/lit/ - Literature

It was cold back in those days. People did all they could to stay warm.

>>23512889
The Douay-Rheims English translation of the Latin Vulgate was published in 1582, 29 whole years before the King James Bible.

>>23512889
It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, there was an approved German translation 50 years before Luther (the Mentelin bible), but it was from the Vulgate. Also some others in Spain and France. What the Catholics were more angry about is they saw the Protestants as heretics and that their particular translations couldn't be trusted. Which I think they were wrong about.

Papists are illiterate morons. They rely purely on papal infallibility to tell them what to believe

that's on God

>>>/his/

>>23512984
the creation of /his/ was the worst thing that ever happened to /lit/

>>23512889
>POV
They were so impressed they gave me free tickets to the witch burning?

>>23513018
You're next in line to be burnt.

>>23513018
Witch burnings weren't a big Catholic thing. Not to say they didn't do it, but a lot of it started after the Reformation and associated with "purifying" Euro culture. Catholics are inculturators. They were in the past and are now. People kept a lot of culturein tact and adapted to the Church for a millenia. Suddenly when the Bible became the only thing worth following, people who did something as innocent as practice folk medicine got burned.
/longwinded /his/ tier post sorry

>>23512984
I'd never visited that board before. It's just /pol/ v2.0.

>>23513079
/pol/ with extra haploautism.

>>23512903
You don't even need to go into English translations, the Gutenberg Bible was a Catholic Bible despite Protestants weirdly constantly trying to pretend it was a Protestant thing.

>>23513079
It's even worse. It's /pol/ mixed with r/atheism teenagers. /his/ and /pol/ are meant to be container boards for the 90 IQs but it doesn't work and you get retarded threads like this.

>>23513090
I've never found a board I can call home. They all annoy me, in some way. I cannot escape /pol/ no matter what either. Pretty sure that's by design.

>>23513098
/pol/tard traffic is probably the only thing keeping 4chan afloat tbqh

>>23512903
>>23513090
Pope Paul II made it punishable by death to read the Bible in English. He was upset that the Church no longer had a monopoly on the word of God.

>>23512889
POV: It is the 21st century and we have no longer any duty to truth, to religion and to anything universal because of Protestant subjectivism.

>>23513124
Weakening of institutional religion doesn't mean lack of universalism. Not to say people don't tell themselves that and run with it, but spirituality and transcendence are abstracts that still apply. And hound people even. They just don't need to be beat over the head for it. Finding their way out of the darkness is just part of life now. But it's still a battle of dark and light. And those who deny the existence of either are still the biggest fools, who will reap what they sow even in this life.
And the visible elements of religion that at least old school Protestants kept are still timeless: namely, Liturgy. Even now, it's something a grandpa and grandson can share, and have elements that go further back in time and share with many who came before. There are very few things left like that.

>>23513111
You have no actual source for this but even if you did
>in English
There was no demand to read it "in English." If you could read in the Middle Ages it was probably in Latin.

>>23512914
Why were they wrong?

>>23513141
>You have no actual source for this
Yes I do.
https://archive.org/stream/RomeAndTheBibleDavidW.Cloud/Rome%20and%20the%20Bible%2C%20David%20W.%20Cloud_djvu.txt

English was the vernacular language. Latin was for the educated (ie the Priests).

>>23513144
You can check Tyndale's translations with the Greek. It's really not off the wall. Nor is the KJV that streamed from it. It's one thing to call him heretical for his theological ideas (he was a Lutheran type Protestant. I wouldn't expect the Catholics then to not call him a heretic), but it didn't come out in his translation to warrant heresy itself. One of the main complaints though was that his translation every instance of "ekklesia" was "congregation". That particularly angered Catholics (and later Anglicans during the KJV days who went back to "church") because he demystified the Church as an institution unto itself. Tyndale's emphasis on "Church as congregation" was an emphasis on the people itself. A people the institutional Church thought were needed to be controlled on all levels.

>>23513140
Luther and Calvin wrote absurdities concerning faith, personal knowledge, this is undeniable, they destroyed any reasonable authority. As much as I agree with reformation of the Church against corrupt clergy and even some aspects of this subjective side of faith, what they stood for is something bizarre, something so bizarre that as you say, a father and a son can have very different understandings of the faith and share no faith at all.

>>23513190
To be fair giving the ability for everyone to misinterpret the Bible through their own understanding and going against Church interpretation is probably worse than any heresy because it leads to many heresies en masse.

>>23513187
The only thing this says about Paul II is
>Pope Paul II (1464-1471) confirmed the Inquisition that was announced by the Synod
of Toulouse (1229) and the Synod of Tarrangona (1234) and perpetrated the restrictions
against Bible translation and distribution (Simms, The Bible from the Beginning, p. 162).
We are told that the mitre of this persecuting pope “was set with diamonds, sapphires,
emeralds, chrysolites, and jaspers” (Gideon Ouseley, A Short Defence of the Old Religion,
1821, p. 230).
This says nothing about being punishable by death and the fact that it denotes as much attention to sperging out about random jewelry designs is telling that it's typical Protestant propaganda.

Also completely misses the point that the Council of Toulouse was about fighting gnostic Catharism. The other council, the Council of Tarragona, it didn't even spell right.

>>23513187

You massive retard, that doesn't say anything about Paul II making it punishable by death to read the Bible in English or any other vernacular language, it says it confirmed the edict to restrict translations of it

>Pope Paul II (1464-1471) confirmed the Inquisition that was announced by the Synod
of Toulouse (1229) and the Synod of Tarrangona (1234) and perpetrated the restrictions
against Bible translation and distribution (Simms, The Bible from the Beginning, p. 162).

Doesn't even mention the English language, if you're gonna shitpost, post in /his/, stop spreading misinformation

>>23513210
I understand their fear. And if one was keen on stabilizing society as much as possible, it's the best route. If there was some "based trad" revolution that upended the modern world and went back to this, I would appreciate it and enjoy it. I already try to discipline myself and probably adapt easily.
That said, I'm not convinced that's God design. It creates just as many falsehoods and people operating in "Christendom" without any real beliefs in their heart and just rote rituals they don't understand. I think the spiritual walk of man should be more akin to a great Quest in a strange land, with all of the adventures, pitfalls, and monsters that come with it. Along with the failures and the many who never succeed at the Quest. There shouldn't be any training wheels and a culture propped up that convinces people they already succeeded at the Quest.

>>23513210
heresy is a spook

>>23513234
spook is a spook

>>23512889
Tyndale certainly couldn't have his arms up as depicted there as he was strangled before being burned, clear sign that that depiction is protestant copeaganda to portray him as a pious man enduring the flames.

>>23513232
>restrict translations of it
...which they did by torturing and murdering people who translated it.

>>23513191
>they destroyed any reasonable authority
I'm pretty sure the Catholics did that when they started accepting indulgences.

>>23513225
>>23513232
But you admit the Catholics tried to stop people from reading the Bible in non-Latin, correct? Why did they do that?

>>23513308
>Muh indulgences
This was just an excuse to promote heresies. A few people abusing indulgences is no reason to go full heretic.

>>23513314
They didn't.

>>23513316
>a few people
It was literally the two most powerful people in the church doing the scam. And then when people like Luther started speaking against their scam they tried to kill him.

Rip bozo.

>>23513314
>But you admit the Catholics tried to stop people from reading the Bible in non-Latin, correct?

No thats not factual, first of all there was no general literacy of the populace that required translations into non-Latin (the lingua franca of the ecclesiastics), even so there's still record of full translations of the Bible into languages other than Latin, such as the Alfonsine Bible in 1280, the Malermi Bible in 1471.

>Why did they do that?
To prevent shoddy translations that could lead to dubious doctrine

Libtards like you trust the experts in everything else, so what's wrong with trusting the religious experts (the clergy)?

>>23513346
>And then when people like Luther started speaking against their scam
Luther was a heresiarch that did far more than just complaining about indulgences. He promoted tons of heresies and engulfed Europe in a decades long war

There were plenty of people who opposed the abuse of indulgences without losing their good standing with the Church.

>>23513351
>No thats not factual, first of all there was no general literacy of the populace that required translations into non-Latin
If no one was able to read them then why did the Church kill people who owned copies? Wouldn't the books be harmless if no one could read them?

>>23513359
>He promoted tons of heresies
Like what?

>>23513359
>There were plenty of people who opposed the abuse of indulgences without losing their good standing with the Church.
Luke Jan Hus... oh wait.

The catholic vs. protestant conflict was not a matter of religion but a matter of class. The capitalist bourgeoisie followed protestantism because its teachings and political presence represented their interests, while the aristocracy and the church followed catholicism for the same reasons. Ideas are born to rationalize pragmatic interests rather than interests being derived from abstract ideas.

>>23513359
>There were plenty of people who opposed the abuse of indulgences without losing their good standing with the Church.
Like Jan Hus... oh wait.

>>23513374
No, I follow Protestantism because it more closely aligns with the teachings of the Bible.

>>23513367
Sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia

>>23513359
This is pretty dishonest. Even mild criticism of the Catholic Church was punishable by death.

>>23513362
>if no one was able
Hey, Percy
GENERAL LITERCY doesn't mean no one

>>23513381
If that's heresy then the Bible is heretical.

>>23513387
Fine, if few people were able to read these Bibles then why resort to mass murder?

>>23513359
The church did not care what Luther was saying before he started speaking against Pope Leo and the archbishop of Mainz’s indulgence scam. A month before he posted his 95 theses, he posted 97 these that resembled what would become the reformation principle of grace alone, and called scholastic Aristotle fans faggots. And no one cared. The Reformation literally began because the papists tried to kill Luther for defending the Sacrament of Penance in his 95 theses against indulgences. The council of Trent would later affirm this.
Had Luther gotten his scholarly debate on the issue and no one tried to execute him, the Reformation likely would not have happened. But, then they wouldn't have been able to build St. Peter's Basilica off the backs of peasants, now, would they?

>>23513379
Which denomination?
The Family International?
The Branch Davidians?

>>23512889
No one ever got burned at the stake for merely reading the Bible.

>>23513399
The Branch Davidians molested fewer kids than the Catholic Church.

>>23513392
Define mass murder?

>>23512889
Could've sworn this was Servetus being burned at the stake by John Calvin.

>>23513401
That's exactly what the Marian Persecution was about. It's where the "Bloody Mary" legend comes from.

>>23513308
Indulgences are a problem, but they are of a different nature from the problem of epistemological validity Luther and Calvin caused. This latter problem goes to the root of Christianity and opens the way to things much worse than abuse of repentance tasks.

>Luther insisted on certainty. Too much was at stake to settle for less. And no
human could give another person adequate assurances. Only one’s own inner
conviction could justify acceptance of any religious views. To be sure, an
opponent might ask why that which our consciences are compelled to believe
from reading Scripture is true. Suppose we find ourselves compelled tor believe
conflicting things: which is true? Luther just insisted that the truth is forced upon
us and that true religious knowledge does not contain any contradictions

>But by what standards do we recognize the faith, and how do we determine with certitude what Scripture says? The first step is to realize that the Bible is the Word of God. By what criteria can we tell this? If we tried to prove this by reason, Calvin admitted, we could only develop question-begging or rhetorical arguments. What is required is evidence that is so complete and persuasive that we cannot raise any further doubts or questions. The evidence, to exclude any possibility of doubt or question, would have to be self-validating. Such evidence is given us by illumination through the Holy Spirit. We have an inner persuasion, given to us by God, so compelling that it becomes the complete guarantee of our religious knowledge.

Luther and Calvin threw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>23513376
Like Pope Boniface IX...

>>23513411
Burning several hundred people at the stake because they want to read a book you don't like.

>>23513408
Per capita?

>>23513376
>uncouth Protestantoid doesn't know Erasmus.

>>23513367
See the quotes here >>23513419

>>23513418
>legend
Yes, legend.
Mary killed less people than her father, brother and sister.
She just had a worse PR firm than her sister.

>>23513434
Erasmus only survived because his wealthy friends protected him from the Spanish Inquisition.

>>23513383
Heresy such as that of Luther led to execution.
Dante Alighieri has criticized corrupt clergymen and was fine.

>>23513388
The Bible is not heretical. A bad interpretation of the Bible is heretical.

>>23513419
>>23513436
>Indulgences are a problem
If you acknowledge that indulgences are a problem, then that makes the Pope a sinner. If that is the case, why should we worship him?

>>23513427
What's a few hundred...big deal.
Pretty sure they were given multiple chances to get right but in their wanton pride the found out that the
Rebels get the lake

Romans 13,1-5

>>23513418
No it wasn't. It was always about heresy like rejecting core doctrines. Plenty of Catholics were reading the Bible.

>>23513448
>and was fine.
He was criminally prosecuted, exiled from Florence, and nearly killed.

>>23513436
>yeah but how do you know when the Bible says Jesus fed 5000 people that he actually fed 5000 people.
Same old Jesuit hyper skepticism that papists have been doing since the 1600s.

>>23513456
>multiple chances to get right
Get right how, exactly? What were they doing wrong?

>>23513463
running their filthy mouths, simple as.

>>23513456
1 Timothy 2

>>23513440
What are you talking about, Erasmus had so great an influence in Spain that the Inquisition, Jesuits had Erasmian members. Also he was summoned to a trial and wasn't condemned.

Kek why did jannies delete this

>>23513469
No wonder your sect died out lol.

>>23513459
Way before writing the Divine Comedy and due to factional political disputes between Black Ghibellines and White Ghibellines after they defeated the Gelph.

His writing of the Divine Comedy didn't bring him trouble.

>>23513452
>If that is the case, why should we worship him?
Do Catholics worship the Pope? What the hell lol, and if I'm not wrong there are even some conditions wherein the Pope can be dethroned.

>>23513448
>The Bible is not heretical. A bad interpretation of the Bible is heretical.

Plenty of Catholic dogmas are a bad interpretation of the Bible like Purgatory for instance. No where in the Bible does it talk about Christians going to hell.

>>23513452
>that makes the Pope a sinner. If that is the case, why should we worship him?
...
Lutherans really have no knowledge of Catholicism.

>>23513487
>Do Catholics worship the Pope?
Of course they do.

>>23513461
Cope, your protestantoid epistemological lunacy can vouch for anything whatever one thinks and feels is the word of god, this is the legacy of pure derangement.

>>23513463
Pick an example of a precious victim that your heart bleeds for 500 years later and dig a little deeper than Wikimedia.
Rebel behavior got your precious victims in "hot water"

>>23513495
Can you point to me where in Catholic doctrine it says the Pope should be worshipped?

>>23513487
>>23513494
Catholics worship the Pope, not God.

>>23513472
Amen
I just checked the catechism of the Catholic Church and we agree.

>>23513499
https://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/937.htm

>>23513499
>>23513506

>>23513496
>epistemological lunacy
>scripture is self-attesting
Oh what lunacy!!

>>23513503
You don't know what worship is, you're equivocating that because they are presenting flowers and kneeling in front of the statue that the object of worship is the person itself, they are honoring the person depicted as you would honor your family member when you place flowers and kneel next to their grave.

>>23513509
And?

>>23513511
>not epistemological lunacy
>thinks scripture reads itself

>>23513498
>Rebel behavior got your precious victims in "hot water"
Jesus, Paul, and the disciples?

>>23513492
Let's see
>Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Who said this? Some Spanish Papist Thomist who wears black clothes and burns Lutherans for reading some verses of the Bible?

>>23513509
Yes, and where is the part that institutes worshipping him?

>>23513517
Wow so you worship your family members too.

>>23513509
Do you own an English language dictionary?

>>23513517
>they are honoring the person depicted
Aka idolatry.

>>23513523
Ok you are just a full retard, you didn't even read or attempt to understand my post, go back to /his/, /lit/ is for people that actually try to read and engage with the material

>>23513314
Try imagining what it would be like to have Shakespeare rendered in shitty pidgin ebonics, multiply that by a thousand and then you have an idea of what medieval/early modern people would have thought about "reading the Bible in English."

Also the Church was always fine with other languages being used not only in translations but in actual Liturgy in the Eastern tradition like the Syriac Liturgy of the Maronites and the Malabars, whose Bible is literally older than the Vulgate to begin with.

>>23513518
>>23513522
>>23513524
What does "Supreme" mean?

>>23513525
What is idolatry?

>>23513529
>Also the Church was always fine with other languages being used
Except for all the times they murdered people for doing exactly that.

>>23513531
Highest ranking?

>>23513532
Why didn't Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego honor the statue of Nebucuhadnezzar if it is just "honoring" him?

>>23513537
No one was killed for authorized translations.

>>23513525
Why did God tell the Israelites to commit your definition of idolatry in Exodus 25:18?

>>23513531
Supreme: dominant, to the greatest scope, magnitude. So yes, how does worship follow from the fact that the Pope is the utmost responsible for the care of souls (meaning attempting to lead people to the correct path that is Christianity)?

>>23513520
Yup
Rebel behavior

>>23513546
To mock their unfaithfulness.

>>23513543
Answer me, what does idolatry mean?

>>23513552
Worshipping an idol.

>>23513509
Get a dictionary, Percy.
This is a /lit/ thread, put in some effort at critical thinking.

>>23513503
>>23513495
I think Pope Francis would be very amused to learn some people think Catholics worship him.

>>23513545
So you admit people were killed for unauthorized translations?
>>23513547
All men are equal under God. Romans 3:23

>>23513509
Filtered by the words Supreme, Universal

>>23513560
Catholics do worship him.

>>23513566
Hahahahaha

>>23513556
What is an idol?

>>23513563
Men are equal under God therefore men are equal under men. This logic does not follow. Or do you think the Pope is God?

>>23513574
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them."
- Exodus 20:4-5

>>23513576
All men are sinners, including the Pope. He has no more spiritual authority than you or I.

>>23513582
>18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+25%3A18&version=RSVCE
The God of the Bible literally instructs the creation of golden statues of saints.

>>23513587
So are protestant churches in error for giving pastors authority?

>>23513563
>all Men are equal
But there's authority and responsibilities and YES, privileges that comes with positions in life.
That does not negate the Romans verse.

Your playing checkers or rock, paper, scissors using Wikipedia and Bible verses.
Playing a game of GOTCHA

NOW WHAT BRO YAYA YOU SEE YA NOW WHAT

>>23513563
>for unauthorized translations?
What were these "translations"? You won't find any of these "unauthorized translations" that aren't linked to any explicit heresies (usually violent ones, like the Lollards).

>>23513582
Hope you literally have never faced a picture of your family and relative with affection, otherwise you are a idolater. Do you genuinely and intimately repent of having had affection for what you saw in a picture? Do you?

>>23513519
What could your deranged mind mean by this? The principle of scripture interpreting scripture? Or something else?

>>23513605
I don't kneel and pray before pictures of my Mom lol. Just accept that the Bible celebrated people for refusing to do what you do.

>>23513602
>But there's authority and responsibilities
God gave Nebuchadnezzar authority over the Israelites. Why was it wrong for them to worship him in Daniel?

>>23513587
>spiritual authority ?
Who said that and what does it mean?

Care of souls. Does that mean spiritual authority?

>>23513617
Obeying authority is not the same as WORSHIPPING authority?

>>23513620
>Care of souls. Does that mean spiritual authority?
Yes. Yes it does.

>>23513625
So why didn't they kneel down and pray before Nebucuhadnezzar like Catholics do the Pope? It's not worship, right?

>>23513613
Ok, anon, I will not demand much of you concerning exegetical analysis, hermeneutics, criticism, etc., but I will make you a question based off your claim that the scripture is self-attesting: what scripture? The one text in Portuguese translated by João Ferreira de Almeida? The one of King James's? The one text of the seventy wise Jews? Why is scripture self-attesting if it then contains all these different words?

>>23513615
1. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
2. You shall not worship them
3. or serve them

Catholics literally removed idolatry from the Ten Commandments because they know they are worshipping idols.

>>23513615
Also, why is kneeling in respect something bad? Wasn't it a custom for the younger to bow for the older? Did people worship their relatives by simply showing respect and reverence?

>>23513645
>Also, why is kneeling in respect something bad?
Because God says so. 1 Kings 19:18

>>23513626
Why didn't the catechism use the verbiage "spiritual authority" instead of "care of souls"?

Also, worshipping Mary is wrong too, per Jesus' words.

>>23513651
>1 Kings 19:18
>Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.
What is Baal? Is it the same as a literal martyr, a respectable person?

>>23513658
Presumably the Canaanite god. There were several pagan gods called Baal, none of them good.

>>23513652
Because they mean the same thing.

>>23513631
I'm sure you feel like your making a point with this post but it's coming across as more of the same.
Light weight "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions, at best.

>>23513663
Then I think we cannot infer that the condemnation of showing reverence for a bad thing leads to the condemnation of showing reverence for a positive thing.

>>23513666
So then why did they use verbiage they used instead of the other?

If they mean the same thing why did they use "care of souls"?

>>23513635
One of the fundamentals of epistemology, namely that all fundamental knowledge must simply be self-attesting. Since prots hold that scripture is the ultimate authority, they don’t need a higher authority to tell them what scripture is. Just as in ancient Israel, the church received God’s word, recognizing it as such by its own character, and used and preserved it. When a work is not universally recognized as authoritative( the apocrypha and antilegommena) they don’t use it for the establishment of doctrine, but it is still to be read and taught from.

>>23513657
>worshipping Mary is wrong
Amen, the Catholic Church agrees

Where is the word WORSHIP in this bible verse?

>>23513698
>One of the fundamentals of epistemology, namely that all fundamental knowledge must simply be self-attesting
You mean an axiom, which is just a truth without demonstration. How does that principle relate to what needs to be read? How does this purely logical principle relate to something that has been historically conditioned (compilation of books, translations, etc.)? This makes absolutely no sense.
>Since prots hold that scripture is the ultimate authority, they don’t need a higher authority to tell them what scripture is
So they worship a piece of paper? Because why would one follow the meaning of words, all subtleties about syntaxes, and pargraphs of text, and with that, why would one follow reason, interpretation instead of what is in itself?

>>23513673
The first chapter of 2 Kings has an Israelite military captain kneel before Elijah (2 Kings 1:13) so along with >>23513595 from just the Old Testament we can gather:
>Images of saints are not idolatry
>Kneeling in respect for good beings subordinate to God is not idolatry

>>23513825
Elijah was God's prophet. The Pope is not, just as Nebucuhadnezzar was not. Would you bow before Trump or Biden or Macron or Putin?
>>>23513595
The Ark of the Covenant was built to hold the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit now resides in all Christians, making the Ark superfluous. This is pretty basic Christian theology.

>>23513890
>Elijah was God's prophet. The Pope is not
Matthew 16:18
John 21:17
>The Ark of the Covenant was built to hold the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit now resides in all Christians, making the Ark superfluous. This is pretty basic Christian theology.
This has nothing to do with if an angel statue is a "graven image" or not.

>>23512923
fr fr straight bussin

>>23512903
>Douay-Rheims
removes the second commandment (do not make idols) and replaces it with splitting the last commandment into two (don’t covet you neighbors wife or property) iirc

>>23513948
Matthew 16:18 and John 21:17 say absolutely nothing about Peter being the Pope. Jesus didn't treat Peter better than any of his other disciples, and if anything he was closer to John than Peter, considering he entrusted the saftey of his mother to John.
>This has nothing to do with if an angel statue is a "graven image" or not.
The ark wasn't an angel statue, it was a vessel that housed God.

>>23514059
Wrong, it's still there.
>https://www.drbo.org/chapter/02020.htm
The Ten Commandments are just divided for Catholics (and Lutherans, so Protestants accept it too) in a way Augustine understood as being the most common among the ancient sources.

>>23514177
>it's not a statue, it's a vessel with statues on it
Mental gymnastics.
Angels are saints.
God commanded images of angels.
God commanded images of saints.

>>23512889
you know what POV stands for, right?

>>23514203
They're missing from most Catholic versions. Why is that? Guilty conscience?
https://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-ten-commandments
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55029/the-ten-commandments
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ten-commandments-10336
https://www.cokesbury.com/9780974445113-The-10-Commandments-Catholic-Edition

>>23514213
Do you believe random statues of Mary made in China have the holy spirit within them the way the Ark did?

>>23512889
protestantism proved them right in the end

>>23514236
Protestantism is literally the only branch of Christianity not in freefall right now. Catholics worship the antichrist and Orthos worship Putin.

>>23514219
The "lists" here aren't scripture but rather referred to as a "catechetical formula" which is basically just a way of summarizing the Commandments for instruction, which is taken from Augustine. The passages in the actual Bible still have the bits about graven images. You can see the different versions that no one is trying to "hide" directly in the catechism.
https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/498/

>>23514243
>The passages in the actual Bible still have the bits about graven images.
I know they're in the Bible, they just aren't taught by the Catholic Church because it makes them look bad.

>>23514242
>Protestantism is literally the only branch of Christianity not in freefall right now.
YAAAAS QUEEN SLAY LOVE THEM TRANS PASTOR GUUUURL

>>23514250
It is a statistical fact that the majority of Catholics in America and Western Europe support the LGBT movement. This is not true for Protestants.

>>23514248
>links the Catechism that has it and explains the different versions
>"it's not taught by the Catholic Church"
???

>>23514255
>This is not true for Protestants.

>>23514255
by definition they don't
just like by definition protestants aren't christians

>>23514257
I went to a dozen random Catholic websites on the front page of Google and only one mentioned the second commandment. All the rest omitted it.

>>23514265
How are Protestants not Christian? Because we don't acknowledge some guy from Argentina as holy the way you do?

>>23514263
We haven't fallen as far as you yet.

>>23514274
Now bring up mainline Protestants.

>>23514290
Bear in mind even young White protestants have a lower approval than Catholics. If you facter in African-American protestants lgbt approval gets even lower.

>>23514290
Bear in mind even young White protestants have a lower approval than Catholics. If you factor in African-American protestants lgbt approval gets even lower.

>>23514266
"random Catholic websites" are above the Catechism and the Bible now?

The same content is there and understood in the same way but you're fitting in a schizo conspiracy theory by overemphasizing ancient list presentation A (Origen) over ancient list presentation B (Augustine).

>>23514305
>"random Catholic websites" are above the Catechism and the Bible now?
How are Catholics supposed to read the Catechisms or the Bible? Aren't they supposed to be in Latin only?

>>23514311
James II of England made sure the Catechism of Trent was translated. And why are Protestants in general so scared of Latin? Can you just not learn it and can only speak in pidgin languages?

>>23514323
>why are Protestants in general so scared of Latin?
Why do Catholics like Latin so much? The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. The only people who spoke Latin were the educated Romans. It's almost as if the Catholic Church wanted to give the Roman Empire spiritual control over Christianity...