TradCath here

[Anonymous No.15819369]

Interested in some literature about converting to a Reformed church that exemplifies classical evangelic orthodoxy. Theres no point in staying trad when the entire hierarchy, mainstream Catholics, and Catholic Answers calling for your blood and declaring you a schismatic 24/7.

I read some Calvin and it turns out that his rationalist, anti pagan theology is literally airtight. My body is ready.

[Anonymous No.15819385]

Christianity and Liberalism by Machen is the defining text. A good primer, although it's subject matter is somewhat esoteric for a newcomer, is Historic Christianty and The Federal Vision. In it, it explains how the Catholic Church misinterpreted Augustine.

[Anonymous No.15819428]

>>15819369
You are not trad. You are Catholic. If people are calling you schismatic you are being too edgy. Schism is lack of charity. Stop identifying as trad. Remain Catholic and stead fast to the doctrines held for thousands of years, even in these hard times.
>le there’s no point in X if everyone doesn’t like it
Mob rule killed Christ

[Anonymous No.15819500]

>>15819369
Read Machen like anon said.

Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms or the Three Forms of Unity, I suggest the WCF since it is more developed. You should get a volume that has their Scripture proofs printed alongside them so as you read you can see that the doctrines are indeed drawn from the whole of Scripture and thoroughly biblical.

If you've already read Calvin's Institutes then great. If you want another systematic theology that is also devotional read Thomas Watson's Body of Practical Divinity.

[Anonymous No.15819516]

>>15819428
Uh oh Catholic Answers shill is MAD. You all constantly berate trads in exactly this way by telling them what they can and can't do like you have some fucking authority. Your ultramontanism is driving people away, but ultimately it's a far deeper problem.

You couldn't just let trads be trads. You have to bully them into swallowing the modernist pozz pill too.

[Anonymous No.15819521]

>>15819369
>TradCath here

[Anonymous No.15819525]

>>15819369
read this to find out what went wrong

[Anonymous No.15819539]

Admit it, the thread about classical schools got your gears turning, didn't it OP. The thought that you can have your perfect trad life without neocon Catholics champing at the bit for your submission. The thought that you can exercise judgement and critical thinking to adhere to orthodoxy rather than deal with the pope telling you to join BLM.

The thought that you can be around young, huge families and not be some weird outcast version of a religion that was rightfully yours. Yes this can all be yours. Come join us, and in a couple years your daughter will be sitting by the fire, studying Latin to read the original Augustine, while you teach your son about the Westminster.

[Anonymous No.15819544]

>>15819521
Hey look a Catholic Answers meme designed to further bully trads and deflect hatred into them when really neocons are the papal worshipers screaming heretic

[Anonymous No.15819599]

>>15819369
I'm in a similar boat. I'm increasingly finding Catholicism an incoherent mess of mutually conflicting traditions and theologies that, because of its totalising hermeneutic, it has tried to synthesise into a single, all-encompassing doctrine--and the only way to sustain this belief is to engage in a mystical relationship not with God but the earthly Church. I think this is why Catholic mysticism is often so tortured compared to Orthodox and Protestant mysticism, because its logical conclusion is immolating oneself needlessly for the collective of believers. I'm also increasingly wondering whether Catholicism itself is the active cause in the East and Protestant splits, since it is its most needless claims that are the most controversial. Is it really worth having the Pope when it splits Christendom in three? Is it really worth having illogical nonsense that implies Mary is more merciful than God if it splits us with our Protestant (and sometimes Orthodox) brethren? I'm considering embracing Anglo-Catholicism, since I still believe in most of apostolic teaching. But I believe there needs to be some level of latitude, which Catholicism denies. I'd be open to Orthodoxy, but I am so firmly a Western Christian that converting to Orthodoxy would be difficult. Most Orthodox Christians in my country are Greek migrants, and I find Greek liturgical music annoying, like I'm watching Aladdin, and the ROCOR practices re-baptism, which I find offensive.

[Anonymous No.15819607]

>>15819599
Also OP, you might appreciate this: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/10/catholicism-made-me-protestant

[Anonymous No.15819613]

>>15819544
>neocons are the papal worshipers
There’s nothing new about papal worship. That’s literally what Catholics have been like since day 1 when they exalted their high priest above God and his word.

[Anonymous No.15819668]

>>15819369
Reformed church is retarded. Double predestination makes a mockery of Christianity. Pic related is the power of Calvinism

[Anonymous No.15819681]

>>15819668
Reformed isn't just present in Presbyterian churches. Many Anglicans and Baptists are reformed in ways too. Also anyone who reads about election and the rationale for it wouldn't speak like this. It is very clear and sensible. It offends on first blush but it's obviously true when you read the NT.

[Anonymous No.15819688]

>>15819668
>never heard of arminianism

[Anonymous No.15819703]

>>15819599
Apostolic succession is based on an overall misconception of sacramental efficacy.

[Anonymous No.15819715]

>>15819703
elaborate?

[Anonymous No.15819876]

>>15819715
Sure. There are a lot of reasons to not believe in apostolic succession, but this one is fundamental, and to describe the problem, I'm going to talk about baptism, as all the sacraments suffer from the same misconception. This is also the biggest stumbling block for catholics: apostolic succession and transubstantiation. So let's talk about baptism as the prototype and knock all the blocks down at once.

Catholics misunderstand baptism because of Aquinas most recently. He insisted on tying grace to baptism itself. Water infuses the promises of baptism. Tertullian actually attributed this belief in "magical efficacy" to pagan superstitious intrusion into the church. But it started with Pelagius. Catholicism itself is "semi-Pelagian". He devised a scheme of baptism infusing grace because he started with the notion of infant baptism. Catholics do this as well. But this isn't scriptural. Baptism is taught in the NT as adult baptism, and as Baptists will tell you, there is no instance of infant baptism in the bible. This doesn't mean infants can't be baptized, but it does mean that the prototype for baptism is the adult form. In this case, faith and repentance precede baptism. Per Augustine, these two things aren't possible without the infusion of efficacious grace. Therefore, baptism cannot be what infuses grace. Baptism is the "sign and seal" of grace already present. To suggest otherwise means every baptism is a hypocritical one. The NT always frames baptism this way as well: Matthew 3:2, 4:17, John 4:1, Acts 2:39: "Repent and each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of sins." Repentance comes first. Repentance is impossible without faith. Faith comes from the infusion of grace Catholics insist happens at the moment of baptism.

The truth is the sacraments were never meant to be magical grace-infusers. There is never an association with grace and a sacrament in the entire NT. Ever. Grace comes from the Holy Spirit (I baptize you not with water, but with the Spirit). All the sacraments are signs and seals which are efficacious by faith already present. They can do nothing by themselves. I know Prods shriek about Catholic paganism, but again, it is Tertullian making that claim here. Other pagan religions already taught that baptism forgives sins. Aquinas than codified it with his scholastic philosophy. Trent made it permanent. But this was not the traditional teaching.

It sprung from honest confusion: The bible talks about adult baptism, but in practice most baptisms are infants. This led to the confusion. The important thing is to remember: Adult baptism is the PROTOTYPE of baptism that teaches how the sacrament works. And in that case, grace is present prior to the sacrament. In fact, how would one desire to be baptized without the grace to do so in the first place? Even in Catholic terms, any appeal to intellect or free will is abject Pelagianism.

[Anonymous No.15819904]

>>15819876
To be quite honest, I think you misunderstand the Catholic position. That adult baptism is the prototype of baptism is Catholic doctrine. I know it because a Catholic priest told me. And I don't think that baptism infusing grace excludes the existence of grace and repentence before hand. Catholics have multiple kinds of grace, active grace, infused grace, sanctifying grace, etc. An unbaptised person can still have active grace in their lives but not the grace of baptism, which stamps them as a child rather than a creature of God. Also note that the Catholic doctrine does not limit baptism to sacramental baptism.

[Anonymous No.15819906]

>>15819599
The important point you make is Catholicism is incoherent. And, but its rules, it cannot be. Even one infallible proclamation in conflict and the Holy Spirit is proven to not protect the magisterium. But the thing is, this has happened countless times.

And even disregarding that, what, should Catholics really believe stuff like, "Well the true teaching of the church is secure in the infallible dogmas and doctrine.. the fact that the CCC directly contradicts many of these things is ok because "technically" the CCC is not infallible so there is no contradiction."

As if the document taught to all Catholics by the hierarchy/magisterium itself as the single reference point for the rule of faith, and that all Catholics abide by, isn't technically the real teachings? So we're fine with a huge legalistic technicality allowing the church to teach heresy indefinitely?

[Anonymous No.15819955]

>>15819904
I understand the different types of grace and the Catholic position fully. I promise you I'm not misrepresenting it. I am a former Catholic. Here is what Trent says:

>CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

The other types of grace are irrelevant here because Trent says that the relevant grace, that is, saving efficacious grace, are infused in baptism and do not come before it. I understand the other components you are describing but ultimately, if you want to go by what the NT actually states, none of that has anything to do with baptism. Nowhere does the NT say that it makes you a child rather than a creature of God. Baptism is the thing that takes place once you have repented and proclaimed your faith in Christ. Catholics aren't the only ones with different types of grace, but to say that some other type of grace leads one to baptism at which point the person is infused with efficacious grace is untenable: in that case, said grace WOULD be efficacious grace.

[Anonymous No.15819963]

>>15819955
>at which point the person is infused with efficacious grace is untenable: in that case, said grace WOULD be efficacious grace.
which, btw would make one anathema according to trent

[Anonymous No.15820027]

>>15819369
>leaving the Body of christ because some people don't agree with you

If you think this is acceptable then you were never Catholic, just a larper

[Anonymous No.15820040]

>>15820027
Found a pic of you. Thanks for doing your part to drive people out of your heretical religion to the true Reformed faith. Fucking CA shills I swear.

[Anonymous No.15820048]

>>15819904
Also, incidentally, I forgot to mentioned that Reformed theology takes its terms about the sacraments directly from the Bible. Sign and seal is purely Scriptural in addition to the other stuff I said:

“He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well” (v. 11).

- Romans 4:11–12

[Anonymous No.15820065]

>>15819876
i don't understand why protestants can't jive that you need to make the outward motions of faith in addition to the fact of faith itself. the sacraments pick up the slack when your faith is lacking and your faith picks up the slack when the sacraments are lacking. trying to rely strictly on one makes the whole edifice fall over. the collapse of both mainline catholic and protestant congregations in lieu of solemn ritual should be absolute proof of how wrong this position is

[Anonymous No.15820096]

>>15820065
First, you're wrong about the collapse part. Evangelical confessional churches are alive and well and don't subscribe to magical efficacy. These are growing churches. Sacraments simply can't pick up slack because they are not magical. They are never explained to be at any point in the Bible, including when Christ institutes them. The Last Supper and Baptism were both pagan rituals in various cults where magical efficacy was the key. Christ refuted that by making them signs and seals of the work of the Holy Spirit. Now, they do function in some way that you describe: they are visible, outward signs. And they DO bestow grace. The Last Supper in Presbyterian theology does bestow grace and you do receive Christ's body. But this is done through faith, not magical transubstantiation. Rather, Christ's body is present because you believe him to be, and the Spirit gives you this grace.

Also saying that the Spirit is not enough and that we need to rely on something else is basically a sin against him.

[Anonymous No.15820101]

>>15820065
>you need to make the outward motions of faith in addition to the fact of faith itself
you mean like a sign and seal?

[Anonymous No.15820115]

>>15820096
How do you explain the fact that this apparent Biblical teaching was forgotten by virtually all of Christianity until the Reformed movement?

[Anonymous No.15820136]

>>15820115
It wasn't forgotten at all? These issues were widely debated throughout Christendom, including specifically within the Catholic Church for centuries. These were not defined dogmas at that time. It was not until Trent that this was the case; obviously this was why Trent took place. The Reformers merely took the other side and refused to capitulate to Rome. Not because they were mean nasty people, but because they would not submit to the Pope or a Council over the plain words of the Bible. This is the ultimate meaning of sola scriptura. It's fine to have a bishop or call a council, but to say that their word overrides what the Bible clearly states is absurd.

Earlier I referenced Tertullian as a clear example of a church father who virulently denied the magical efficacy of the sacraments. Augustine felt the same way. There is a clear line of thought from the early church to the reformers on this point. And again, it was not a Catholic dogma until Trent.

[Anonymous No.15820147]

>>15820136
Could you give me the texts by Tertullian, Augustine, and any other relevant Church Fathers on this point? I'm very curious. I was under the impression that the efficacy of sacraments was a universal teaching. Also, just looking at what wikipedia has to say, it says that Catholicism does teach, as the Reformed do, that the efficacy of sacraments depends on the faith of the recipient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato#In_the_Catholic_Church

[Anonymous No.15820184]

>>15820147
I quoted Trent earlier where sacramental efficacy means that the sacrament itself infuses grace, so that addresses that point. As for Tertullian, I'm quoting from an anthology of his writings, so you can maybe google the quote but it reads:

>Chapter V.—Use Made of Water by the Heathen. Type of the Angel at the Pool of Bethsaida.8568

“Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.” (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed.8569 For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate8570 country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God?

[Anonymous No.15820296]

>>15820147
>>15820184
I tried finding the direct quote from Augustine, but it's late. Here is a quote from a non-reformed book. Cyprian was the first to theorize about sacramental efficacy, but Augustine did not take that tack:

Augustine was the first Christian theologian to give serious thought to the nature of the sacraments. Without his work, the medieval
teaching regarding the sacraments would have been entirely incoherent. Like his predecessors, Augustine's sacramental theology is characterized by a certain flexibility that was only exhibited during the era of
Scholasticism. As a result, he was willing to ascribe the term "sacrament" to a variety of rites and practices.'6 In a more specific way,
however, he applied the term to the Eucharist, to baptism, and to ordination." Augustine's contribution is twofold. First, he provided a clear definition of the sacraments, which reads: "[S]ymbolical actions . . . pertaining to divine things, are called sacrament. A sacrament. . . is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice."' In order to function as sacraments, however, these "signs" must bear some relation to that which is signified (e.g., wine resembles blood). Second, Augustine
established a clear distinction between the use of the sacraments and their efficacy

[Anonymous No.15820693]

>>15820040
Sounds like I touched a nerve there

[Anonymous No.15820715]

>>15820296
If the communion only has an object reality if the receiver has true faith, how is it that it can be received unworthily cf. 1 Cor? Doesn't this imply an objective reality apart from faith?

[Anonymous No.15822051]

>>15820715
I believe that has more to do with a person of faith not expressing contrition for his sins

[Anonymous No.15822100]

do n*w worlders really change their beliefs like they're buying socks?

[Anonymous No.15822214]

>>15822100
>never change your mind about anything
>never listen to other opinions
>stay stubborn and obstinate despite everything
Guess how I know you're a cat lick

[Anonymous No.15822240]

>>15819369
he believes in sky fairy lmao

[Anonymous No.15822300]

>>15822240
Wow this is based do you have a blog on pol I can subscribe to???

[Anonymous No.15822394]

>orthodoxy was a meme until it turned out it was all lies and they're modernist retards
>TradCath was popular until other Catholics bullied them out of the faith with purity tests and accusation of schism
>Finally all true searchers will find the truth of Reformed faith.

Great! Also, neo reformed has been a thing for a while. It's becoming increasingly popular among people who are already evangelicals for its theological rigor and traditionalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Calvinism

[Anonymous No.15822436]

>>15819599
Fuck you traitor. You were already a protestant by being trad anyway, exercising private judgment about the mass and how the church should act. You don't get to decide the church is wahhh too liberal. The pope does. So fuck off and kys prottie filth

[Anonymous No.15822468]

>>15819516
I didn’t say that at all. “Trad” is a divide and conquer strategy. I NEVER said capitulate to modernism. Way to twist my words bud

[Anonymous No.15822533]

>>15822468
>“Trad” is a divide and conquer strategy.
That's weird since the pope himself criticizes and berates trads.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7816793/Pope-Francis-warns-rigid-Catholics-creating-minefield-hatred-Christmas-greeting.html

Pope Francis warns Christianity is becoming 'increasingly irrelevant' and targets 'rigid' conservative Catholics for creating a 'minefield' of hatred in Christmas address
Pope Francis issued the stark warning to staff while speaking today in the Sala Clementina, Vatican City
Leader of the Roman Catholic church urged his followers to embrace change and his attempts at reform
Papacy has been rocked by historical sex abuse claims and financial scandals this year

[Anonymous No.15822567]

9/10 trads are former protestant Americans who converted

[Anonymous No.15822608]

>>15822567
No they aren't. They are neo Catholics who feel betrayed. You have no source for that dumb claim

[Anonymous No.15824091]

>>15819369
>Theres no point in staying trad when the entire hierarchy, mainstream Catholics, and Catholic Answers calling for your blood and declaring you a schismatic 24/7.
>He would eat the bacon for an easy life
No way you're trad.

[Anonymous No.15824207]

>traditional catholic
>defies tradition by leaving the church

Just stay in the church. The church is not a democracy. If you want to influence things you could become a priest.

But is this a subtle troll thread? How can you be against the church and still be traditional?

[Anonymous No.15824224]

>>15819369
Stay true to doctrine, the Church is either true or it's not. Never ever convert just because you "feel like it."

[Anonymous No.15824462]

>>15819369
Honestly, most people become Christian for one of two reasons.

1. They want a support group to help them, emotionally or fiscally or what ever.

2. They want a closed dogmatic system, which they feel they can learn to understand and which gives them intellectual and again emotional security.

Thats it, no other reason to be a Christian.

The moment you are an independent person or feel no need for closed dogmatics, you wont become a Christian.

[Anonymous No.15824827]

>>15824207
>p-people never leave Catholicism this can t be true!
Lmao read the stats nigger, Catholicism is bleeding members worse than any other religion

[Anonymous No.15824954]

>>15820136
sola scriptura is just idolatry by another name

[Anonymous No.15824990]

>>15824954
That's retarded. The bible is the Word. It cannot be idolatry you fucking idiot. This is the worst of the Catholic Answers talking points. So nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.15825000]

>>15819369
>Theres no point in staying trad when the entire hierarchy, mainstream Catholics, and Catholic Answers calling for your blood and declaring you a schismatic 24/7.

You know Anon you could just switch from an SSPX parish to an FSSP parish. Rome has no problem with the FSSP.

[Anonymous No.15825121]

>>15822436
>Fuck you traitor.
>So fuck off and kys prottie filth

very Christian of you bro.

>But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the
judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[Anonymous No.15825136]

>>15822394
These people will just discard your faith just as easily they did with orthodoxy and tradcatholicism before.
From there, probably they, with their herd mentality, will just go irreligious, go to the next cool thing and embrace the absurdity that is progressive politics.

[Anonymous No.15825252]

>>15825000
Mainstream Catholics denigrate FSSP too. That's literally who the pope was chastising in the quote i provided. It is not true at all that fssp is accepted just because they aren't technically schismatic. Read Catholic Answers

[Anonymous No.15825263]

>>15825136
But both Catholicism and orthodoxy are worth leaving because they cuck to modernism and then force you to obey. This cannot happen by definition with reformed

[Anonymous No.15825300]

>>15824827
It's growing the fastest in Asia and Africa. Plus, the Truth isn't a popularity contest, like any truth in the world isn't.

>>15825263
>But both Catholicism and orthodoxy are worth leaving because they cuck to modernism and then force you to obey.
You do realize there are multiple Protestant denominations with female priests,gay "marriage", allow for contraception and abortion along with the other hallmarks of modernism right? In fact, Protestants were some of the first to jump on the modernism bandwagon with the permitting of contraception.

>>15824990
Sola Scriptura isn't even scriptural in the first place. Name where the Bible says the Bible is the only source of authority and we should ignore other avenues of Sacred Tradition.

[Anonymous No.15825302]

>>15825000
Go ask your local diocesan priest if the FSSP can come to town and watch how fast he basically exiles you. They only use fssp in cases where sspx has already taken hold. They don't want either and hate tradition period. Seriously, read opinions about fssp. You are despises by the Church, by the cardinals, by your bishop, by the pope himself, and by other Catholics. There is no brotherhood amongst various flavors of Catholic lol

[Anonymous No.15825336]

>>15822533
He's saying Catholics shouldn't act like it's still the Counter-Reformation or the first world is even broadly Christian anymore when it's clearly not and be able to adapt the Eternal Message of Christ to the changing times. Not by changing the actual message (which is impossible anyways), but using different methods. It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the article.

[Anonymous No.15825346]

>>15825300
I said they would never be forced to be modernist. You aren't compelled to stay in some church for magical salvation. If a church strays, you leave. This is how there are so many rigidly reformed churches. And they all get along and keep an eye on each other. So no I don't care about some mainline.

I don't need to prove the bible is infallible although there are plenty of scriptural proofs for it. What I need to prove is that the bible does not authorize the Catholic church corporation to be the sole dispenser of truth and salvation, and that is perfectly clear.

The Catholic church has infallibly declared scripture to be inerrant and infallible, so you are anathematizing yourself if you disagree.

To be saved the bible states you must believe in Christ. Period. No mention of the Catholic church. Is the bible in error on this point or not?

[Anonymous No.15825444]

>>15825346
>I don't need to prove the bible is infallible although there are plenty of scriptural proofs for it.
Can you give me at least one source instead of just dodging the question? Also the first canonized Bible was made by the Catholic Church, which the Protestant Reformers decided to violate by removing 7 books for theological and dumb translation reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

>The Catholic church has infallibly declared scripture to be inerrant and infallible, so you are anathematizing yourself if you disagree.
I never said it wasn't. I'm disagreeing with it being the ONLY source of Christian truth which is what you would say seeing that you believe in Sola Scriptura, a belief that can't even be found within the Bible.

>To be saved the bible states you must believe in Christ. Period. No mention of the Catholic church.
It literally is in all of the Gospel's Passion scenes, St. Paul's writings, the writings of the Early Church and those of the Church Fathers along with a lot of the opponents of the Church. Just because they didn't call the Church the Catholic Church doesn't mean it didn't exist and didn't function in the world.

[Anonymous No.15825490]

>>15825444
>It literally is in all of the Gospel's Passion scenes, St. Paul's writings
Source?

Also I don't need to prove the infallibility of scripture to you. You just stated you believe it and if you don't you are anathema. So I don't need to do that. Sorry. There's no point defending something you need to believe.

[Anonymous No.15825507]

>>15825444
The belief can be found in Jesus himself. He is the one who constantly appeals to the Scripture to justify himself, his ministry, and his teachings. That's literally what he constantly does. The epistle writers do as well. All of their appeals come down to quoting scripture. Have you even read the bible?

[Anonymous No.15825614]

>>15825490
>>15825507

>Also I don't need to prove the infallibility of scripture to you. You just stated you believe it and if you don't you are anathema.
You need to prove the Bible is the only source of Christian dogma, which itself is not in the Bible. It cannot be that hard to find the source for that. There comes a point where it becomes necessary to rationally show why your faith is true rather than just accepting it at face value. I can't accept Sola Sriptura because literally nowhere does it appear in Church Teaching, in Tradition, in the writings of the Doctors of the Church or even the Bible.

Also, St. Paul talks about Purgatory (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), Revelations about the Communion of Saints ( Revelation 5:8) and the Passion scene where Jesus bleeds water and blood prefigure the Eucharist along with the scene where he is drinking wine from the sponge.

[Anonymous No.15825645]

>>15825614
>Also, St. Paul talks about Purgatory (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), Revelations about the Communion of Saints ( Revelation 5:8) and the Passion scene where Jesus bleeds water and blood prefigure the Eucharist along with the scene where he is drinking wine from the sponge.
None of this proves the Catholic church is the one vehicle for salvation. Not even close. Also you're missing the point. I just said that the Scripture are the source of authority because Jesus and the apostles quote them and treat them as such. Now. Find me one quote that shows another authoritative source. That's the point. Whatever shit you just raved about certainly doesn't cut it.

Moreover, the Scripture, which is now agreed is authoritative based on what I just said, states that salvation comes from faith, and it make a no mention of anything else.

[Anonymous No.15825732]

> I just said that the Scripture are the source of authority because Jesus and the apostles quote them and treat them as such.
They also point to Traditions as well and keep them very much alive.It's why the Didache (written by second generation Christians and effectively the first Catechism) has a lot of Jewish customs that are handed down in written in it, very few of which are based on the actual writings of the Bible. Again, the Bible is a source of authority not THE source of Apostolic authority. Not really that hard to understand if you weren't to twist what I am saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

[Anonymous No.15825785]

>>15825732
>They also point to Traditions as well and keep them very much alive.
Where does it say this in the Bible? Keeping something alive doesn't mean it's an authority or infallible either.

[Anonymous No.15825797]

What a mess of a religion

[Anonymous No.15825802]

>>15825785
I literally gave you an example with the Didache and even posted the Wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.15825849]

>>15825802
The Didache is not infallible/inerrant Scripture. Also, the Didache, if anything, proves the early church bore basically zero resemblance to Catholicism. It doesn't even affirm the true presence.

[Anonymous No.15825922]

>>15825849


It's a 2,300 word work. Of course it's not going to be filled with very intricate details. It doesn't even talk about proper baptism techniques and the like, yet most Protestant churches use the same methods that the Catholic Church uses. What I'm getting at is that it's talking about the traditions of the Early Church, a lot of which aren't even in the Bible. Yet they're valid because they ultimately come from the rites of the Old Covenant, which Jesus himself said he didn't come to overturn.

[Anonymous No.15826396]

>>15819369
What do I read to convince me calvinism is correct?

[Anonymous No.15826401]

>>15826396
Because to me the issue of the canon for example is very important and a lot of reformers dont provide a decent explanation for why some books arent divinely inspired

[Anonymous No.15826448]

>>15819369
> To Be a Christian
> The Articles of Faith in the Book of Common Prayer

Consider Anglicanism friend. Both Catholic and Reformed. Via Media.

[Anonymous No.15826525]

>>15826448
Anglicanism is even more "non-conservative" than Catholicism.
Modern day UK is one of the most progressive countries on Earth and can see a lot of that in the church who was supposed to be the religious guidance of the country.

[Anonymous No.15826651]

>>15819369
Friendly reminder that Calvin was a major contributor, in his theology, to the system that we know as capitalism.
The progressive politics and the such is directly promoted by this system, and every country that addicted to Calvin's theology became largely irreligious after the 19th century.
So why you sacrifice your coherence for a stupid meme just because you just didn't agree with some people in the Church?

[Anonymous No.15826811]

>>15826401
https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2012/05/14/lessons-on-the-apocrypha/

This Lutheran series is a great primer.

>>15826651
Actually the problem is Aquinas. His insistence on natural theology independent from scripture is what opened the floodgates to all atheist philosophy that followed. By the time Calvin came around it could not be put back in the bottle. But Protestants attempted to connect all theology and philosophy back to explicit scripture. Especially Calvin. The rest of that correlational posturing is silly. Even Ireland is becoming atheist now.

[Anonymous No.15826903]

>>15826396
>>15826401
https://faculty.wts.edu/posts/should-protestants-read-the-apocrypha/

Westminster Theological Seminary is always a great resource. Most orthodox seminary in the US. It was founded by Princeton faculty when the school became modernist. Princeton was previously the most orthodox defender of traditional reformed teaching in the world. Until about 1930 or so.

[Anonymous No.15826945]

>>15826811
>His insistence on natural theology independent from scripture is what opened the floodgates to all atheist philosophy that followed.
That's so retarded it actually pains me that someone could say this. William of Ockham and his acceptance of nominalism is the reason why we are here today. If you don't accept anything has a metaphysical reality past it's name, then it's kind of a given you will reject the Church and God at some point. Moderate realism and Platonism at no point would have lead to the Reformation and the modern secular world at all had we continued with it. It's also why some Protestants reject the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in it along with a whole host of other things.

[Anonymous No.15826985]

>>15825336
This literally happens all the fucking time with Francis. He isn't the absolute best Pope ever, I don't like some of the things he says and does, but nine times out of ten when he seems to say something concerning it's really just the media (which has a strong anti-Catholic bias) taking what he's said and twisting it entirely out of its original shape.

If anything, I actually think Francis has gotten slightly MORE trad as he's been Pope longer. Not in a big way, but more than he was back in 2015.

[Anonymous No.15826988]

>>15826945
That's a hot opinion. Doesn't refute a thing I said though. :(

[Anonymous No.15826993]

>>15826945
>>15826903
thank you. Anything about protestantism and its foundation in the esrly church? As well as why the Church became corrupted with false practices?

[Anonymous No.15827000]

>>15826985
What about when he let German bishops give communion to the divorced and remarried? Because that happened.

[Anonymous No.15827010]

>>15826993
I will post something later. I'm going out with the family for a drive and ice cream. Will check in later. Hopefully someone else will reply too.

[Anonymous No.15827031]

>>15827000
The Germans are really strongly flirting with schism and they probably need to be put down very aggressively. The trouble is that Germany, the country, has a thing called the "church tax", which every German actually pays (and a recent poll of Germans said that they have no issues with paying it), and which flows directly into the coffers of the Catholic Church in Germany. This means that, though Mass attendance in Germany is in the single digits percentage-wise, the German Church commands a huge amount of money, which gives it outsized influence for a national church, especially relative to the actual number of its faithful.

[Anonymous No.15827048]

>>15827031
But Francis said they were accurately responding to the right interpretation of Ameoris

[Anonymous No.15827055]

>>15826988
1) It's right
2) Protestantism is literally the result of William of Ockham's nominalism. It's why so many of they still technically have a lot of the same doctrines the Church had, but they were mollified significantly due to a general lack of concern for the actual metaphysical part when formulating their corresponding doctrines in the churches of the Reformers, like how marriage isn't a sacrament under Lutheranism, but sorta kinda is. Or how the Eucharist is about "remembering" the Last Supper when it was always about the consuming of the Real Presence of Christ and literally playing out the Last Supper all over again.

[Anonymous No.15827075]

>>15827055
It's right according to your Catholic propaganda. Anyone studying philosophy would learn otherwise. Aquinas and natural theology matter. You don't get to pretend they don't because another thinker existed at one point.

[Anonymous No.15827184]

>>15827075
>It's right according to your Catholic propaganda.
Except that's not true. Even Aquinas didn't value Aristotle's work to the point of disparaging the Truth of the Church. Faith supersedes Reason in the end (because just in epistemological terms, you have to have a basic sort of faith in order to believe the world is ordered enough to deduce truths from reason in the first place). It literally is just nominalism and the subtle denial of the metaphysical taking root and more of a focus on physical realities inside certain English universities (which is why Francis Bacon, who came up with the mechanistic view of the universe versus a more teleological one that Aquinas would hold, was educated by said universities) lead to the secular age we live in now. Maybe you could make a case for Averroes and his two-truths doctrine, but I doubt the person who held the Church in higher regard than Aristotle (whom he also respected) would be responsible for that. Just because you are ignorant of the history philosophy and the shift from a teleological view of the universe to a mechanistic one doesn't mean you get to turn it into a dumb anti-Catholic rant.

[Anonymous No.15827211]

If the Catholic Church started defrocking effeminates, burning to the stake corrupt/abuser clerics, stop cucking to civil governments, and being more self sufficient with a robust global monastery system, revival of ad orientum, trad architecture. Man, you know the Francis eco stuff, occasional South America anti-neocon stuff, minus the liberation theology, it’s starting to grow on me.
I’m fact, I’m starting to think all it takes is a good internal purge and the Church will start to teach this modern world a lesson and demonstrate its dominance. Perhaps the African church, the anti-effeminate spirit, the distrust of UN/globalism there.....yeah that might have something to do with the revival....

But alas, these hard times exist for a reason, inshallah. Before the Church rights itself it needs members who are TRULY faithful and loyal. Let all this scandal weed out the weak, let it weed every fake Catholic out of the church, let every non practicing “Catholic” leave in disgust. Only then, with the primest grain....only then will things start to get real. Come on, be discouraged all who want to leave the Ark of Salvation. This ship half sinks itself, let the fearful jump off. And by all means, please come aboard, all are welcome, when the bilge pumps operate, and the ship rights itself, full sails on the trade winds of divine grace, hauling ass from all the toxins of modernity into purer shores. Tincture contra Brave New World. Antarctic Monasteries launching rockets into the cosmos, alien evangelization. The next Aquinas. The next great Synthesizer of faith and reason. Science and religion are false dichotomies. There is only one epistemology: the search for truth through whatever means. The cure for materialist scientism. Eco-gothic, Catalan modernist architecture. Overpopulation is a myth, look at the stars in the sky. The only institution to oppose contraception and artificial wombs. Deep ocean submarine monasteries. Zygote= only cell ordered “coded” with intrinsic capacity to create a complete human organism. Zygote=Human in every way. Rescuing miscarriages. End of life beginning of life bastion of morality.

But now is a time to perfect your individual virtue. To do good works. Most certainly not the time to run from the church like a coward. To improve your prayer life. Get into the state of Grace. Demons exist look behind you. Pax

[Anonymous No.15827250]

>>15827184
*history of philosophy

[Anonymous No.15827287]

>>15819599
>I'm also increasingly wondering whether Catholicism itself is the active cause in the East and Protestant splits, since it is its most needless claims that are the most controversial. Is it really worth having the Pope when it splits Christendom in three?

No. Read some articles by James Likoudis to disabuse yourself of this mistaken perspective.

Eg, THE CHAIR OF PETER: The Church's Center of Unity by Divine Lawhttp://www.jameslikoudispage.com/Ecumenic/peterock.htm

More Likoudis articles here: http://www.jameslikoudispage.com/jlindex.htm

>I think this is why Catholic mysticism is often so tortured compared to Orthodox and Protestant mysticism, because its logical conclusion is immolating oneself needlessly for the collective of believers.

No. Where do you get the idea that Catholic mysticism is "tortured"?

> Is it really worth having illogical nonsense that implies Mary is more merciful than God if it splits us with our Protestant (and sometimes Orthodox) brethren?

Don't confuse the hyper-piety of some Catholics with actual teaching of the Church, a good summary and statement of which can be found in JPII's Redemptoris Mater encyclical, which is published in a nice paperback edition with an intro by Ratzinger:
https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Encyclical-Letter-Mother-Redeemer/dp/0898702194

> I'm considering embracing Anglo-Catholicism, since I still believe in most of apostolic teaching.

No. Bad idea. Read John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, and his Development of Christian Doctrine.

John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Read Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

[Anonymous No.15827302]

>>15827211
Hugo Boss designed vestments.....catacomb excavations.....City states....subsidiarity...40/50% virgin monk population vs “breeder” population with 8-10 children.... it’s all coming together.......uncucked Benedict option...

[Anonymous No.15827313]

>>15819876
>They can do nothing by themselves

You are completely, 100% wrong.

Refutation and correct answer, according to scripture here:
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Sacraments

[Anonymous No.15827336]

>>15819955
>Nowhere does the NT say that it makes you a child rather than a creature of God.

"Baptism now saves you." 1 Peter 3:21

To be "born again" or "born from above" is nothing more or less than to be baptized.

That's why the Church teaches that the sacraments, such as baptism, infuse grace: because that's what Christ taught in the NT.

[Anonymous No.15827618]

>>15826448
Is that any good? I know J.I. Packer wrote it so it must be.
Too bad the ACNA are mostly Anglo-Catholics. Feels bad.

[Anonymous No.15827878]

>>15819369

OP, I don't know if I can point you in the direction of any one church or denomination that's going to exemplify classical orthodoxy. Every institution is a mess. What you need to find are people are generally people who 1) really have the spirit of God working in their lives and (for your specific case, being an intellectual) 2) interested in the Christian tradition and learned in orthodox teachings. You'll find these people in all sorts of weird places if you go looking for them.

btw, for trads seeking an interesting perspective on protestant ecclesiology, I'd recommend the writings of the calvinist international and its associated authors. It was started by a catholic trained in thomistic thought who became reformed. Their ecclesiology is influenced by calvinism but avoids a lot of the nasty sectarianism that presbyterianism very easily gets sucked to, and instead seeks to emphasize the great degree of common ground found in the broader protestant tradition among reformers but also between them and the earlier schoolmen and church fathers. would highly recommend their work, it's been helpful for me.

https://calvinistinternational.com/an-introduction-to-the-calvinist-international/

also, I would recommend Richard Hooker. I'm not even anglican but I think his ecclesiology is helpful, showing that you can have a robust understanding of natural law without being against scripture and you can be reformed without being radically puritanical.

[Anonymous No.15827916]

>>15825252
What is your obsession with Catholic Answers?

[Anonymous No.15827999]

>>15827313
>he posted Catholic Answers propaganda
Lol

[Anonymous No.15828008]

>>15827313
>but muh Catholic Answers man says protestants are wrong therefore it real
Kys shill

[Anonymous No.15828039]

>>15828008
You have a real seethe for Catholic Answers them holy moly

[Anonymous No.15828098]

>>15828039
It's an insane propaganda site and for you to take it seriously implies you are both mentally ill AND a leftwing, psychotic subversive Catholic. There is nothing good about it, and your little raids on 4chan are well documented.

[Anonymous No.15828263]

This might be good info for Calvinism intro stuff

https://students.wts.edu/resources/craigcenter/calvin500_resources.html

[Anonymous No.15828279]

>>15828039
It's the same Protestant schizo that shits up /his/ with these same threads. He's kinda retarded and often very wrong. He probably made this thread now that I think about it. Ignore him.

[Anonymous No.15828308]

Even though protestantism seems good in theory, no protestant every gave a shit about me. Protestants do nothing to make the world a better place.

[Anonymous No.15828352]

>>15828308
How old could you possibly be? 14?

>>15828279
Kek it's Savanarola the guy who had a mental breakdown about people not converting to Catholicism and vowed to leave the board on lit, like anyone have a shit. I can link to the thread if you want :)

[Anonymous No.15828379]

>>15828098
>It's an insane propaganda site

Hardly. The articles are uniformly well-researched, well-written, and well-argued.

Eg, the classic tract, "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth"
>https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

A beautifully concise explanation of the scriptural and historical bases for the Catholic faith.

Everyone on this thread: give it a read. It's first-rate.

[Anonymous No.15828404]

>>15828379
No one is converting to Catholicism, freak. You know how I know? Because it's a statistical fact. Catholic Answers is home to the most insane liberals in the church. They defend James Martin. Do you?

[Anonymous No.15828413]

>>15828352
I literally have no idea who you are talking about. All I know is that you make these low quality threads and sperg about Catholic Answers, ad nauseum. That's literally all you do and you really should get banned because you make the sane Protestants willing to do actual debate look bad.
>Case in point:
>>15828404

[Anonymous No.15828428]

>>15828413
This is pathetic. You are pathetic. Last chance before I dig up the post.

[Anonymous No.15828430]

>>15828404
>No one is converting to Catholicism, freak.

The whole world has been converting to Catholicism for centuries, lad. You ain't gonna stop that train, no matter how many threads you make.

[Anonymous No.15828445]

>>15828430
The Catholic church is losing members faster than any other religion. This is not up for debate. They cannot keep members for the life of them. Seriously. You can't even keep Hispanics. Fewer than half of Hispanics are now Catholics. The majority are now Pentecostal.

Imagine losing Hispanics of all demographics. Catholics are THAT incompetent.

[Anonymous No.15828448]

>>15828428
Do it. I don't even who you are talking about you retard.

[Anonymous No.15828458]

>>15828445
>The Catholic church is losing members faster than any other religion.

[Anonymous No.15828459]

>>15828445
True. When I heard Brazil will be protestant by 2050, I realized Catholicism is a lost cause. Lost causes are still nice. The Copts have a nice community, but they're never going to dominate Christianity. Then again they do have a much higher birthrate than Catholics, so who knows what could happen.

[Anonymous No.15828461]

>>15828445
The Church is growing pretty fast in Asia and Africa. Plus, people are fickle and most people won't even get to Heaven. That has absolutely no bearing on it being the Truth.

[Anonymous No.15828474]

>>15828461
After Vatican II you don't have to be Catholic to go to heaven. God, Vatican II was fucking stupid. I guess that's what happens when you call and Ecumenical Council in the middle of the 60s. Blunder of the century. People hadn't even stopped laughing at Papal Infallibility from Vatican I and then they come out an Ecumenical Electric Boogaloo.

[Anonymous No.15828481]

>>15828461
Nope its not growing as fast as other denominations, and is even slowing in parts of Africa.

Plus Latin America is gone

Among other indicators presented in the survey, the accelerated reduction in the size of the Catholic flock in Argentina confirmed an overall Latin American trend: Between 2008 and 2019, the proportion of Catholics in Argentina dropped from 77 percent to 63 percent. In 2014, a survey from the Pew Research Center reported that 69 percent of the Latin American public identified as Catholic; in the 1960s, at least 90 percent of the continent professed Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.15828490]

>>15828481
>Nope its not growing as fast as other denominations, and is even slowing in parts of Africa.
I like how you expect me to believe this without a fucking source.

[Anonymous No.15828510]

>>15828490
It's going to be btfo by pentecostals and Islam lmao

In Mozambique, Catholics are 30.3% of the population, the country’s largest religious group, surpassing indigenous religious practitioners and Muslims. In Mauritius, at 27.2%, Catholics take second place to Hindus but outnumber Muslims. And in Madagascar, they come in third at 21.7%.

But the church faces new challenges.

In 1970, Pentecostals represented less than 5% of all Africans. They now stand at 12%, a significant shift. In Mozambique alone, Pentecostals are the second largest Christian community.

And Islam is growing faster in Africa than Christianity. By 2050, African Muslims south of the Sahara are expected to increase from 30% to 35% of Africa’s population.

[Anonymous No.15828562]

>>15828510
Can you post a source?

[Anonymous No.15828576]

>>15828562
Hey retard. Put the text in Google.

[Anonymous No.15828596]

>>15819369
If you're shopping for religions, perhaps the issue is with you and not with others

[Anonymous No.15828611]

>>15828576
Or you can just post the fucking source, you fuckface. You are the one making the claim. You back it up. I'm not doing your job for you.

[Anonymous No.15828632]

>>15828510
I saw a protestant radio station in Israel got banned because their license was just to broadcast to Christians, but they were trying to convert Jews, so they got banned. Jesus Christ, protestants are tireless. Maybe they deserve to win. All the Catholic Church has for a plant is to not let employees at their hospitals get free birth control from their healthcare plan? Yeah, I don't think that's gonna cut it.

[Anonymous No.15828637]

>>15819369
Become Muslim

[Anonymous No.15828655]

>>15819369
>TradCath
>Wants to become Calvinist

Well I guess you're neither traditional nor Catholic

[Anonymous No.15828661]

>>15828596
>>15828655
NO NO YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOU MUST STAY SAME MUST RATIONALISE MUST NOT EXERCISE CRITICAL THINKING OR PREFERENCE THAT BAD FOR REASON

Why are Catholics like this

[Anonymous No.15828664]

>>15828611
Oops baby did a big fat cope in his diaper brap brap

[Anonymous No.15828699]

You know all this shit is pure idpol if you don't actually help others, right?

[Anonymous No.15828704]

>>15828699
>help others
Not the point of Christianity, not even close.

[Anonymous No.15828722]

>>15828704
What.

[Anonymous No.15828745]

>>15828722
It's literally not. The point is to have saving faith in Jesus Christ to unite with God. Everything else is a nice result of that

[jesus No.15828789]

>>15828722
you stupid pederast believe bible, because bible said bible is true, and billions of other people just cannot turn out to be just as stupid degenerates as you are. now clear?

[Anonymous No.15828791]

>>15828745
>bruh if i just THINK hard enough it will get me into heaven
pure lifestylism

[jesus No.15828810]

guys, more letters, symbols in your comment, more stupid you are trying to look smart.

[Anonymous No.15828863]

>>15828791
who are you quoting

>>15828789
who are you quoting

[Anonymous No.15828890]

Beeke is pretty good for Calvinism intro

https://calvin500blog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/beekes-calvin500-sermon.pdf

[Anonymous No.15828943]

>>15827916
They told me my interpretation of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit being three different Gods was wrong.

[Anonymous No.15828949]

>>15828943
Damn, Catholic Answers didn't told you Deus Vult go on a crusade? What a bunch of fags trying to turn the church gay!

[Anonymous No.15828953]

>>15828949
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.15829107]

>>15819369

So you're leaving the church because its too liberal for a more liberal denomination. Why would you not choose to go orthodox. Also, you're abandoning your "Tradcaths" beliefs because of online bullies?? And if you were really a tradcath wouldn't you believe that salvation is only possible through the church?

[Anonymous No.15829574]

I'm an atheist who knows nothing about what's going on this thread so let's just cut to the only thing that matters: what are your views on charity?

[Anonymous No.15829590]

>>15819369
Being Trad doesn't make you a schismatic. Being a schismatic makes you a schismatic. There are plenty of Trad churches that are in full communion with the Church.

[Anonymous No.15830599]

>>15828459
Brazil literally is gonna be protestant by 2030.
But Catholicism is going a major revival in this country, specially as the Church is getting space in the media, is learning how to use social media and television for the faithful and there is also a boom in vocations for padres and freiras.
Also, sons of protestant people are not protestant as some surveys are indicating. About 40% are gonna stay in the faith that their parents have chosen and the rest are mostly getting irreligious and 20% are actually converting to catholicism.

[Anonymous No.15832090]

>>15819369
just drop the dead kike on a stick shit already m8

read plotinus and realise you dont need to join these religions