/lit/ - Literature

Blessed and saved pilled.

Calvin is literally more qualified to be a Church Father than the Church Fathers.
>papists claim the church fathers are infallible
>people who couldn't read Hebrew, the language of 2/3rds of the Bible, are considered infallible experts on it by papists
Calvin not only read the Church Fathers and interacted thoughtfully with them, but he had access to better primary sources and scholarship and could actually READ THE BIBLE IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES

>>17462750
Thread title got a chuckle out of me. That's how it felt when I got to book four of Institutes and he is systematically dismantling the Roman "Catholic" church.

>>17462750
Is this worth reading?

>>17462792
>>17462802
>>17462836
>>17463931
>Absurdity of predestination blocks your path

>>17462836
>That's how it felt when I got to book four of Institutes and he is systematically dismantling the Roman "Catholic" church.

Francis de Sales, in turn, systematically dismantled Calvinism in a series of pamphlets compiled in a book called The Catholic Controversy.

Publisher's description: Between 1594 and 1598, a preacher named Francois converted 72,000 Protestants to the Catholic Faith. These are his words.
>One of the most remarkable and well-documented events in Catholic history began when a young priest, St. Francis de Sales, volunteered to re-evangelize the Calvinists of the Chablais.
>Finding his preaching forcefully rejected, St. Francis de Sales shrewdly switched tactics and began a written apologetics campaign, posting pamphlets on walls and slipping them beneath doors under the cover of night.
>His defense of the Faith was so clear and thorough that at the end of four years nearly the entire population of 72,000 had returned to the Catholic Faith!
>These powerful little tracts are as relevant today as they were in the late 1500s. St. Francis de Sales draws support from Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to address questions still frequently posed by modern Protestants.
>Revered as some of the most cogent arguments against Protestantism ever penned; they present a defense of the Catholic Faith that has never been equaled.

>>17462802
>papists claim the church fathers are infallible
>people who couldn't read Hebrew, the language of 2/3rds of the Bible, are considered infallible experts on it by papist
when and fucking how.
>Calvin not only read the Church Fathers and interacted thoughtfully with them,
Did he now~?
>but he had access to better primary sources and scholarship and could actually READ THE BIBLE IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
Hebrew is not even the original language of the new testament and parts of the old you're thinking of aramaik and koine Greek
You know languages that were alive at the times of the church fathers.

>>17462802
>he bought into the "original Hebrew" meme instead of sticking with the Septuagint
This is not good!

>>17464686
>>17464693
Imagine being this disingenuous. The OT was written in Hebrew. The inspired texts are Hebrew. Anything else you're meming is a cope and exactly why Catholicism is a shill religion that is dying. Not even your own Church pretends the Septuagint is infallible. They refer to the Hebrew for the translations now too. You're arguing based off of 200 year old meme polemics you retards.

>>17463944
Calvinists don't believe predestination because of some argument written by a schizo in the 1700s. We believe it because it's what the Bible says. Nice try.

>>17464668
I TRIED SO HARD

AND GOT SO FAR

BUT IN THE END

IT DIDN'T EVEN MATTER

t. Jean Calvin

Why are Calvinists still seething about Catholicism 500 years later?

>>17464722
>the Hebrew spoken by Ashkenazi shysters is the same as the one spoken by the ancient Israelites
LMAOOOOOOOOOO LETS GOOOO KIKE KIKE KIKE ZION ZION ZION ZION

>>17464730
Pic related. You're the one sneedthing.

>>17464741
Haha do you realize if a priest read this post you would be brought under church discipline and literally asked to not enter catholic churches? Go ahead larper and say this kind of shit in public. Don't reply to me again. Your own church would disown you lol

>>17464747
>Pic related
I don't think about the global south at all, yet the pope and the so called "papists" seem to live rent free inside your head.

>>17464747
>Don't reply to me again.
Or what?

>>17464722
>Catholicism is a shill religion that is dying
We are billions and still reproducing to population growth
meanwhile proteftandmts went the full gay married pastor route.
I like my odds compared to that.

>>17464722
also again when and fucking how has anyone said that the fathers of the church are infallible

>>17464686
Wait do you really think that the Old Testament wasn’t written in biblical hebrew?

>>17464761
>>17464816
Pic related in the US

>>17464822
Vatican I. If you don't know what canon I'm referring to, don't bother replying to me again like the other larping loser.

>>17464825
the Jews themselves used the Greek because it captured the true meaning of the words so much better, it was only in 500AD that they started to use the Masoretic to spite the Christians and form their own secret club.

>>17464837
uh huh, better tell that to your church then who updated your precious "infallible" vulgate with the hebrew.

>>17464822
>how has anyone said that the fathers of the church are infallible

>>17464834
>Vatican I.

Vatican I defined *papal* infallibility. That has nothing to do with the Church Fathers in general being infallible (a position the Church has never held).

>>17464894
>Vatican I defined *papal* infallibility. That has nothing to do with the Church Fathers in general being infallible (a position the Church has never held).
Not Vatican I, Trent. But then again I'm not even Catholic and you're not aware of it, so that's still on you.

>>17464747
>>17464834
I've seen both of these sources before. They're from Protestant evangelists. Come on now.

>>17464933
>They're from Protestant evangelists. Come on now
They're from Pew Research you mouth breather lol

>>17464947
>Pew Research Center
>headquartered in Washington
I wouldn't dream of claiming that the venerable Pew was in some way biased, but, that said, why is ALWAYS an "American think tank" coming out with anti Catholic sociological research?

>>17465052
Or maybe.. maybe the catholic church is dying??? I mean you can go to Georgetown's CARA and see the extent of Catholic decline. Catholic school enrollment has declined by orders of magnitude just within the last decade or 2. Talk to any Latin American. Talk to any American. Look out your window. Your church is dying. It's not anti catholic, it's reality.

>>17464837
You’re absolutely delusional.

>>17465069
If that's the case, why is Catholicism thriving in former Protestant strongholds?
>Catholic numbers have grown in Scandinavia where the Catholics in Nordic dioceses have tripled or even quadrupled. For example, in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, 330,000 Catholics have now registered in their dioceses.[67][68]

How do you even define Protestantism? Are those lesbian Bishops presiding over transgender coming out ceremonies in any way Protestant? Do you even want them to be?

>>17464901
>Not Vatican I, Trent. But then again I'm not even Catholic and you're not aware of it, so that's still on you.

With respect to Trent, you're apparently referring to the various canons that mention "the unanimous consent of the fathers," but those canons don't say what you claim they do. Thus, Trent doesn't teach that the church fathers were infallible, as such, but rather that a great weight of authority lies in matters where the fathers were unanimous. Nor does Trent ever designate the fathers as "infallible" even where there is such unanimous consent (much less calling any one early church father infallible).

Source (canons of Trent): https://www.capdox.capuchin.org.au/reform-resources-16th-century/sources/the-canons-and-decrees-of-the-council-of-trent/

>>17465275
>it's not infallible
>it's just infallibly stating you can't interpret the bible contrary to the church fathers
What a pedantic distinction.

>It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, dare to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though suchlike interpretations were never [intended] to be at any time published. They who shall contravene shall be made known by their ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

>>17465069
>Talk to any Latin American. Talk to any American. Look out your window. Your church is dying. It's not anti catholic, it's reality.

The Church has ups and downs as might be expected of any institution that has lasted 2000 years (of course, there is no other such institution that has lasted 2000 years).

It always bounces back. Thus at one of its lowest ebbs, following the Reformation, there was the miraculous conversion of millions in the Americas. God's Providence always takes care of the Catholic Church because it is His Body and His Bride.

>>17465312
Not an argument. Latin America has never seen a decline below 95% Catholic until the 70s when it started a very clear and linear decline. It will be less than 50% Catholic in another decade.

Meanwhile, a MAJORITY of Latin American immigrants are now converting to Evangelicalism.

Cope.

>>17465191
Wow a whole 330K people???? Meanwhile:
>Nationwide Catholic membership increased between 2000 and 2017, but the number of churches declined by nearly 11% and by 2019, the number of Catholics decreased by 2 million people.

2 MILLION LOL

>>17465335
There are still millions more Catholics than Protestants. Now, answer the question.

>>17465307
>What a pedantic distinction.

It's not a pedantic distinction; it's the correct reading of the canons of Trent, rather than the distorted and incorrect reading that you have proffered.

>Trent quote

In the very passage you quote, where the word "infallible" is not to be found, a fair reading of the text is that, by implication, "holy mother Church" *is* infallible, in interpreting "the said sacred Scriptures," in that that Church's role "is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures."

>>17465362
It's a canon stating that if you don't interpret the bible in line with the church fathers you're outside of the church. What is the difference between calling them infallible and saying the former. Be very specific.

>>17465358
How is the number of Catholics an argument when that number has been declining for over a century without fail? You used to be the largest religion in the world, but now Islam overtook it. So your claim to fame is "largest Christian denomination".

What will it be when that is no longer true? You've provided no evidence of growth for Catholicism. A couple thousand people in a country that is almost entirely secular isn't interesting or an argument.

>>17465375
The canon lays the great weight of authority on the judgment of the Church wrt interpreting scripture, and mentions the fathers, where they are unanimous, as a secondary, supporting point -- as it to say, these Protestants, even if they're not willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church, should *at least* be willing to accept the authority of the Church Fathers where the Fathers are unanimous.

This is very far from your:

>>17462802
>papists claim the church fathers are infallible

>>17465393
>A couple thousand people in a country that is almost entirely secular isn't interesting or an argument.
Lol! Tell that to the Apostles. Answer the question. Stop running.

>>17465424
Don't even know what your question is, spaz.

>>17465420
So what does infallible mean then? What is the term for "if you don't accept this you are outside the church"? I'm waiting for the term you would assign to this.

>>17463931
Yeah. You can read the shorter 1541 edition if you aren't interested in the polemical stuff. Calvin really isn't too difficult to understand, he wrote with a pastor's heart.

>>17465458
>So what does infallible mean then? What is the term for "if you don't accept this you are outside the church"? I'm waiting for the term you would assign to this.

That's a whole different argument. I jumped into this thread to refute the incorrect remark you made in >>17462802

I set forth the correct interpretation of Trent, and in particular the rhetorical point being made when the canon alluded to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, here: >>17465420

If you're interested in the meaning of "no salvation outside the church," a somewhat complex issue, I would refer you to the discussion here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

Imagine arguing over denominations when islam and secularism are both trouncing you.

>>17462750
Thank you for posting a based thread, OP.

>>17465458
>Don't even know what your question is, spaz.
Why do you call me names? See >>17465191
for the question I have already asked you.

>>17465572
So you can't answer the claim. That's about what I thought. Also I'm not interested in lay catholic e-pologists because they're not authoritative and you can just turn around and say "they aren't magisterial" when push comes to shove. If you aren't citing something actually authoritative I don't care.

You haven't addressed or refuted the point unless you are capable of saying: 1) what is infallibility?, and 2) what are the church fathers then if disagreeing with them places you outside the church?

You are arguing semantics in frankly bad faith and appealing to how "it's actually more complicated than that" speaks to an intentional obfuscation of the point on your part. Let your yes be a yes.

>>17465712
Distill the specific question from that rant you want me to respond to

>>17465808
It is four short questions only, not a rant. You have tried to answer the first one, not the other three which are essentially the same question.

>>17465732
>So you can't answer the claim. That's about what I thought.

What claim? No salvation outside the church? I refer you to the aforementioned article at catholic.com. If you have an issue with so-called "e-pologists," then that's on you. There's nothing wrong with the article. It makes its points clearly, and backs them up with relevant authority.

>You haven't addressed or refuted the point unless you are capable of saying: 1) what is infallibility?

Answer: "Papal infallibility, in Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine that the pope, acting as supreme teacher and under certain conditions, cannot err when he teaches in matters of faith or morals." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/papal-infallibility

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

>and 2) what are the church fathers then if disagreeing with them places you outside the church?

See the catholic.com article re no salvation outside the church.

>You are arguing semantics in frankly bad faith and appealing to how "it's actually more complicated than that" speaks to an intentional obfuscation of the point on your part.

Taint so, Magee. I stated what I sought to address in >>17465572, and I stand by that. There has been no bad faith or obfuscation on my part. To the extent I was "arguing semantics," that was necessitated by the point I was making (i.e., correcting your misinterpretation of the canons of Trent).

Finally, the issue of "no salvation outside the church" *IS* complicated. Read the article if you want to understand where Catholics are coming from wrt that.

>>17465836
OK you've stopped being interesting. Please get a life.

>>17465839
I am a former Catholic seminarian lol. You doing a terrible job defending your position. All of that scribbling and defensiveness and not one word devoted to the actual question. Let's try one last time:

A canon of an infallible council declared that a person is anathema if they interpret Scripture "contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Therefore, the term we can assign to this interpretation of the Fathers is _____.

The answer is "infallible." If you disagree, provide a suitable term to replace it. Don't spam me with a wall of text. Just give me one word.

>>17465839
>Finally, the issue of "no salvation outside the church" *IS* complicated
It didn't used to be. But the Catholic Church waffled on its terms, pretending that it "always taught" something it didn't. It acts like it can change definitions and interpretations while keeping the words the same, but its own councils state that this sort of manipulation is not allowed. The Catholic Church has zero consistency and constantly contradicts itself and relies on talmudic legalism to say whatever it wants to say at any time.

This is why you have to resort to lay apologists instead of the actual magisterium; you couldn't find clear teachings on any point to save your life, so you have non authorities with their non authoritative teachings explain it for you.

>>17466061
>It didn't used to be.

So? That's like complaining that the doctrine of the Incarnation "didn't used to be" complicated until all those heretics started raising objections that had to be addressed.

>>17466037
>A canon of an infallible council declared that a person is anathema if they interpret Scripture "contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

That's not what the canon says, as I explained here: >>17465420

You are distorting the meaning of the canon with your paraphrase, and indeed throughout this thread.

>>17462802
Calvin didn't have the inspiration of the holy spirit.

>>17462802
Oh look its this fucking retard again

>>17466097
To add to this: It is one thing to say "no salvation outside the Church" in the 400s, and another in the 1600s, and yet another in the year 2020.

The meaning of the words have not changed, but the context to which the words apply *has* changed. That changing context, in turn, requires a deeper understanding of the words, which only the Church has the final authority to do.

>>17466112
You're claiming I'm distorting the meaning, but I literally just inserted the direct quote from the canon. I think we're done here. You've proven yourself totally incapable.

>>17466135
No the meaning of the words has changed. It used to mean exactly what it said, and now it adds qualifications and subversions of the meaning. You call it context, but in reality it's just that the Church didn't want to teach that anymore. Your entire argument is completely postmodern and specious, which is typical of Catholic relativism. If the application of a concept to reality changes based on the times, it is objectively not the same teaching that it was before. Earlier popes understood this and warned against such manipulation, but people like you won out in the end. Just own it though.

>muh unchanging church

>>17466241
it is the same stance my friend; only expressed in a positive form instead of a negative form:
>Negative: there is no salvation outside the Church.
>Positive: there's salvation inside the Church.

>>17466259
Not only are the words themselves not remotely that simple, but authorities in the church interpret it wildly differently as well. Your simplistic reduction is not supported by any document. Even your negative/positive explanation from the CCC refers to documents that paint of vastly vaguer picture that could mean just about anything. The CCC itself waffles on the issue. Your interpretation is a private one and not authoritative anyway. Neither is Catholic Answers. The Vatican 2 documents themselves are written to be deliberately vague anyway, as is the CCC. I could show you plenty of bishops teaching with authority right now who contradict your notion.

>>17466293
No, your interpretation is that of a private mischievous one. Saying that suddenly the Church accepts some kind of indifferentism where everyone can be saved regardless of their attitudes towards the Church is a lie, it's not even implied in the II Vatican Council, and it has already been addressed by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Enough with your lies.
>Above all else, it must be firmly believed that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation.
>DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS", Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, 2000 Anno Domini

>>17462750
c*Tholicism is clearly retarded. No wonder so many catholics are leaving. Please become Orthodox :DDD

>>17466241
>You're claiming I'm distorting the meaning, but I literally just inserted the direct quote from the canon.

No you took a phrase from a much longer quote, and pretended that it stood for a proposition that, in context, it clearly did not stand for.

>I think we're done here.
Agreed.

>>17466241
> If the application of a concept to reality changes based on the times, it is objectively not the same teaching that it was before.

That would be incorrect. Again, a good analogy is to the developing doctrine of the Incarnation in circumstances of changing contexts (where the interpretive context is changed as a result of an unsound interpretation of the doctrine, and the teaching must then be clarified to address the misinterpretation).

Fucking catholic autists and word-twisters ruining the thread. I truly despise them. Luckily these larpers are a purely online phenomenon. These people who post here don't go to church. They don't have a wife or kids. They don't have jobs. They are merely a transient online presence of shitposters. People like this don't exist in real life, and when they do they aren't like these posters at all.

Only 17% of Roman Catholics are under the age of 30. Once the boomers die and the size of the catholic church becomes miniscule, these larpers will find some other group to latch on to.

If they just walked into a catholic church anywhere they'd see how their imagined religion doesn't live up to the reality.

>>17466966
The trick, though, is making sure these isolated, angry, autistic young """men""" don't end up finding their way to real churches. The worst thing in the world would be for this toxic population to wind up in orthodox Evangelical churches. Seeing these weirdos post here that is my greatest fear.

I have a wife and 2 kids and I really wouldn't want a bunch of 4chan extremists anywhere near them.

>>17466979
This. I view catholicism as a containment zone for people who would otherwise cause harm to the true church. I actively encourage homosexuals I've encountered to become catholic if they are either evangelical or thinking about Christianity.

I almost fell for the trad meme a decade ago but joined the pca ultimately. I would be a totally different person if I hadn't. I have a real community and family (including a first child two years ago) and the type of authentic Christian life we have is on a different plane of existence from creepy bitter catholics screeching online.

Bros how do we get the government to put catholics into camps?

>>17467351
Catholics aren't even a threat. Mennonite birthrates surpass all other groups besides amish

>>17467351
Tell them they aren't white.

>>17467351
Maybe Biden will give the go ahead

>>17467080
>to the true church
Which is what, your suburban reformed church of 30 parishioners in Nebraska?

>>17462750
blessed

>>17469791
I'd say a church that follows the Bible is probably the true church, since the Bible is the infallible word of God. But yeah you're larping cult that put its pedo politicians in the place of God to deliver new revelations is a likely candidate too.

Where is cessationism in the Bible?

>>17470498
I dunno man go drink some snake venom and report back, idiot.

>>17470527
Kek, owned