shit in a way that Catholics simply don't
Nice cope.
not that user but he's only paraphrasing the blessed SAINT AUGUSTINE and the just war theory he espoused in City of God.
My post stands. Go tell your bishop and see what happens.
>My post stands.
No, it doesn't.
If he goes and tells his bishop, and the bishop condemns him for doing what a saint of the Catholic church argued FOR (which is quite against what Jesus himself preached), then that is only evidence that the bishop is as user said: false, and a corruptor.
>for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
It's funny because I've seen Catholics use beauty as an argument for Catholicism; i.e. "We have all of this beautiful art, beautiful churches, beautiful music, therefore Catholicism is true." According to Christ such an idea, rooted in pagan philosophy, is nonsense.
There isn't a single bishop living on this planet that would not condemn a statement like . That's what funny about you "trads" -- your ideas are self-refuting. The institution you claim to venerate does not exist, has not existed for centuries, is a mirage that only exists in your mind. If your view of Catholicism is correct then Catholicism is false (which it is). Very funny IMO.
>If your view of Catholicism is correct then Catholicism is false (which it is)
>you are correct but I don't like it
very good posts.
I'm saying that 1.) Catholicism is false regardless of whether you are correct, and 2.) by your own definition of Catholicism, Catholicism has failed, and is thus false. Hope that helps!
>Catholicism has failed
No, dummy. That's impossible. You meant to say that the CHURCH has failed. That is, failed to keep faithful to Jesus' ministry. And at many times that has been the case, and many more times (usually among minor orders and especially female orders) the members of the Church have I would say done amazing jobs striving for the selflessness that Jesus preached.
STOP APPLYING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION AS AN ANALOGY TO THE SUNNI-SHIA SPLIT YOU STUPID FUCKING WESTERNERS IT DOESN'T WORK
based muslims with the caps lock key filled with sand
The Great Deception. J.H. Hunter
Interesting, so Scripture actually establishes the canon of Scripture within its pages? I had never heard of this. Could you point me to the verse in the Bible which determines the canon of Scripture?
Paul says that scripture is inspired of God, but he goes on numerous tangents on his own many times, which is acknowledged when he preludes the tangent by saying that he speaks of his own for now and not of the law. There's also his famous boast in 2 Cornithians 11:16-33 where he speaks "as a fool" to convince the worldly Cornithians. Men speak to men according to the tongue of men, though some men may be divinely inspired by God, I think that's the most rational position to take. There's little evidence for nor is it a fundamental tenet of Christianity, unlike Islam, to believe that scripture is the literal word of God.
"Thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
This passage, recorded only by Matthew, is the exegetical rock of Romanism, and more frequently quoted by popes and papists than any other passage of the Scriptures. But admitting the obvious reference of petra to Peter, the significance of this prophetic name evidently refers to the peculiar mission of Peter in laying the foundation of the church once and for all time to come. He fulfilled it on the day of Pentecost and in the conversion of Cornelius; and in this pioneer work Peter can have no successor any more than St. Paul in the conversion of the Gentiles, and John in the consolidation of the two branches of the apostolic church.
3. The actual transfer of this prerogative of Peter—not upon the bishops of Jerusalem, or Antioch, where he undoubtedly resided—but upon the bishop of Rome, where he cannot be proven to have been from the New Testament. Of such a transfer history knows absolutely nothing. Clement, bishop of Rome, who first, about a.d. 95, makes mention of Peter’s martyrdom, and Ignatius of Antioch, who a few years later alludes to Peter and Paul as exhorting the Romans, have not a word to say about the transfer. The very chronology and succession of the first popes is uncertain.
Yeah, the epistle of James.
Oh, you meant Catholicism and not protestant rot.
>and in this pioneer work Peter can have no successor
This doesn't follow especially if you keep reading that chapter. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom which is a reference to Isaiah 22 and symbolizes the stewardship of the Davidic kingdom. That stewardship was dynastic.
Its still open to interpretation and a very flimsy basis to ascribe the weight of infallibility
These are fallible mortals with a vested interest in keeping power (religious authority) trying to elevate their religious opinions to that of Godly Infallibility.
I don't think it's flimsy at all once you properly understand it. In the Davidic kingdom, the king appointed a cabinet of ministers (1 Kgs 4:1-6; 2Kgs 18:37). Of these ministers, one was elevated to a unique status. His authority was second only to that of the king, who gave him the authority over all other minsters and everyone else in the kingdom. This was a common practice in the Near East. For example, when Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, Pharaoh said, "You shall be over my house [dynasty and kingdom], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you ... I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen 41:40,44). The Symbol of Joseph's office was the signet ring that Pharaoh took from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand (Gen 41:42)
David ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. However, his dynasty continued after his death. Hezekiah became the king of Judah at the age of 25 approximately 265 years after King David's death. Hezekiah's rule from 715 to 687 was marked by a great religious reform. It was during his reign that Shebna, the prime minister or royal steward (Is 22:15) was removed from his office:
"Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man ... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station" (Is 22:17, 19). Eliakim will be installed in his place as prime minister (Is 22:20-22). The symbol of that office is "the key of the house of David" (Is 22:22).
The point of Jesus' reference to Isaiah 22 is to indicate that Peter will also be given an office in Jesus' kingdom, which is his Church. That office will continue as long as Jesus' kingdom on earth continues. Jesus is the new Moses. Like the first Moses, Jesus established a priestly hierarchy in his kingdom. Peter and his successors are the chief ministers in that kingdom, the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church.
The power to bind and loose on earth given to Peter by Jesus is a guarantee that when Peter's office asserts a dogma, it is truth because what is bound on earth is also bound in heaven, what is asserted as true on earth is also asserted as true in heaven and lies can't be told in heaven so falsehoods can't be dogmatically taught on earth.
This certainty isn't to say that Peter or the person in his office can't sin. We see Peter sinning in scripture but even so Jesus commands him to feed and tend the sheep after he repents. There is precedent all throughout scripture that bad people can do good things and be used by God.
Did you just not understand the question?
based
gnostics > agnostics > atheists > non-wiccan pagans > mainline protestants > jews, muslims, bahais, and other abrahamic cultists > evangelicals > mormons, witnesses, and other heretics > wiccans > theistic satanists > eastern orthodox "christians" > hindus, buddhists, janes, and other schizos > voodoo > african shamans > c*tholics
*jains lol
Oh, here we go. The "keys," another Catholic distortion of scripture.
>Mt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
So Peter is given the "keys." Now what do "keys" do? They lock and unlock things, or in other words "bind" and "loose." Therefore the "binding" and "loosing" signifies the power of the "keys." Is this language used anywhere else? Two chapters later:
>Mt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
>19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
>20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I used the King James version because it makes the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns, which is important here. In the first quote, when Christ is speaking to Peter, he uses the singular "thou/thee," so he is speaking to one person only. In the later passage Christ uses the plural form "ye/you," so he is speaking to multiple people, in this case all of the Apostles. So he is giving all of the Apostles the power of "binding" and "loosing." Therefore he is giving the "keys" to all of the Apostles. Peter is not given some sort of special power which the other Apostles are not.
One may object that Christ places a limit on the later Apostles because he says "if two of you shall agree," in v. 19, but this is nonsense, since this would apply to Peter as well, because Peter was there among those he was addressing. In the very next verse:
>Mt. 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Their argument about the "keys" is nonsense as the "keys" simply refer to the authority given by Christ to the Apostles.
protcuck
>I have no argument so I'll just insult you
For being the supposed wardens of logic and learning, Catholics sure do a poor job of demonstrating it.
Catholics believe the Magesterium or the successors of the other apostles also have the power of binding so you're not saying anything novel. I refer to Peter and not all the apostles in this conversation for simplicities sake, because nobody is going to accept the Magesterium if they don't accept Peter.
When you say that key stuff is nonsense do you just not accept that were the symbol of stewardship in the Davidic kingdom? I would urge you to read Isaiah.
not even catholic, just like shitting on protcucks. i'll choose tradition over individualism anyday. shouldn't you be humping your bible, protcuck? that scriptura aint gonna sola itself
>Catholics believe the Magesterium or the successors of the other apostles also have the power of binding
So then,
>When you say that key stuff is nonsense do you just not accept that were the symbol of stewardship in the Davidic kingdom?
What is your problem? Read the text. He's not speaking specifically to Peter. There is no indication in the text that any special power is bestowed upon Peter in any sense. The pronouns are clear as day.
So you're just some stupid LARPer. Not surprised.
Its hierarchy is an absolute spiritual monarchy culminating in the Bishop of Rome, who pretends to be nothing less than the infallible Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. It proudly identifies itself with the whole Church of Christ, and treats all other Christians as schismatics and heretics, who are outside of the pale of ordinary salvation.
But this unproved assumption is the fundamental error of the system. There is a vast difference between Catholicism and Romanism. The former embraces all Christians, whether Roman, Greek, or Protestant;
the latter is in its very name local, sectarian, and exclusive. The holy Catholic Church is an article of faith; the Roman Church is not even named in the ancient creeds. Catholicism extends through all Christian centuries; Romanism proper dates from the Council of Trent. Mediæval Catholicism looked towards the Reformation; Romanism excludes and condemns the Reformation. So ancient Judaism, as represented by Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets, down to John the Baptist, prepared the way for Christianity, as its end and fulfillment; while Judaism, after the crucifixion of the Messiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem, has become hostile to Christianity. 'Catholicism is the strength of Romanism; Romanism is the weakness of Catholicism.'
In Romanism, again, a distinction must be made between the Romanism of the Council of Trent, and the Romanism of the Council of the Vatican. The 'Old Catholics' of Holland and Germany adhere to the former, but reject the latter as a new departure. But the papal absolutism has triumphed, and there is no room any longer for a moderate and liberal Romanism within the reign of the Papacy.
I think you should reread the chapter in its entirety. Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him and they gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:
Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
protcucks use the bible as the final authority. where does scripture support that it's the final authority? did jesus write down his own words? if not, then how as it transmitted? via, dare I say, tradition? where in the bible does it say that you can only use the bible?
Plus, Jesus specifically changes Simon's name to Peter after explaining the truth Peter uttered could not be gained by natural means.
Read my post: . Go back and read it again. "Binding is loosing" is the power of the Keys, because that is what Keys do. They are not separate things. And Christ gives the same power to all of the Apostles. Peter has no special power. It's not supportable from the text at all. It's not there and you've been lied to if you think that it is.
are you gonna address or not?
Why would I respond to someone calling me a protcuck? Go read any Reformed defense of Sola Scriptura and the proper role of tradition.
Also everything I've said to this point could have equally been said by an Orthodox Christian. It's not specific to Protestantism at all. Shitting on Sola Scirptura doesn't change what Scripture actually says, which is that the same power that was conferred upon Peter was conferred upon all of the Apostles equally.
I want you to summarize it for me. surely it's easy to defend your sola scriptura position using scripture quotes, right? otherwise it'd be quite the silly position to hold, possibly even self refuting...
That doesn't work. You're ignoring that the keys is a specific reference to Is 22 and then asserting that Jesus is merely repeating himself, claiming that the keys and 'binding and loosing' are the same thing. That turns the text into an absurdity. All the apostles have the power of binding and loosing but the keys are a symbol of stewardship which Peter holds.
No. Why would I?
see
since the Reformed tradition is obviously superior it will be an easy argument to justify right
When has this language of binding and loosing ever been associated with keys? That doesn't make any sense.
The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of the Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system. Both were enacted under the same Pope, and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction and fraud; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marianism; the dogma of Infallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves Catholicism into Papalism, or the Church into the Pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and a man-god in Rome for the God-Man in heaven. This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it.
hey protcuck why are you silent all of a sudden? sola scriptura got your tongue?
Dude. You can't frickin say this. Vatican II outlawed the practice. How dare you try to radicalize Catholics on the internet. I'll help you grasp this, your ideas are dangerous and stupid.
refute this.
pro tip: you can't
>gay pride pot luck social clubs
so Catholicism?
i told you you couldn't.
the holy bible
also, read kjv.
you don't strictly need books to discredit the popery, i mean pope francis still grants you indulgences if you follow him on twitter. no i'm not joking.
>Proteshits still preaching their solo scriptura and faith only salvation.
It's no wonder they keep falling for fly-by-night millionaire mega preachers.
Why do the newer translations often remove or shorten certain sayings? Is it based on (((new manuscript sources))) or (((critical analysis of the ancient sources)))?
HOW DARE THEY REMOVE VERSES THAT AREN'T IN THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS ABSOLUTE BLASPHEMY
Imagine being a gentile and focusing your entire worldview on making sure you've interpreted books correctly that have been translated or otherwise changed hundreds of times, certainly beyond your knowledge, the subject matter of which is a group of desert tribals whose descendents today fucking hate you and likely have more control over your thoughts and perspective than even you do, making your petty squabbles between different groups of jewish zombie worshipers absolutely delightful for the aforementioned desert tribals to witness and laugh at.
imagine being
>mocking the Eucharist
I'm sure God appreciates you mocking his physical presence on Earth
get in bitch we're going to the libary
im sure God appreciates going through your digestive tract and into the toilet
Ah yes, the Holy Lunchables, god's representative on earth
the deuterocannon was removed by protestants because the jews didn't accept the books as cannon.
but the transubstantiation unsubstantiantiates on contact with stomach acid, read Polynesians 18 you protestant nigger
yikes
If proteshits reject the transubstantiation of the eucharist, why do they partake in a similar ceremony during their services?
>"Do this in remembrance of me."
because its a "metaphor" for them
also most of them don't or if they do, they only do it like once a month. i think it would be funny to watch if it weren't so blasphemous, like watching a downy try to play basketball
>This is my body...
So just more picking and choosing, huh?