When the "pope" is calling for the dismantling of all private arms ownership... You know you've lost the path
(media.patriots.win)
SPICY 🔥🔥🔥
Comments (1003)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
the idea that human infallibility is a thing that can be invoked makes no theological sense
It is not "human infallibility", rather it is the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ while speaking only from the Chair of Peter.
This still means a human being. The only difference being that they claim to represent apostles.
They don't claim to represent the Apostles, but they do claim to hold what has been passed down through Apostolic Succession. (By the way, I always like to clarify that I am not taking a hostile approach to this, just trying to hash out ideas)
Hey no worries! I enjoy this topic and most people just end up shouting at me (or trying to get me kicked out of school) for talking about it. Haha
Right, I shouldn’t have used the word speak, but yeah it’s more of a ‘direct lineage’ to the authority of the spirit. I just haven’t been convinced that this was the original intention. Especially given that this lineage is said to have come from Peter.
It’s a weird coincidence that this lineage starts with Peter, and the Catholic Church has a long unfortunate history of misrepresenting Christ whether through thought or actions
I would put it a little differently. After the “fall of man” humans are inherently incapable of the righteousness that is necessary to be in God’s presence. The only thing that can redeem man is faith in God’s redemptive plan. “Faith is credited to us as righteousness”. Christ is the redemptive plan revealed. As far as the pope goes (sorry Catholics), the Catholic Church has developed a lot of bad doctrine over the centuries. The Bible does not give any man infallibility.
I looked into history (am a huge nerd) of the Roman empire and it appears to me that the claim of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter back in the days were politically charged. Rome lost all power and authority as the capital of the Roman Empire once Emperor Constantine officially moved the Seat to Constantinople (initially named Nova Roma, later changed to Constantino-polis, or City of Constantine).
Rome lost all power and claims at that point, and the Barbarians only hastened the fall of that city.
Fast forward a few hundred years, the Barbarians have now converted to Christianity and the political class (mostly powerful merchant families including the Venetians) obviously must do something to regain "the glory of Rome" .
Enters Charlemagne and his genius conquest. The political class at Rome immediately seizes the opportunity and crown him the Holy Roman Emperor. Mind you, the real and legitimate Roman empire is still existing in the East at Constantinople uninterrupted since its official relocation as mentioned previously.
This ultimately led to rising tension over the next few hundred years which finally resulted in the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian scums and their BLM puppets disguised as crusaders.
You can make this exact same argument about the constitution and the courts. Why did the founding fathers wear wigs and fancy shoes? Why do court justices wear those fancy black robes? Why are there so many laws and rules and amendments? It’s because rules evolve over time as new situations arise. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years so of course it would be full of various stuff that has evolved. It’s weird if you to dismiss it instead of wonder why it came to be - it didn’t just spontaneously appear in one second.
I totally agree about the points that you make about the Catholic Church. I know a few faithful Catholics though. Good people. But yeah the church history and some of the practices. Protestantism has its own problems.
Haha I’ll agree for the most part also, the idea that Jesus came, scolded and frequently put religious people in their places, so he can influence a different religion, but this time a little different.
Also, the Catholic Church basically killed off a christians for decades. See: Fox’s Book of Martyrs.
And lastly, magically changing the Sabbath without any sound biblical reasoning to do so
Easiest way to sum up Catholicism for beginners. Picture a family:
God is our Dad and we are His adopted children. We disobeyed Him and turned our back on Him. He never turned His back on us. We went so far away from Him that we can't make it back on our own.
He sacrificed Himself in order to give us a path back to Him. No we have the opportunity to unite ourselves with the Father.
Does this help paint a very basic picture, my friend?
The major point of contention being that God sacrificed his son/himself to give people an opportunity ‘to be reunited’. This doesn’t make sense to me personally when Jesus’s debt paid (in full) for the sins of mankind.
I dont really see many events in the Bible that show God to say one thing but in reality has 24 pages of fine print to go along with what he’s said. Especially since biblically God has been portrayed as laying out specific consequences For actions and following through on those. (ie Dont do this, or this will happen, they do the thing, and God does his thing).
Putting any sort of spiritual health in the hands of a person or man mad organization is really hard to do. Especially with the churches track record. It’s like going back to your husband the 10th time because ‘this time they’ve changed and won’t do it again’
My argument for the church would be this slogan I heard "don't leave Peter because of Judas". Yes, people within the Church have made mistakes but not the Church itself. God never said the rulers of the Church wouldn't make (certain) mistakes.
Also, yes Jesus paid the debt for our sins, but he isn't going to drag us back home to the Father kicking and screaming if we don't want to. Rather He, as the new Passover Lamb, offered Himself up as the perfect sacrifice. We have to use our will in order to make the decision and participate in the sacrifice of the Lamb or not.
It has nothing to do with that human. All it means is the Holy Spirit protects the truth (church doctrine) by not allowing fallible humans to alter it, so that all can see the truth.
I'll explain it all really quickly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtlsNlEjTUE
Jehovah is Baal. Lucifer is Jesus.
It is the only truth in the Bible. It is hidden in plain sight.
It actually does if you were in any way knowledgeable of theology.
Meh. A theology degree only goes so far I guess?
Feel free to explain how it’s theologically sound
my theology degree doesn’t matter in this conversation simply because of your ‘no u’ argument.
If your idea of ‘it does’ is a conclusion one reaches by interpreting misc. parts of the Bible, I would argue that’s not objective fact.
Right, and the word church, commonly understood in the Bible as referencing a group of people who come together in fellowship. A practice that early Catholicism would kill people for doing (ie reading the Bible for themselves).
In order to get to the Catholic Church from here, one has to make assumptions and interpretations that first off, have no solid historically verifiable lineage, but also takes the entire thing and turns it into something Jesus actively spoke out against.
There were many early churches after Jesus’ resurrection, and theIt goal wasn’t to amass power and control people with a new set of rituals and laws, but to create a network of people connected by thei belief in Christ, but that acts and fellowships in a way that works for them.
If all these churches came from the same starting point, they would have also been a product of what Jesus said to Peter, which is that the foundation for the group of people, ( and groups comprised of people and groups comprised of groups of people, etc) that follow his teachings will come out of the work that Peter will eventually do.
Yep, quite familiar with the many different forms of Catholicism. This actually highlights the point I’m trying to make, since these churches all have one thing in common, they’re derivatives of derivatives that were formed based on a single interpretation of the Gospel Story. None of which have historical proof of being started by any of the apostles, nor is there proof that any of their rituals We’re ever practiced by anyone directly associated with Jesus.