Protestantism

8 Responses to “Protestantism”

1. Josh says:

   15/12/2020 at 6:54 AM

   As long as we are sticking to reductio ad absurdum in arguments, which of the three popes would you have followed when they all excommunicated each other?

   More legitimate question I’ve always wanted to ask how do you build a forceably unmarried church when Peter, first pope, was married?

   Reply
   • G says:

     15/12/2020 at 7:37 AM

     Whichever one held the doctrine closest to canon law. Obviously.

     As for your second question, it clearly shows you are, in perennially typical Protestant fashion, abysmally ignorant of Christianity, its history and its requirements.

     So here is a primer for you:
     Tell me, did priests have sex before they entered the tabernacle?

     I’ll wait.

     Reply
     • Josh says:

       15/12/2020 at 7:57 AM

       Whichever stuck closest to the cannon law that they wrote? Or spoke? Does he need to be in the chair or can he be elsewhere? Cause that would entirely eliminate the pope in Leon.
       And yep my church can be pretty bad about the post Augustinian and pre Lutheran history, mainly because we don’t like talking about the red headed step child’s problems. But given that is a biblical question I’m going to say it depends on whether or not their wife was on her period. I don’t remember a specific rule against it beyond what generally makes a man or woman unclean, but it could be in the extended version you lot cling too.

       Reply
       • G says:

         15/12/2020 at 8:28 AM

         Tone down the rhetoric if you are able. It’s conducive to truth to act dialectically.

         1. All dogmatic positions of the Catholic Church are written down. If you were not ignorant you would know this. But I see you admit your ignorance later so it’s good if you to do so and be willing to learn.
         Hence the request to tone down your rhetoric. You’re simply not educated enough to do it effectively.

         2. If you don’t understand what Ex-Cathedra means you should learn it and educate yourself before trying to use it as a rhetorical device. You see, what YOU think is a very smart boy comment that fires a good shot at Catholics really proves you’re an ignorant moron that is also too lazy to read or use google for a few minutes before demonstrating his abject lack of education in the matter. You think you look witty and smart and in reality to anyone actually witty and smart you prove your stupidity, laziness and probably overweight state given those other two facts.

         3. No sex was allowed at all. Now go study some more why the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ.

         Also, at this rate you will soon need to pay me for the education I am helping you get.
         I’m not your dad you know, you should learn this stuff on your own first before trying to comment.

         Reply
         • Josh says:

           15/12/2020 at 10:08 AM

           Sorry I don’t meet your qualifications for a flame war. If you were Calvinist I’d call this cage stage.

           Would you mind pointing to the specific passage that mentions the ban on sex before entering the Tabernacle/Temple? I assume you then put that qualification to the idea that Priests are always before God ergo no sex.

           Here is a snippet someone else put together that should help you: “Only the priests were allowed to come near the Tent of Meeting and only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Tent of Meeting. They were warned to wash themselves first before entering (Exodus 30:19-21) and to put on the priestly clothes (Exodus 28:35). The priests were warned to hide their genitals with clothing (Exodus 28:42-43). They were not allowed to drink wine or “strong drink” before entering the Tent of Meeting (Leviticus 10:9). Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:2).” Now I assume you as a Protestant think that means random acts of sex however are just fine, because your sola scripture brain damage acts in a particularly autistic way, but I remind you that the two adult sons of the high priest Aaron: Nadab and Abihu (Exodus 24:1,9; 28:1) were killed by God because Leviticus 10:2 tells us that they offered strange fire on the altar outside the Tent of Meeting and consequently, God took their lives due to their disobedience. So even though you are protestant, PERHAPS, you MIGHT get an inkling that sex was a big no no too before entering the holy place. In fact, traditionally I believe it was three days of purification required before doing so.

           I am aiming to show some of the things I find ridiculous with the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

           That may be, but having read ahead I can tell you, all you are about to do is once again show your abysmal ignorance

           The things the entirely human and fallible Popes got up to, still get up to but with you being Sede Privationist I can’t lay that at your feet, are horrifying.

           Are you under the impression I have ever stated that all the Popes were good men and pure? I am on record saying many of them were power-hungry adulterers and some indulged in orgies and other decidedly impure acts. So what? Oh…wait…like all Protestants you probably conflate what papal infallibility means with “being a good guy”, and you assume that Catholics believe Popes are all as saintly and pure as the driven snow. Well, like I said….your ignorance is deep.

           My ancestors, spiritually and genetically, saw all this and the state of the Roman Court and quite rightly left.

           No. Not at all. First of all, given your historical ignorance I would seriously doubt you know who your immediate ancestors are, much less what they did half a millennia ago and why, but rather than make easy “yo mama” jokes, I will simply point you to a historian that though not Catholic correctly traced the origins of Protestantism and they had literally NOTHING to do wit the corruption or doctrine of Catholicism and EVERYTHING to do with money. Read Rodney Stark’s How the West Won.

           Between the infighting, the blatant disregard for basic Christian morals and the near worship of Saints, it was Roman Paganism reborn.

           And there it is again, the usual ignorant Protestant lie concerning “worship of saints”. You are too uneducated to even realise that this specific accusation stems in great part from the illiteracy of Protestants and their inaccurate and idiotic mistranslations of the word “Prayer” from the Latin. Truly you are descendant from genetical mental retards. And you carry their torch well.”

           There have always been invisible Christians in the visible Christian church but I think you and I agree they aren’t always running the place.

           Church of Power vs Church of Piety is indeed a fact and the two have co-existed in the same space from the beginning, I can’t take much umbrage at this point, but I point out it does in no way invalidate Catholicism. Just like a sexually active Pope that has illegitimate children does not invalidate Papal infallibility when his sins are limited to the Personal and not against the Faith.

           As with any correction it does tend toward over correction, and we’ve been muddling along ever since. Personally our lack on the spiritual side of things bothers me and it is something I try to work on in my life and with study and prayer. I am referring to my specific branch of the Protestant and Presbyterian Church who use the Westminster Confession as a sub biblical guide, to get my position out there.
           I salute you for not rising to my baiting you and making this admission. There is hope for you yet.

           I find Catholics interesting in general and more so since one of my friends “saw the light” and joined the Catholic Church as the global community aspect was most important to him.

           Being part of a large club is certainly NOT a Catholic requirement or need. Actual Catholics are few when compared to Churches playing acting the part whilst following a demon-worshipping Pederast enabler like Bergoglio or the other perverts before him all the way back to Roncalli.If your friend joined the Bergoglian Church of Novus Orco and Moloch, then he is a weak-minded fool

2. Mastroianni says:

   16/12/2020 at 5:09 PM

   Protestants who level critiques against what the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and professes (i.e., virtually all of them) typically do so by parroting the same tired old objections to the Faith in drive-by and bumper-sticker fashion. These attacks against the very Church Our Lord Himself founded invariably reveal the attacker’s lack of education and self-awareness as well as their inability to reason (and, by extension, argue) in good faith. The following will be my attempt at helping with the first piece (education) and possibly the second (self-awareness); I’m afraid the third is completely out of my hands (or at least in any natural sense, so be assured of my prayers).

   A Sacrament, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Our Lord elevated marriage to a Sacrament by virtue of His sacrifice on the cross (see, e.g., Ephesians Chapter 5). The “outward sign” of Christian marriage is a visible image of the invisible God. God, the Most Holy Trinity, is love (1 John 4:8). God the Father begets God the Son out of love, the Son loves the Father in return, and from this total and unreserved exchange of love between these first and second persons proceeds a third person: God the Holy Ghost.

   This is why the baptized man and woman aren’t officially married (sacramentally-speaking) until they consummate their marital vows through the conjugal act, in which they each make a total gift of self (i.e., body AND soul) to the other. Sacramental marriage, therefore, is incompatible with the use of contraception because the latter prevents the spouses from giving of themselves in this total and selfless fashion. There is no total gift of the body because the body’s fertility is being withheld, in direct disobedience to God no less (see Genesis 1:28). Contraception is anti-marriage because its purpose is diametrically opposed to the ends of marriage, which (as we’ve seen) is the procreation and education of children. The purposes of contraception, on the other hand, is to prevent a child (or “third person”) from resulting (or proceeding) from this conjugal union of husband and wife.

   Protestants exhibit a severely–if not fatally–flawed understanding of the Sacraments. Many of them also deny the dogma of Trinity (God as Three Persons in One Divine Nature) and/or the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity. As a consequence, Protestantism, with the recent help of the Vatican II/Novus Orco sect, has stripped marriage of its Christian substance, rendering it no better than any contractual arrangement between two consenting individuals consisting of masturbatory promises which elevate the conjugal act’s by-product of pleasure over its procreative ends. (Such a bastardized form of marriage is arguably worse than a contract on account of no-fault divorce, i.e., dissolution without a breach). Anyone with an ounce of good faith can see what this warped and perverse notion of marriage has wrought on society. It’s no wonder why Protestants and the Novus Orcos have embraced divorce, contraception, and so-called “gay marriage”–it was a foregone conclusion from the very beginning of the Protestant Revolt, which started with a “Fat, horny German who wanted to bang nuns” and a “Fat, horny Englishman who wanted to divorce his wives so he could marry and bang other women” (supposedly so he could have children, or so we’re told). “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16) (and quite pejoratively these days, too).

   As for the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the celibate life a priest must lead, the following excerpt from a sermon by a priest on this subject is instructive:

   “The priest’s path to holiness very much involves his celibacy. His celibacy is a very good thing. He gives up the good of marriage, the human companionship of it, so that he can give himself more fully to God. Indeed, isn’t that what St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians? He says that the married person’s heart is divided (I Cor. 7:33). He doesn’t say that as a bad thing, of course. How could marriage be a bad thing when Christ ennobled it by making it a sacrament? But he is saying that the reality of it is that one cannot give himself as fully to God because one is trying to please his spouse as well as God. The virgin doesn’t have that difficulty. The virgin, by being unmarried “for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), can give himself or herself more fully to God. It is a means to an end, a very important means to an end.

   “It is true that in the early Church many priests and bishops were married. But the Church quickly discovered how exclusionary these two vocations were. Just from a practical viewpoint, how many of us would try to live two vocations at the same time? There is too much to do! And so, in certain localities in the early Church celibacy was instituted as a mandatory requirement for the priesthood, and then, after some centuries, it became a universal requirement in the Roman Rite — a very common sense, necessary requirement.”

   See https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-consecration-at-mass-the-priesthood-and-celibacy/.

   Non-Catholics (be they Protestant or Novus Orco) who seek to criticize “a forceably unmarried church” would do well if they first sought to understand the nature of Christian marriage and priestly celibacy as those two subjects are taught and understood by the very “unmarried church” they are trying to criticize. Otherwise, the critic who has failed to “do his homework” risks looking just as silly as an overweight smoker who criticizes a world-class marathon runner for not smoking and not eating whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

   Reply
3. Georgeus Protestantis says:

   18/07/2021 at 3:47 PM

   My reply is simple: Only in Matthew. In Mark, same story, Jesus just tells Peter “Don’t tell anyone I’m the Christ just yet.”

   The idea that Christ came to build a church is BS created later on. In my estimation he came to found a monastic order actually, not a church. But that is a story for another time.

   Reply
   • G says:

     29/07/2021 at 10:32 AM

     Your completely retarded, unbiblical, protestant idiocy and take is noted.
     Achievement unlocked?

     Reply