How does one recognize Christ's church on earth?

[Anonymous No.15246781]

Catholics argue that "by their fruits you shall know them" isn't a good criterion despite it being in the Bible. I wonder why...?

[Anonymous No.15246806]

If you're on the lookout for a single Christian Church that has a completely spotless record and has never pulled any bullshit you're going to be searching for a long time.

>inb4 Orthodoxy

The Orthos have done shit every bit as retarded and evil as the Catholics, don't believe the LARPers who tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15246808]

by their fruits you shall that the Catholic church has been compromised by communists/kikes since at least the 1960's, probably earlier than that

[Anonymous No.15246809]

>>15246781
below - seething Christcucks who will defend this
>muh geezus accepted Mary Magdalene too

[Anonymous No.15246857]

>>15246781
>>church

but who was the Nicene Creed of 325 ?

[Anonymous No.15246876]

>>15246806
>insults orthodox church for not being based enough
>posts pedophilic anime cringe

[Anonymous No.15246893]

>>15246876
t. LARPer

Reminder that the Russian Orthodox Church is nothing but an FSB asset these days. The Patriarch is literally on Putin's payroll.

[Anonymous No.15246975]

>>15246781
according to the article they showed up there and asked for help
>helping ppl bad!
>>15246809
mary magdalene was not a prostitute

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15247005]

>>15246806
orthofags are generally unscrupulous but at the very least they aren't deliberately destructive and degenerate

[Anonymous No.15247105]

>>15246975
Actually, Aquinas (pbuh) prescribes the death penalty for them and there is no excuse why it couldn't be carried out on Holy See soil seeing that they are their own sovereign state.

[Anonymous No.15247114]

>>15246975
>mary magdalene wad a proditute
Also forgot to add, this is a blatant lie that came about in the latter part of the middle ages.

[Anonymous No.15247184]

>>15246876
>that pic
HOLY BASED

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247578]

>OH NOOOOOOOOOOO THE POPE IS HELPING THE POOR LIKE JESUS CHRIST INSTEAD OF WAGING A NEW CRUSADE
my grandma who never learned to read knows more about christianity than you, a pack of LARPing midwits. Christianity isn't a blood cult and is funded on the virtue of charity, get it through your skulls, fucking imbeciles.

[Goyim No.15247589]

>>15246806
Islam is the true Church. The original followers were called Nazoreans and had the Gospel of the Nazoreans, which was revived by Islam.

[Anonymous No.15247595]

>Catholics
>Christian

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247643]

>>15247595
Yes. The pope isn't a redundant figure in christianity. The other denominations are willingly twisting the scriptures and preaching false man-made doctrines.

[Anonymous No.15247651]

>Yes. The pope isn't a redundant figure in christianity. The other denominations are willingly twisting the scriptures and preaching false man-made doctrines.

[Anonymous No.15247677]

>>15247578
>It is written: "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" (Ex. 22:18); and: "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land" (Ps. 100:8). …
>Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2
Your grandmother is the LARPer here.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247681]

>>15247651
I'm not even a believer, it's just written in the new testament lmao

[Anonymous No.15247686]

>>15247681
Oh?

[Anonymous No.15247697]

>>15247681
its not

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247698]

>>15247677
>the word of aquinas has more authority than Jesus who guided a whore towards redemption
If you're gonna LARP at least LARP well for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.15247729]

>>15246781
Pope Francis is based and NEETpilled

[Anonymous No.15247756]

>>15247589
I thought you hated Islam and other abrahamics.

[Anonymous No.15247772]

>>15247698
Mary Magdalen was not a whore and regardless repented of her state, so grieved and with so much guilt was she that she fell on the ground to wash the feet of the Messiah, even drying them with her own hair. In this act, she showed a rejection of all self love. Taking off your costume for some free alms isn't repentance, it's exploitation and worse scandal and Christ himself commanded that the scandalous would be better off taken and drowned in the sea under a millstone. St. Thomas does not contradict or superceded the word of God but affirms what is already written.

[Anonymous No.15247856]

>>15246781
It's so obviously orthodox to me. Pagayans will say otherwise but know that literally all their points were refuted countless times by the church.

[Anonymous No.15247859]

>>15247677
>>15247772
>Let me kill these trannies instead of showing them the light of christ so that they may be moved to repent for their sins and live a godly live
This is you. You just want to burn and kill all the sinners instead of extending the loving hand of christ in order to help them and see the error of their way. Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? Or forgive them father for they know not what they do? You don’t care about following christ’s example. You larp as a christian cause you’re a whitoid in search of identity. You probably don’t even go to mass. Keep in mind that the modern world’s reaction to religion comes from treating it as political institution.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247862]

>>15247772
>But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea
He's speaking of the ones who drive others to err not the ones who are driven to sin you dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.15247889]

>the pope should've killed the tranny
that would be the final nail in the coffin of Catholicism, modern society prevents catholics from doing such a thing.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247927]

>>15247859
This. The only way the church should exist is separated from the state, exactly as it is now. And if it doesn't work it only means it didn't stand a chance in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15247967]

>>15247927
>The only way the church should exist is separated from the state, exactly as it is now.

The Catholic Church has never taught this, not even in modern times. Even John Paul II said that the Church should not be totally separated from the affairs of the State.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15247999]

>>15247967
Once again you're taking the words of the Pope over Jesus and the bible. Quote passage where it is said the church should wage wars and murder mindlessly people you fucking faggot.
>inb4 m-muh came to bring a sword
If you take the bible literally you're inoperable

[Anonymous No.15248032]

I’m going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan.

[Anonymous No.15248055]

>>15247999
The only interpretation of the Bible that matters is the Church's interpretation of it. To believe otherwise is to be a Protestant.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15248085]

>>15248055
The pope doesn't get to rewrite the bible you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15248107]

>>15248085
Separation of Church and State has been disastrous. If the Church does not have some say in the running of day-to-day affairs the State will take advantage of it, persecute it, and push it around. Even in Roman times the Church exercised temporal authority within Christian communities, settling disputes and making agreements and distributing aid to the poor. The idea that the Church should have no temporal power at all is an absurd notion. It's not a coincidence that the biggest fans of this idea have been Freemasons, sworn enemies of Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.15248140]

>>15248107
>Freemasons, sworn enemies of Catholicism.
not the guy you're talking to. but freemasons are mostly christians. you have to believe in God to join freemasonry

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15248172]

>>15248107
>State will take advantage of it, persecute it, and push it around.
Jolly gee that's precisely what the church did for roughly 1600 years! you're gonna call yourselves persecuted now? Turns out you were subversive kikes all along, enjoy the slow death of your jewish cult, you will never again be in charge of shit.

[Anonymous No.15248183]

>>15246781
The LARPing ITT is on par with /tg/.

[Anonymous No.15248225]

Why are there all these new tripfags in this thread?

[Anonymous No.15248401]

>>15247859
>>15247862
I am done discussing theology with you, smoothbrain. In any case, I am a seminarian and so I'll have more sway on these mattera than you ever will. There is even a chance that one day I will be pope.

[Anonymous No.15248414]

>>15248107
Based Jesuit oath poster.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15248431]

>>15248401
>There is even a chance that one day I will be pope
OH NONONONONONO

[Anonymous No.15248501]

>>15247681
>I'm not even a believer
So you are a catholic?

[Anonymous No.15249252]

>>15248401
By the time you’re old enough to become pope, the catholic church will be composed of all trannies.

[Anonymous No.15249263]

jesus indeed helped the poor and wretched. hating this man is a meme

[Anonymous No.15249778]

>>15247677
>>15247772
>>15248401
I'm not the person you were replying to, and apologies for coming late to this. I am an earnest Catholic and seeker of the truth. I take the 'party line' in all matters and understand something of the rich history of the Church, from Sacraments and contemplation to the underlying principles of Aristotlean teleology.

I applaud your vocation. However, I find myself not quite agreeing with some of your statements. Here's how I see it- that nobody is to be deemed completely beyond salvation, and that our duty as Catholic Christians is to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. To me, this means never allowing or condoning gay marriage, premarital sex or abortion (for example), yet still treating homosexuals, fornicators and the like with love. I believe that small acts of love and kindness truly can act as a catalyst for God's grave. I agree that tolerance has gone too far in many cases, such as that the sin itself is tolerated; but tolerance should never exclude the person themselves.

I respect Aquinas, and believe the majority of what he wrote to be edifying. He did err in certain areas, though- such as his views on the permissibility of early abortion. Aquinas can get things wrong, as can Popes, unless speaking ex cathedra. To take another life is a sin in any case, there being very few permissible instances in which to do so- the Church line seems to agree with Erasmus when he said 'the most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war'. The clarification of the Catechism to suggest that, given improved abilities to effectively detain criminals, the death penalty is now all but unlawful, further points towards this. I read through the excellent Gospel of Life by JPII recently which I'd really recommend.

Apologies, it's late and I'm rambling a bit. My main point, I suppose, is that I deeply believe that the sinners today- prostitutes, fornicators, thieves, murderers- are the people Christ would have reached out to. He came for the sick, not the healthy. I am a police officer, which I only mention because in my work- as I'm sure you have seen also- I realise the dregs of society are weak, and in desperate need of prayer and assistance. There are worse things to be even than murderer, I think. And we are called to love, to a superhuman, supernatural love only possible by the grace of God, the Love that looked with tenderness at those who tortured and killed Him. So I think that while I disagree with Pope Francis in many respects, his attitude towards loving and evangelising the outcasts of society is one which I wholeheartedly support. Just wanted to clarify whether you disagreed with my take.

[Anonymous No.15249807]

>>15246781
The church is to teach biblical doctrine so we can be grounded in our faith. Ephesians 4:14 tells us, “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” The church is to be a place of fellowship, where Christians can be devoted to one another and honor one another (Romans 12:10), instruct one another (Romans 15:14), be kind and compassionate to one another (Ephesians 4:32), encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11), and most importantly, love one another (1 John 3:11).

The church is to be a place where believers can observe the Lord’s Supper, remembering Christ’s death and shed blood on our behalf (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The concept of “breaking bread” (Acts 2:42) also carries the idea of having meals together. This is another example of the church promoting fellowship. The final purpose of the church according to Acts 2:42 is prayer. The church is to be a place that promotes prayer, teaches prayer, and practices prayer. Philippians 4:6-7 encourages us, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

Another commission given to the church is proclaiming the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). The church is called to be faithful in sharing the gospel through word and deed. The church is to be a “lighthouse” in the community, pointing people toward our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The church is to both promote the gospel and prepare its members to proclaim the gospel (1 Peter 3:15).

Some final purposes of the church are given in James 1:27: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” The church is to be about the business of ministering to those in need. This includes not only sharing the gospel, but also providing for physical needs (food, clothing, shelter) as necessary and appropriate. The church is also to equip believers in Christ with the tools they need to overcome sin and remain free from the pollution of the world. This is done by biblical teaching and Christian fellowship.

So, what is the purpose of the church? Paul gave an excellent illustration to the believers in Corinth. The church is God’s hands, mouth, and feet in this world—the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). We are to be doing the things that Jesus Christ would do if He were here physically on the earth. The church is to be “Christian,” “Christ-like,” and Christ-following.

[Anonymous No.15249860]

>>15246781
The "True Church" is spiritual, representing whoever truly follows Christ. If you want a physical church denomination to join, consider joining an Anabaptist or Baptist congregation. I don't know quite enough about them, but if you want a liturgical church that has physically continued since ancient times, it may be worth looking at the Assyrian Church of the East, as they do not pray to saints or Mary, like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do. I recommend the previous two movements, though, as more representative of what I believe consistent biblical orthodoxy in Christianity could represent.

[Anonymous No.15249923]

[Anonymous No.15249929]

>>15246781
The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.15249946]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/can-it-be-right-commit-suicide

[Anonymous No.15249950]

>>15246781
So? We gave sanctuary the pagans when Rome was sacked.

[Anonymous No.15249998]

>>15246781
Paul distinguishes the works of the flesh and the works of the spirit in in Galatians. John does a similar thing in his epistles

[Anonymous No.15250058]

>>15248140
>freemasons are mostly christians.
They're pseudo Christians aka Protestants. Catholics by church law are automatically excommunicated if they join the masons. In fact Francisco Franco used to have them strangled to death.

[Anonymous No.15250069]

>>15250058
Free Masonry isnt a type of protestantism, retard

[Anonymous No.15250082]

>>15250058
Don’t confuse the True God with the alien-god-umbrella-diety that the Freemasons worship in their cursed temples.

[Anonymous No.15250085]

>>15250069
Yeah it's even worse somehow

[Anonymous No.15250119]

>>15250069
I never said it was you imbecile. It's just that most Freemasons that claim to be Christian are some sort of Protestant.

[Anonymous No.15250238]

>>15250119
That's because the Catholic church explicitly condemned freemasonry, and the entire purpose of freemasonry was originally to abolish the monarchies and implement democratic republics

[Anonymous No.15250466]

>>15249778
based catholic cop on 4chan ..

[Anonymous No.15250551]

>>15250119
Well that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.15250660]

>>15249778
blessed and bread-pilled post

[Anonymous No.15250758]

>>15246781
I am Christian but my faith is weak, I often think that believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior and being forgiven is too good to be true.
I also worry that my doubts will get me sent to hell

[Anonymous No.15250915]

>>15247677
>Wizards

[Anonymous No.15250983]

>>15250758
Read the Qur’an

[Anonymous No.15251009]

sjws have owned churches since the 70s

[Anonymous No.15251051]

>>15251009
The tide is turning, slowly but surely. You can thank Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum for that.

[Anonymous No.15251102]

>>15246781
god I love watching /pol/ christlarpers seethe over the pope acting like an actual Christian

[Anonymous No.15251170]

>>15246806
This. I prefer some of Orthodoxy's theological stances, but basically everyone has done dumb shit

[Anonymous No.15251191]

>>15251102
Same, as a Christian who has to put up with seeing these retards shit themselves almost nonstop it's cathartic seeing them lose their minds whenever the Pope doesn't just "dunk on the LIEberals and kikes" or whatever it is they expect him to do

[Anonymous No.15251223]

>>15251170
If the OrthoLARPers knew the full extent of the retardation that is Iconoclasm they'd never call themselves Orthodox again.

[Anonymous No.15251253]

>>15251223
I know some devout Orthodox folks, but yeah, most of the LARPers would either leave or try historical revisionism (which is common for OrthoARPers and basically every other LARPing subsection of any denomination) if they actually studied the history of their denomination and used more than just polemic sources

[Anonymous No.15251274]

>>15247967
Umm actually sweetie
>Pope Gelasius I (492–496) expressed his vision of the West in a famous letter to the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I, and, more explicitly, in his fourth treatise, where, with reference to the Byzantine model of Melchizedek, he affirmed that the unity of powers lies exclusively in Christ: “As a matter of fact, because of human weakness (pride), He has separated the two offices for the time that followed, so that neither shall become proud” (chapter 11). On matters pertaining to eternal life, the Christian emperors need priests (pontifices), who in their turn should follow, on temporal matters, the orders of the emperor. On worldly matters, priests should follow the laws of the emperor installed by divine decree, while on divine matters the emperor should submit to the priest. The fourth treatise introduced a separation and distinction of powers that would be of vital importance to the future development of Europe, and that laid the foundations for the distinguishing characteristics of the West.
Pope Benedict XVI

[Anonymous No.15252162]

>>15251274
New poster, who gives a shit. I hate arguing with Catholics about anything, and I technically am one. The Catholic Church has changed its mind on a million different teaching, some purportedly infallible, and because it teaches that it cannot change its mind, Catholic retards like you twist themselves in knots over quotes and how contradictory statements can both be true.

The death penalty, brought up earlier, is a great example. It's been taught INFALLIBLY that the death penalty is not only permissible, but a moral good and the inalienable right of the state. Not only a right, but a right to be encouraged by Catholics as a moral good and tool of God's justice.

Now it is taught that the opposite is true. Are some of you faggots even aware of this?

[Anonymous No.15252165]

>>15251191
How does enabling tranny prostitutes have anything to do with what Christ wanted? Don't tell me something surface level and trite. Explain to me how this is Christian

[Anonymous No.15252216]

>miss a single mass
>go to hell for all eternity
Roman Catholics unironically believe this, and they run marathons justifying how it's acceptable and deserved

[Anonymous No.15252235]

>>15251274
This describes dyarchy, or “the two powers,” which isn’t really the same thing as the modern secular state, wherein the spiritual power is entirely subordinates to the temporal one.

>>15252162
Catholics do believe that doctrine develops; see St. John Henry Newman’s “On the Development of Doctrine.” The summary is: under one set of conditions, A might be true, but under condition different conditions, D might be true. In no way does this imply A wasn’t true, or that B contradicts A. In the case of the death penalty, the historical teaching of the Church was that the death penalty was the suitable punishment when one could reasonably expect that suffering the perpetrator to live would result in further bloodshed. And yes, the Church does see punishment as restorative, even today. In modern times, however, many Catholics (not just Pope Francis) have raised the point that conditions in modern incarceration facilities are such that this condition is seldom met, and it is a violation of what is due to the perpetrator (dignity) to execute them under these conditions. And so the doctrine developed. If you read the Pope’s commentary about the change in the catechism he says as much.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15252239]

>>15249778
You're two birds of the same feather bound to witness the slow demise of a pointless institution which dealt more damage to Europe than both the world wars, and the only difference that sets you apart is in the degree of the insanity of the punishments you're willing to apply to sinners. The church should have been disbanded right after the dark ages instead of being a pain in the ass and butting in the state's affairs, or at least after the crusades had been fought and lost.
>To me, this means never allowing or condoning gay marriage, premarital sex or abortion (for example), yet still treating homosexuals, fornicators and the like with love.
So you're going to ban the only kind of union which encourages homosexuals to partake in a monogamous life and allegedly reduces promiscuity for the sake of a god damn verse in your holy book, then you're gonna dictate that it is "against nature" to love your own sex despite having conclusive evidence that bisexuality was commonplace in several pre-christian cultures.
>inb4 they didn't see the light of yeshua lol
You could slave away your life 24/7, voluntarily refuse going to church, spit on your father's grave, but heaven forbid bisexuality or homosexuality is even mentioned in your fucking church, you will lose your shit no matter which denomination you belong to, and that's just one of the mamy reasons why a noxious church has no place in a civilized country, because your kike manual is against man's sexual nature, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.15252253]

>>15252235
>Catholics do believe that doctrine develops; see St. John Henry Newman’s “On the Development of Doctrine.” The summary is: under one set of conditions, A might be true, but under condition different conditions, D might be true. In no way does this imply A wasn’t true, or that B contradicts A. In the case of the death penalty, the historical teaching of the Church was that the death penalty was the suitable punishment when one could reasonably expect that suffering the perpetrator to live would result in further bloodshed. And yes, the Church does see punishment as restorative, even today. In modern times, however, many Catholics (not just Pope Francis) have raised the point that conditions in modern incarceration facilities are such that this condition is seldom met, and it is a violation of what is due to the perpetrator (dignity) to execute them under these conditions. And so the doctrine developed. If you read the Pope’s commentary about the change in the catechism he says as much.
This is all bullshit. You're taking the nu-Church's line, but it's just not true. I don't even know what to refute because this is just Catholic Answers tripe. How about instead of reading that, read the Baltimore Catechism and what it specifically says about the death penalty. It doesn't say the bullshit you just said. It says the death penalty is a moral good in itself. It has nothing to do with preventing further bloodshed, and even if that were the case, the argument that something dramatic has changed in the past 100 years that makes incarceration "safer" is just fucking retarded.

The Church taught the death penalty was a moral force for good in itself and because of what it is. It has nothing to do with some utilitarian means to an end.

[Anonymous No.15252274]

>>15247105
What? Aquinas has a surprisingly tolerant view of prostitution in his Treatise on Law within the Summa.

[Anonymous No.15252276]

>>15252235
>Catholics do believe that doctrine develops; see St. John Henry Newman’s “On the Development of Doctrine.” The summary is: under one set of conditions, A might be true, but under condition different conditions, D might be true. In no way does this imply A wasn’t true, or that B contradicts A.

None of this allows for a previous teaching, particularly an infallible one, to be directly contradicted or even *kinda* contradicted. Stating the death penalty is morally permissible and then stating the Gospel does not permit it is a contradiction.


>In the case of the death penalty, the historical teaching of the Church was that the death penalty was the suitable punishment when one could reasonably expect that suffering the perpetrator to live would result in further bloodshed.
This was not what the Church taught, this is what the modern Church claims the Church historically taught but that is not true.

>And yes, the Church does see punishment as restorative, even today.

This is not categorically true, for instance, in its millennia old teaching of the death penalty, among many others.

>In modern times, however, many Catholics (not just Pope Francis) have raised the point that conditions in modern incarceration facilities are such that this condition is seldom met,
What specifically changed since the last time the Baltimore Catechism was printed in modern times that made this change suddenly take effect now? This is just a vague, bullshit justification to do a 180 because of muh feels

>and it is a violation of what is due to the perpetrator (dignity) to execute them under these conditions.

The concept of human dignity was meaningless until Vatican II.

>And so the doctrine developed. If you read the Pope’s commentary about the change in the catechism he says as much.

I bet it does.

[Anonymous No.15252292]

>>15252276
>>And yes, the Church does see punishment as restorative, even today.
>This is not categorically true
>The concept of human dignity was meaningless until Vatican II
lol. have you ever read court transcripts of medieval executions? the whole focus is on reuniting the sinner to god

[Anonymous No.15252305]

>>15252292
>lol. have you ever read court transcripts of medieval executions? the whole focus is on reuniting the sinner to god
Yes and that includes, as infallibly proclaimed by the Catholic Church, to be effected by sentencing him to death an executing him. This is not up for debate.

[Anonymous No.15252331]

>>15252305
Firstly, was there ever actually an infallible doctrine concerning capital punishment? Secondly, that it is legitimate does not necessarily imply that its use is necessary.

[Anonymous No.15252356]

>>15252331
What the Church has always taught, infallibly, about the death penalty:

>Roman Catechism, 1566: Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted the power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the commandment that prohibits murder.

>Fr. Laurence Vaux's Catechism, 1567: What is the fifth Commandment of God? Thou shalt not kill. That is to be understood: thou shalt not without just authority kill or hurt any man in body or in soul. And therefore both the Judge in the commonwealth does lawfully put offenders to death, or otherwise punish them bodily

>St. Robert Bellarmine, Short Catechism, 1614: In the fifth, it is commanded that we kill nobody unjustly, nor do them other harm in their person: and I say unjustly, because Judges who condemn malefactors to death, and the ministries of justice, who put them to death, and also soldiers in just war, do not sin whilst they wound and kill.

>The Baltimore Catechism, 1885: Human life may be lawfully taken (1) in self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; (2) in a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; (3) by the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death

>Catechism of St. Pius X, 1908: It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime

Consistent teachings promulgated by the entire Church over centuries in Catechisms with imprimaturs and approved by the Holy Office and local bishops constitutes the universal and ordinary magisterium of the papal office and is infallible - to deny this is anathema.

[Anonymous No.15252367]

>>15252331
>Secondly, that it is legitimate does not necessarily imply that its use is necessary.
This is not true: If it is a right of the state and a moral good, the Church can never teach that the state should not use it. Further, the Church can DEFINITELY not say what the Catechism now says, which is that it is contrary to the Gospel. That is a contradiction on another level altogether. Because it is saying that the Church was teaching something contrary to the Gospel until 2018.

I don't even have a dog in this fight, per se, but the Catholic Church is a contradictory, hypocritical lying mess. At least acknowledge this instead of playing mental gymnastics to pretend there is no contradiction.

[Anonymous No.15252371]

>>15246876
Anime website

[Anonymous No.15252373]

>>15252356
>>15252367
Catechisms are not, as far as I am aware, infallible sources.

[Anonymous No.15252378]

>>15252373
>Catechisms are not, as far as I am aware, infallible sources.
Thanks for not reading what I wrote about that explicit point (and regardless, they often are). Now kys

[Anonymous No.15252383]

>>15252373
Actually that's only true of the nu-Catechism through legalistic loopholes. But one like the Baltimore Catechism actually is. But that only furthers the point...

[Anonymous No.15252390]

>>15252239
I think you might misunderstand the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching, which is based in virtue ethics. You can’t be blamed for this, most Catholics don’t know it and instead represent the faith poorly by hurling abuse at same-sex-attracted persons.
You’re right that every culture has its own sexual ethics. There are some that even permit rape and incest. I hope you would agree that we can’t just say that’s culturally relative, and that we need some way to tell what’s right and what’s wrong.
Under the Catholic understanding, sex has spiritual and moral significance. We need sex to satisfy two properties in order to be morally and spiritually “complete”: first, there is the symbolic meaning of sex as the fulfillment of expression of unity of two souls in marriage (unitive property), and second, it must be directed towards the creation of new life (procreative property).
From the perspective of today’s culture, this may seem arbitrary, but let’s think about it, particularly in contrast to the prevailing consent-based sexual ethics.
First point, let’s examine today’s consent-based approach, where all we need is consenting adults and the expectation that no harm is done to any third party. This rules out rape, knocking up your sister, pedophilia, beastiality, all things that we should rightfully forbid. But if we think about it, there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping some other things we might be morally uncomfortable with: what about polyamory? What about about incest between infertile or gay siblings? Why can’t that happen?
Second, don’t we kind of get the feeling that the consent-based system is essentially transactional? It robs sex if it’s symbolic meaning, reduces it to a contract — a brute biological act. It’s an expression of capitalism and scientism. That sucks, right? Don’t we intuitively feel that sex should be more than that? Can’t we see evidence in our society if sex robbed of its symbolic dimension?
Anyway, even if we try other formulations, if we start venturing outside of the unitive, procreative telos if sex, we start running into problems like this. You’re welcome to try to formulate a system that doesn’t, we could discuss it.

[Anonymous No.15252396]

>>15252331
>that it is legitimate does not necessarily imply that its use is necessary
That's like saying that giving to the poor is legitimate but not necessary. And before you say it's not, it IS. Sentencing a criminal to death is a loving, charitable act that offers him a chance to get right with God and, when accepting the punishment, atone for his crimes. You are taking away an instrument of love.

[Anonymous No.15252400]

>>15252396
Necessary when? There has been no stable juridical conduct throughout Church history. In some eras sodomites are simply made to fast like fornicators, in others places they have hot irons shoved up their arse before being impaled.

[Anonymous No.15252401]

>>15252165
Have you not read the Bible?

[Anonymous No.15252412]

>>15252400
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you quote the wrong person? Real brainlet hours here.

[Anonymous No.15252414]

>>15252401
Yeah God murdered two whole towns of queers.

[Anonymous No.15252429]

>>15252414
God can do whatever the heck he wants

[Anonymous No.15252448]

>>15252429
Specifically what the Bible says is that the State has the authority and prerogative to execute homosexuals and other sodomites. If the State fails to do this, that is on the State, but the Church should always advocate that the State do the right thing.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15252452]

>>15252390
>But if we think about it, there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping some other things we might be morally uncomfortable with:
Morals are, and morals aren't related to the church in the slightest as they existed before the church was even a thing. Do you think the greeks and romans would've encouraged bestiality or incest? There are tons of historical records on how they executed incestuous and unfaithful women, and they didn't leave their sex drive unchecked.
>Don’t we intuitively feel that sex should be more than that?
Sex can be used to tighten the bond between two people, the ancients knew it was a way to let some steam off or reduce stress in times of war. Promiscuity is indeed dangerous and destructive, but the "symbolic meaning" of sex is pure jewish drivel without a shred of sense. That being said, you're never going to recognize that love is possible between two men even in a non-sexual romantic way, because otherwise it would be a mere friendship according to Christian dogmas, which shows that Christian minds are so fucking warped they can't even succeed in drawing a line between sex and romantic attachment.

[Anonymous No.15252454]

>>15246781
All major denominations are being controlled by some external interests. Carry your own cross, and don't leave it to some church to handle.

[Anonymous No.15252463]

>>15252452
Oh no no no the anti-Christian poster has revealed himself to be as much of a moralist cuck as the CHristfags he holds in contempt!!

[Anonymous No.15252473]

>>15246806
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.15252480]

Love 2 see the very catholic practice ITT of picking though church documents and prooftexting like a Protestant does with the Bible.
I wonder, could these posters be American? Is it a cultural thing?

[Anonymous No.15252488]

>>15252480
Uh it's a Catholic thing, retard. But yes it is very stupid.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15252512]

>>15252463
And you've been ensnared by the leftie clowns who claim morality is subjective. If fags in the 80s would've contented themselves with one sexual partner and practiced safe sex there would have been little contempt for homosexuals, and the HIV epidemic would have been drastically reduced in terms of victims. They brought it on themselves and paid the toll for their lack of moderation, having a different sexual preference doesn't give you any rights to be a fucking sex-obsessed animal.

[Anonymous No.15252520]

>>15252512
>And you've been ensnared by the leftie clowns who claim morality is subjective.
Yes, you obviously have not read the Greeks if you think moral subjectivity is some kind of recent left-wing invention. Tut tut. Another worthless slave moralist..

[Anonymous No.15252533]

>>15252520
*braps thoughtfully in your face*
No one ever said that

[Anonymous No.15252566]

>>15246781
>1+2019
>not following the teachings of rabbi Yehoshua

shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.15252573]

>>15252448
Any quotes?

[Anonymous No.15252579]

>>15252512
lmao you can't expect any group of people to practice safe sex like that

[Anonymous No.15252580]

>>15252452
>Do you think the greeks and romans would've encouraged bestiality or incest?
Probably a bad example. Both were totally fine with child sex slaves.
> That being said, you're never going to recognize that love is possible between two men even in a non-sexual romantic way, because otherwise it would be a mere friendship according to Christian dogmas, which shows that Christian minds are so fucking warped they can't even succeed in drawing a line between sex and romantic attachment.
Wut?
Anyway, you’ve evaded all the main points and haven’t really made any of your own so maybe let someone else have a turn.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15252716]

>>15252520
>moral subjectivity is some kind of recent left-wing invention
Yes it is, as I said unfaithfulness and incest were looked down upon, and so was cuckoldry whereas today all of these things are tolerated if not even encouraged.
>>15252579
>any group of people
That's why monogamy should be enforced, especially in homosexual couples.
>Both were totally fine with child sex slaves.
You've got no moral grounds to talk about slavery when Christianity didn't raise a finger against it in the colonial era, plus the bible clearly condones it alongside many other disgusting practices that violate the human rights.
>Wut?
I implied that even if all the fags in the world were to refrain from having sexual intercourse, christianity wouldn't recognize same sex couples and instead label their relationships friendships because the only possible romantic love according to Christians is between a man and a woman, which is the most ridiculous statement ever.

[Anonymous No.15252718]

>>15247105
From what I know, Aquinas maintains the vision of Augustin that prostitution is an "inevitable" evil. Which to me is one of the weirdest positions from a man who thought every time you had sex you necessarily sinned (at the very least, venially), but who am I to judge.

[Anonymous No.15252765]

based protestantbros know helping other people is quite literally the most unchristian thing you could possibly do
"Thou shall pull thyself by thine bootstraps" Ronald 23:13

[Anonymous No.15252791]

>>15252716
>Christianity didn't raise a finger against it in the colonial era
The Church failed to stop it, but it’s unfair to say it didn’t try. It is not all-powerful, unfortunately. The Pope outlawed it and demanded reparations be paid in 1523, but by that point the dyarchy was broken and the monarchs were already off their leashes. There are many saints whose witnesses against slavery were publicly proclaimed by the Church. The relationship between the Church and slavery then is a lot like it’s relationship with abortion now, if that helps you contextualize it: fierce opposition mostly, some minority makes compromises, and we can’t really stop it.
> I implied that even if all the fags in the world were to refrain from having sexual intercourse, christianity wouldn't recognize same sex couples
You are correct that the Church won’t recognize same sex couples in the way that you mean it, but I don’t think you know the Church’s true position, either. Look up Eve Tushnet. Chaste same-sex love is lauded, not opposed by the Church.

[Anonymous No.15252813]

>>15249778
He promises forgiveness for only those who repent and all those classes you have described would cease being sinners if they truly repented. The Apostle is quite clear. God is not mocked. It would be a mockery of God to give obstinate and unrepentant sinners cause to continue in their wickedness rather than turn from it.

[Anonymous No.15252819]

>>15247862
brainlet

[Anonymous No.15252823]

>>15252791
I said 1523 but this was an error. The explicit condemnation of ongoing enslavement if the indigenous by the Popes began in 1537, and was repeated many times after that.

[Anonymous No.15252832]

>>15247859
Except these people want to indulge their sins, not clear them from it. The pope is giving validity to a sinful lifestyle by doing this.

[Anonymous No.15252836]

>>15247698
>Go and sin no more
>SIN NO MORE
These people want to sin while also be forgiven for thier sins. That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.15252848]

>>15252832
This. Even St. Alphonsus said that something as dear as confessions, so long as they are without any purpose of amendment or contrition of heart are not only null and void but sacrilegious and an even greater insult to God and of more harm to the sinner for they are serve as cause to persevere in sin even more firmly.

[Anonymous No.15252883]

>>15252836
>SIN NO MORE FLOG YOURSELF IF YOU TAKE A WRONG STEP LMAO
You're fucking insane if you think there's a single person who doesn't sin every day. Take your extremism to some islamic shit hole where your desert cult belongs.

[Anonymous No.15252901]

>>15252883
A certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate: for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and shall not be able.But when the master of the house shall be gone in and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without; and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence: and thou hast taught in our streets. And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth;

[Anonymous No.15252930]

>>15252883
>catholic extremism bad

[Anonymous No.15252945]

>>15252883
>tell a white lie to boss at work, go to confession later
>be a transgender prostitute, continue to be one but when times are bad go demand gibs from pope to tide you over so that when times are better you can continue being a tranny hooker
Yeah these things are so similar!

[Anonymous No.15252958]

>>15252883
This post is why I hate most people and reddit. There isn't any logic here and it just appears to the norms and dictates of normal bugman behavior. I don't even believe in God. This is what happens when you see a bugman tormented. It's like pissing off an NPC in grand theft auto. Getting out and beating his car with a bat. Same reaction. Just emotional hubris. Quite pathetic.

[Anonymous No.15252964]

>>15252883
These are American Protestants in the same way that the New Atheists were American Protestants. They are correct that the LGBT stuff is sinful, but like Protestants, they deny that the Church has the authority directly from God to forgive sins. St. Peter, the first Pope, was entrusted to both bind and loose in heaven.
They should ask, where would we be if the Church didn’t minister to the Romans and Jews during our long persecution? If we didn’t minister to the pagans when Rome fell? Where would we be if our priests withheld absolution to us for again committing sins we had confessed to before? What if Christ himself had waited for us to be “perfectly contrite” before ransoming us?

[Anonymous No.15252967]

>>15252901
A certain man said suck my dick

>>15252930
>nu-islam good

>>15252945
So what's wrong with prostitution?

[Anonymous No.15253007]

>>15252958
>There isn't any logic here and it just appears to the norms and dictates of normal bugman behavior.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE NORMS YOU SHOULD BE A CONTRARIAN SPERGLORD LIKE ME
this is your argument, make what you want of it.

>>15252964
>where would we be if the Church didn’t minister to the Romans and Jews during our long persecution? If we didn’t minister to the pagans when Rome fell?
Probably the same situation except we would've inched day by day closer to atheism instead of switching to batshit crazy monotheism worship. If christianity and judaism didn't exist islam wouldn't either. Think of all the damage your kike mentality has dealt to the world.

[Anonymous No.15253014]

>>15248055
The whole problem about Catholicism by the Protestants isn't that the Catholics interpret the Bible wrong, but that there's an unnecessary and frankly pagan amount of paraphernalia which is logical when you realise that the Pope and the Vatican are inventions by Rome. Protestants, in this respect, are on board with Catholics or atleast in principle.

Lutheranism is a weird Faustian version of the Bible specifically designed for German idealism. I'm more appreciative of Calvinism since it allows for rebellion against the State.

P. S. I'm not even Christian, sinful Muslim here just taught you basic history/theology.

[Anonymous No.15253019]

>>15249950
NOOOOO YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GENOCIDE THEM LIKE BASED TEUTONS

[Anonymous No.15253020]

DEUS VULT

[Anonymous No.15253038]

>>15249778
Amen

[Anonymous No.15253042]

>>15252967
>>15253007
Imagine being this visibly upset on a Hungarian calabash gourd collecting board. I assume you're a homosexual?

[Anonymous No.15253056]

>>15253042
You must have a lot of repressed homosexual desires to assume someone's homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.15253060]

>>15249950
The Christians held them to be more virtuous and chaste than their Roman counterparts. It was their inclination to good that enabled this and then there eventual conversion. The example in OP are inclined to evil and show no hope of conversion.

[Anonymous No.15253064]

>>15253056
I take that as a yes.

[Anonymous No.15253072]

>>15253064
It takes one to know one

[Anonymous No.15253082]

>>15253072
so you are assuming he is a homossexual while you affirm you are one? very clever

[Anonymous No.15253083]

>>15253060
They drank semen and raped everything that moved.
And how would you know they have no hope of conversion? Do you presume to know their hearts? To make yourself juror over their salvation?
Spend some time in prayer with Saint Vitalis of Gaza.

[Anonymous No.15253099]

>>15253082
I didn't affirm anything. You did everything by yourself.

[Anonymous No.15253113]

>>15246893
Any proofs, bwoy?

[Anonymous No.15253115]

>>15253083
Those were myths by the Romans who also hated Christians. Salvion reported the barbarians were more virtuous than the Roman pagans.

[Anonymous No.15253116]

>>15253056
What a dunce you are. You're the one seething on their behalf.

[Anonymous No.15253121]

>>15253099
He isn't the original poster and in any case, you played the reddit card and changed the argument to appeals to what people find likeable and to personal motives and attacks. You're not very bright. I bet you unironically believe in heaven.

[Anonymous No.15253139]

>>15253116
I'm not the one who's taking pains to come up with mental gymnastics to justify my outdated mindset. I'm still waiting for a valid argument against prostitution.
>>15253121
I bet you unironically believe in heaven.
So is your magic jew going to save you or not?

[Anonymous No.15253168]

>>15253099
you did; you said a homossexual recognizes another homossexual: you confirmed you are gay and supposed the other anon was gay too since he recognized you as a homossexual

[Anonymous No.15253184]

>>15253168
Nah i didn't. If you want to know the truth i am bisexual, you're wrong again.

[Anonymous No.15253190]

>>15253139
You are the one engaging in mental gymnastics

P
>Go and sin no more
R
>wtf people can't do that what do you expect them to do, flog themselves! extremism bad
Several counters with scriptural and theological arguments
R
>go eat a dick (irrelevant)
>you must be a contrarian wtf else explains this I need some motive to explain arguments, not address them myself
Counters
>people point out how retarded you are and use your own medicine against you
Your latest replies
>absolute meltdown
>doesn't answer the question about motive
>turns it around again
>you must be the homosexual! (Not realizing in this instant that even if he admitted such it wouldn't undermine his case in anyway but perfectly would explain why you're so butthurt)
>followed by a long series of no you
>you're engaging in mental gymnastics
Thanks for the laughs.

[Anonymous No.15253196]

>>15253184
Bisexuals are homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.15253199]

>>15253139
I don't believe in God. I just play theological extremism because I hate most of humanity, especially homosexuals and sexual reprobates.

[Anonymous No.15253210]

>>15253139
Prostitution serves no purpose, spreads disease and results in a dysgenic allocation of wealth.

[Anonymous No.15253218]

>>15253190
>Several counters with scriptural and theological arguments
Who says these are objective arguments?
Religion is all about mental gymnastics.
>>15253196
Wrong.
>>15253199
The LARPer finally reveals himself.

[Anonymous No.15253240]

>>15253218
It doesn't make me wrong about anything and, my dear Sherlock, I revealed earlier I didn't believe in heaven and even before that revealed that I enjoyed frustrating smoothbrains like you wherein I explicitly stated the obvious.

[Anonymous No.15253243]

>>15253240
But i am not frustated at all. In fact i am browsing my favorite subreddit as we're arguing.

[Anonymous No.15253247]

>>15249923
The church is against abortion and divorce, if you get into a situation like that you don’t have many options.

[Anonymous No.15253253]

>>15253243
Denial, the post.

[Anonymous No.15253255]

>>15253243
Kek

[Anonymous No.15253260]

>>15253243
>i am browsing my favorite subreddit as we're arguing.

[Anonymous No.15253270]

>>15253247
Evolutionary response would be to terminate mate, off spring and self, no? Polar bears are well known to do this and Kant suggested as much for marriages where infertility has given rise to an "illegitimate child" (his exact language).

[Anonymous No.15253276]

>>15253243
>But i am not frustated at all. In fact i am browsing my favorite subreddit as we're arguing.
unfamothably based

[Anonymous No.15253281]

>>15253243
>But i am not frustated at all. In fact i am browsing my favorite subreddit as we're arguing.

[Anonymous No.15253400]

>>15253199
Once you read the intelligent Saints like Thomas and Alphonsus, it's clear they didn't believe in God either and yet recognized the value of their work on the mind. We need religious thinkers like them again, except dialed up to 11, with open contempt for obesity, lustful excesses, behaving like an animal and so on.

[Anonymous No.15253433]

>this thread
What happened to"love thy neighbor"?

[Anonymous No.15253458]

>>15253243

[Anonymous No.15253478]

>>15253433
>love satan
No.

[Anonymous No.15253490]

>>15253433
All religion on this site is aesthetic association.

[Anonymous No.15253520]

>>15252452
Lmao this whole post was a train wreck.
The guy you were responding to made some questionable claims, yet you didn't pick up on any of them and still went full-steam ahead with muh Greeks and Romans, and with some bullshit arguments about "love is love"

[Anonymous No.15253529]

>>15253478
>Judge not lest ye be judged

Larpers can't even into Christianity 101

[Anonymous No.15253530]

>>15246806
Quakers seem to be doing alright.

[Anonymous No.15253532]

>>15253400
>it's clear they didn't believe in God either
[Citation needed]

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15253617]

>>15253520
>questionable claims
I didn't know regurgitating christcuck dogmas could be considered making claims, but I offered an alternative to the liberal promiscuity and the christian puritanism, an alternative that allows non-heteronormative people to coexist with heteros without creating more HIV epidemics and weighing on the state at large. It goes without saying that neither liberals nor consevatives will take my position into account because both are extremists who have been hard wired to stick solely to their own party's principles.

[Anonymous No.15253626]

>>15253529
Read the rest of Paul's sentence and then get back to me, idiot.

[Anonymous No.15253642]

>>15253617
There would be no HIV epidemic if people didn't engage in fornication.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15253733]

>>15253642
There would be no HIV if people were more careful about the way they engange in sexual intercourse.

[Anonymous No.15253749]

>>15246806
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAnuG1340g

Quakers and Society of Friends did pretty well

[Anonymous No.15253763]

>>15253733
Wrong. My proposition logically makes the possibility of any proliferation of HIV impossible. Your proposition at best reduces the chance but that's in an ideal sense. In reality, the illusion of safer sex encourages more sex with more people and regardless of safety measures taken will result in more disease relative to a chaste society where such behaviors are strongly discouraged.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15253805]

>>15253763
>My proposition logically makes the possibility of any proliferation of HIV impossible.
HIV isn't exclusively a homosexual disease. Making HIV proliferation impossible is impossible.
>In reality, the illusion of safer sex encourages more sex with more people
Except i clearly stated monogamy must be enforced among gay couples which further reduces the risk of getting HIV.

[Anonymous No.15253850]

>>15246781
*slurp slurp slurp* mmmm nigger feet

[Anonymous No.15253873]

>>15253805
Not him, but HIV is essentially a contingent problem. We could eventually have a cure, or a vaccine. I would actually be glad to see it, but I would still oppose homosexual acts on moral grounds.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15253907]

>>15253873
>on moral grounds
Which moral grounds? What's immoral about loving another man?

[Anonymous No.15253926]

>>15253907
Nothing. It’s having sex with him that’s the problem.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15253949]

>>15253926
What's the problem in having sex?

[Anonymous No.15254000]

>>15252448
>>15252165
Holy shit, you're actually fucking retarded. I was debating wasting my time writing theology on /lit/ but it turns out you've only got two braincells, and they're too busy screaming "KILL THE QUEERS" to have even read the Bible.
Go be SBC or something if your only baseline for theology is that you have to dunk on queers.

[Anonymous No.15254015]

>>15252253
This. What's even worse is that utilitarianism isn't a permissible view in Christian theology.

[Anonymous No.15254051]

>>15253490
this unironically

[Anonymous No.15254068]

>>15253949
For Roman Catholics, they appeal to their understanding of Natural Law, wherein sex is to be both unitive (in the bonds of marriage) and procreative. Homosexual sex isn't procreative.
QED the gays can't fuck.
That's a pretty brief summary by an Episcopalian, so I might have missed some point.

[Anonymous No.15254096]

>>15246781
>Pope acts like Jesus would
>catholics go mad

EVERY FUCKING TIME

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15254116]

>>15254068
So they appeal to the jewish law like the obedient little golems they are and don't have any argument against it besides muh babble. Chances are they'd start sucking cocks right away if sucking cocks were to be the 11th commandment in the bible.

[Anonymous No.15254119]

>>15254096
you mean 4chan """"""""""catholics""""""""""

[Anonymous No.15254154]

>>15254116
>Jewish Law
>the same thing as Natural Law
No. They're fundamentally different things. The Jewish Law was 613 mitzvot that the Jews were supposed to follow. Natural Law has to do with certain principles which can apparently be reasoned towards (Hence the word natural). I know you're a tripfag but please, do some actual reading on the topic, don't just spread shitty illiterate polemics.

[Harmodius !SPQRgUJdp. No.15254214]

>>15254154
>Natural Law has to do with certain principles which can apparently be reasoned towards
All of which is derived from a jewish book written for jews by jews. The fact that you're scrambling so hard to hide the fact that you owe the jews your whole religion should be a clear sign that my post hit close to home. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christians are jews in denial, they share the same victim complex and subversive nature of their spiritual brothers.

[Anonymous No.15254936]

>>15253949
>SEX.EXE GOOD, [therefore] What's the problem in having sex?

[Anonymous No.15254949]

>>15254000
>no refutation
Wow so based. Meanwhile the Bible literally says this stuff and all your stupid theology in the world can't get around that fact

[Anonymous No.15254963]

>>15252448

[Anonymous No.15255127]

>>15252216
Mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.15255131]

>>15247677

>I answer that, It is unlawful for clerics to kill, for two reasons. First, because they are chosen for the ministry of the altar, whereon is represented the Passion of Christ slain "Who, when He was struck did not strike [Vulgate: 'When He suffered, He threatened not']" (1 Peter 2:23). Therefore it becomes not clerics to strike or kill: for ministers should imitate their master, according to Sirach 10:2, "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." The other reason is because clerics are entrusted with the ministry of the New Law, wherein no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed: wherefore they should abstain from such things in order that they may be fitting ministers of the New Testament.
-Id., art. 4.

[Anonymous No.15255181]

>>15248055
>The only interpretation of the Bible that matters is the Church's interpretation of it.

This isn't strictly true. The Church's interpretation on matters of faith and morals, and even on things within the penumbra of faith and morals, so to speak, warrants the obedience of faith.

But there are many profound interpretations of scripture that are not, strictly speaking, the interpretation of the Church. I mean the writings of great and good theologians, like Newman and Caussade, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.15255191]

>>15255131
They are allowed to hire administrative judges and non clerical executioners. This is why the Holy See had a death penalty until the 1930s, although it was never or seldom used.

[Anonymous No.15255196]

>>15254154
Thanks episcoPal.

[Anonymous No.15255356]

>>15248107
>Separation of Church and State has been disastrous.

Separation of Church and state is clearly implied by the words of Christ -- Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God's.

The Church itself drove its separation from the state during the 12th and 13th centuries, in what has been called the Papal Revolution or the Investiture Controversy, "which liberated the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church from control by emperors, kings, and feudal lords, and resulted in the creation of the first modern Western legal system." See Harold Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition

>https://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition-dp-0674517768/dp/0674517768

Which is not to say that there should be a "wall of separation" as Jefferson posited (in private correspondence).

Along these lines, for example, according to Berman:
>Christianity supported the German legal institutions of ordeal and compurgation by reinforcing the Germanic concept of divine immanence that underlay them. It was presupposed both by Germanic religion and the Christianity which initially replaced it that supernatural powers were immanent within the natural sphere...It was only when the church shifted its emphasis to a transcendent God, who inspires man to imitate him, that ordeals, oath helpers, duels, and trial by champions gave way to a `rational' procedure for finding truth by questioning witnesses.
(p. 64)

It's a complex subject. Some further, highly detailed, interesting thoughts here:
>http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2016/06/catholic-church-and-christian-state-pt-1.html

[Anonymous No.15255449]

>>15252253
>but it's just not true

Read Newman's Development of Doctrine.

There is no question but that, historically, there is has been a development of **doctrine** -- that is to say, the "deposit of faith" remains unchanged, but our understanding of it has developed.

And indeed, this development is clearly the will of God, which is why He invested teaching authority in the Church.

Thus, to refute heretics respecting some aspect of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the Church has had to penetrate more deeply into the deposit of faith, to soundly address and refute the heresy. Thus doctrine - the Church's understanding of the unchanging deposit of faith - develops, and is clarified, over time. We see this indeed in the Council of Jerusalem, chap. 15 in the Book of Acts -- substantive disputed matters had to be resolved. And thus doctrine developed, from lack of clarity before the resolution, to clarity following it.

[Anonymous No.15255528]

>>15246781

>truth of Christianity

Begin with the Documentary Hypothesis regarding the Old Testament

[Anonymous No.15255540]

>>15253014
>there's an unnecessary and frankly pagan amount of paraphernalia which is logical when you realise that the Pope and the Vatican are inventions by Rome.

Catholics have been refuting such claims for centuries.

Pic related illustrates a good recent example of such book, and an older but equally good or better book written at the time of the Reformation.

[Anonymous No.15256294]

>>15254214
Way to fail to actually read the reply. Natural Law can be (supposedly) reasoned towards even by a pagan who has never even heard of the Old Testament, or even Jews altogether. Good try and using antisemitism to try and justify your shitty views anyway, fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.15256333]

>>15254949
>literally
>literally
Like totally, dude. Anyway, the death penalty is unchristian and any form of "justice" that isn't redemptive (and killing someone isn't redemptive) is unchristian as well.
So, I repeat again, if you haven't actually read any affirming theology, or more importantly even any theology against the absolutely fucking moronic "Let's kill people!" views, get off of 4chan and ask your priest for some recommendations. Tell him about your views, see how well that goes.

[Anonymous No.15256444]

>>15256333
>Anyway, the death penalty is unchristian and any form of "justice" that isn't redemptive (and killing someone isn't redemptive) is unchristian as well.
Bald assertion isn't an argument. Give me something else. For instance, why would the Bible say something that wasn't actually true? Could Christianity be a bunch of horseshit????

[Anonymous No.15256470]

>>15255196
I aim to please, especially with the shitty representation RCs (and to a lesser degree, the Easterners) get on here and other places, plus how badly they're talked about.
Sure, we disagree on some sexual mores, but at the end of the day it's not like I'm a Baptist, some of my best friends (and biggest religious influences) are Catholics and Orthodox

[Anonymous No.15256490]

>>15255449
You're just repeating without refuting. I never said the development of doctrine didn't exist. I said changing the church's stance on the death penalty in this way does not meet that threshold for what constitutes development. Instead it is simple contradiction. The idea of development does not give carte blanche for the church to say whatever it wants.

The pope could say that the death penalty should not be used if possible today. That is a prudential earthly judgement. It is a dumb one, but he could. What he CANNOT DO is say that the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel. That is a direct contradiction to a previously infallible defined doctrine and places him in irrefutable error.

[Anonymous No.15256544]

>>15256444
>Give me something else
Ultimately, the existence of something good is better than the non-existence of something, because there is more good. A punishment with the purpose of making something bad become something good (ie, redemptive/restorative punishment) is better than a punishment that stops the existence (or kicks it down the curb to be God's problem, such as the death penalty). If one appeals to Old Testament Laws then sure, maybe a case for the death penalty could be made, but we're not Jews, the Law is merely an archetype and a bad one at that. Given the abuse that the early Christians suffered, and the fact that they merely took it in stride and didn't bear hate only further demonstrates that violence/the death penalty aren't a good method for punishment. Further, in Christianity, we don't aim for "good enough" or do bad things for good reasons--we're not utilitarians and we're told not to be as such.
>Why would the Bible say something that wasn't actually true?
Never said that it wouldn't be true, but sometimes reading things literally is bad for you. Don't be a fundie literalist, you'll fail your science classes and never make it out of high school.
>Could Christianity be a bunch of horseshit?
No.

[Anonymous No.15256625]

>>15256544
Isn't it weird how Jesus nor early Christians ever questioned the death penalty despite being subjected to it? Maybe Jesus forgot to mention it?

[Anonymous No.15256672]

>>15256625
Jesus didn't question literally every rule. In fact, dying was a pivotal detail for Him. That Jesus suffered at all is inherently unjust, so I wouldn't use that example. As for other early Christians, Tertullian and Justin Martyr were opposed to it for some big name examples, and it was a disagreed-upon thing as it is now. As for the "regular" early Christians, they didn't live in a Christian government. We now have the ability to make moral changes in our government, hence we should be making changes to get rid of the death penalty.

[Anonymous No.15256698]

>>15256625
>>15256672
Further, that they live is a gift from God. They have the right to do what they want and they can suffer consequences and should ultimately be helped, but it's not our place to judge that they shouldn't continue to receive the gift of life.
"The person who hasn't spared the life of a sinner has begrudged him the opportunity for remission of sins and deprived him of all hope. He, will in fact be subject in equal measure to divine justice." That is to say, it's a sin to execute someone because you're removing the possibility of them changing and repenting. If they've repented, they are thus innocent.

[Anonymous No.15256700]

>>15256672
We don't "live in" a Christian government now you dunce? In fact, when we DID, the death penalty was used regularly. That includes Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic. But I guess you know more than all those people living for all those centuries in all those countries what it means to be a REAL Christian

[Anonymous No.15256726]

>>15256700
Nice, name-calling because you can't respond. That Christianity has often been twisted and used by and for politics is no surprise, and even now there's people arguing that executing people is the right thing to do. Hell, twisting the Faith is what you basically accuse(d) me of doing, so it shouldn't come as an intellectual surprise. But I'm sure that a blind appeal to numbers or age is a good rhetorical method.

[Anonymous No.15256733]

>>15256698
>Further, that they live is a gift from God. They have the right to do what they want and they can suffer consequences and should ultimately be helped, but it's not our place to judge that they shouldn't continue to receive the gift of life.
This is all bullshit and not in line woth Catholic teaching at all. Error has no rights, is a Catholic teaching. They also teach that it IS the States place to judge and take life. So you're making an argument that works for you but has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, the perennial teaching of the Church. I've already provided numerous infallible sources that attest to my position here. I won't respond to any more tripe like this.

[Anonymous No.15256768]

>>15256733
Imagine getting this assblasted because you find out "the teaching of God's true church!" is against the teaching of the Fathers and early Christians. Seethe harder, all you've done is blindly say THE CHURCH HOLY ROME since the start of this, especially when this was all originally about something the Pope did. Are you a sede or are you somehow even more retarded?

[Anonymous No.15256825]

>>15256768
I'm not a Catholic. I used to be but left because of this stuff, so I don't care about your little tirade. My point in all of this was that the Church, by it's own rule set, is not the true church. The death penalty is approved by the Church infallibly and that can never change. Francis doing so is not legitimate. But it's one of a million instances just like it.

By the way, very unChristian response. It's a very unflattering look to act like you just did. I'll pray for you, especially if you are brainwashed enough to be a Catholic and fall for such disingenuous argumentation. You don't get to abrogate reason because the pope said so. You will be held accountable for that at judgement. He will ask you to rationally explain the contradictions and when you can't you will go to hell for believing a false church

[Anonymous No.15256844]

>>15256333
>the death penalty is unchristian and any form of "justice" that isn't redemptive
eternally burning in hell does not sound very redemptive to me

[Anonymous No.15256860]

>>15256825
I'm also not a Catholic. You were also incredibly unchristian in your responses, so a false appeal to piety is frankly just gross.

As for Catholics changing/infallibility/etc., that is a separate issue that I don't really care about and doesn't matter to me, since as mentioned, not a Catholic. Yes, there have been changes, and honestly Rome pretending not to change is a farce, but I don't care about that.

Ultimately, the point of this was that the capital punishment goes against the thought of the early Christians and that we should be opposed to it.

[Anonymous No.15256936]

>>15256844
Read "That All Shall be Saved" by Dr. David Bentley Hart, Christian universalism (not to be confused with perennialism or any really freaky shit) is an idea that was also present in St Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac, and a number of other Church Fathers. That's not to say Hell doesn't exist and that it's not the worst thing that could ever happen, but that it's not eternal.

[Anonymous No.15257382]

>>15256936
Universalism is bullshit heresy

[Anonymous No.15257464]

>>15257382
What an intellectual response, clearly /lit/ is a well-read board. Universalism was never condemned as a heresy, and I'm more inclined to believe an Orthodox theologian with a doctorate than some halfwit on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15257662]

>>15252473
>>15253530
>>15253749
quakers opposed slavery and weren't racist so /lit/ won't like them

[Anonymous No.15257770]

>>15256490
>That is a direct contradiction to a previously infallible defined doctrine and places him in irrefutable error.

I jumped in and responded quickly to your post without reading it carefully. You're right - I missed the gist of your point.

With that said, the Church's current position on capital punishment does indeed raise questions along the lines you note, i.e., whether the Francis teaching flatly contradicts prior Church teaching.

I query whether the current development cannot be characterized as "prudential." It is, for example, so argued here (with the argument turning on the meaning of the word "inadmissible"): https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/understanding-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty

I'm not entirely persuaded by that argument, I must admit. On the other hand, philosopher Edward Feser sees the matter as much more problematic: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/pope-francis-and-capital-punishment

And here:http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/09/fastiggi-on-revision-to-catechism.html, inter alia.

From my own perspective, as a Catholic, I prudently, vel non, reserve judgment. Apologies for my earlier mistaken reply to your point.

[Anonymous No.15257865]

WIld guess:
Bill Gates -- anitchrist
Pope Francis -- false prophet

[Anonymous No.15258720]

>>15257770
I tend to agree with Feser. Catholic Answers is fine for what it is, but I believe they ultimately do a disservice to people by refusing to acknowledge any contradiction at all in church history and gleefully twist everything around as hard as possible to make that appear true. Bishop Athanasius Schneider talks about this mentality in his new book and it was very helpful to me in making peace with a church that isn't as consistent as it claims.

However, I no longer consider myself Catholic because I find all these contradictions too troubling. It's just too much and the political nature of the Church that has followed this makes so many people so mean spirited about these differences.

It's ironic too, because I am fairly liberal or at least moderate so I should like a liberal Catholic church. But since the making of a liberal Catholic church involves a ship of theseus like scenario that breaks the church's own rules, I feel nothing but discomfort towards such a church.

[Anonymous No.15258885]

>>15258720
*braps thoughtfully at you*
Being a Catholic means following what the pope says 100 percent and anything less means you WILL go to hell. Period.

[Anonymous No.15258949]

I've come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, the only valid authority in Christendom.

And yet I cannot submit to their authority on account of all the silly things they profess.

I cannot abide their buffoonery.

[Anonymous No.15258958]

>>15258949
Do what I'm doing. Become a seminarian and eventually a priest and try to become a cardinal or pope where you can reverse the damage done one day.

[Anonymous No.15258980]

>>15258958
That's more of a commitment than I am willing to make, but I wish you well.

[Anonymous No.15258985]

>>15258980
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15259127]

>>15258949
"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace," (Galatians 5:4).

Notice how Paul the apostle talks about being "severed from Christ" and falling from grace. He equates this problem with the issue of seeking to be justified by law. Justification is a legal declaration of righteousness before God, and this is what we obtain in salvation. We obtain it by faith, not by faith and works. Paul is warning the Galatians that they who are seeking to be made right before God by what they do, "by law," are severed from Christ, fallen from grace.

Because of the Roman Catholic church's teaching on salvation by works, which is rejected by Scripture with a warning, Roman Catholicism must be considered a false religion since it clearly contradicts Scripture.

[Anonymous No.15259274]

>>15246781
Not catholic, but the "fruits" quote talks about determining whether specific people are doing good things. If some tranny is telling you that everything is fine for him and then a couple of days later he hangs himself, you know that he was doing something wrong (perhaps it was his tranny thing). Your pic just proves that something is wrong with pope francis, not the church at large.

As a sidenote, any church with power always had bad stuff going on. Any place with actual real world power has whack shit going on. And that's true of any religion, really. Religion is always a personal journey, and a mass movement towards a very difficult personal achievement, well you can imagine how that will go.