Sup Forums is a Catholic board.
>b-but muh Pope Francis is a cuck he kiss muslime feet!!!!!
This is just a ply to get more secular minded Westerners back into the Church so they can get redpilled again. Also Frank is a Jesuit and they have been known to have been massive cucks within the church for 150 years now. Frank's cuckiness should not be viewed as representative of the one true church.
Bless you brother.
How do you get the Deus Vult flag? It's not listed on my drop down menu.
It's the flag of the Knights Templar brother.
Found it! DEUS VULT!
...
There are parts in Europe, where you arent even considered as christian, if you catholic.
Like my polish coworker used to say: "Evangelic all prostetute"
\[T]/
I prefer orthodox church
...
*where you arent even considered as christian, if youre a PROTESTANT
Correcture.
Deus vult indeed.
Papist, please go (back to a third-world, Roman Catholic cesspool).
...
papal swine; you do what your king in the pointy hat says, all good things have come from Protestantism, you remember that
>believing the bible and evolution simultaneously
W E W L A D
the theory of evolution was the death blow to christcuckanity and anyone who accept it as truth MUST deny the bible. only a desperate idiot thinks the bible and modern science are compatible.
...
Abstinesnce is the only 100% effective method. People that say it isn't point out how abstinence programs in schools don't work, which is a fucking retarded way to prove a point. It's like saying counting calories doesn't work because most people who go into a diet program that requires it don't lose weight. The method is secure, it's thier willpower that's shitty.
>Also Frank is a Jesuit and they have been known to have been massive cucks within the church for 150 years now.
I thought they were the elite of the orders, with benedentines the let it go people, the dominicans the spiritual ones, and the franciscans the "cucks"
The only good thing you dud was accelerate capitalism, and that was more of a cultural thing than religious
>fuckers that don't even confess...
>pleb hasn't even been to the Vatican and thinks he can talk about Catholic culture
>France, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc.
How's the foreskin? lmao
>it's a "non Catholics will go to hell because they aren't members of the Catholic Church" episode
>being this retarded
Obligatory
>thinking only the Bible matters
>thinking the Bible should be taken literally
Typical Protestant thinking. I bet you or your fathers belonged to some evangelical community that took the Bible literally, so you read it, found their way was wrong, and decided to abandon Christianity without giving a shot to competition
>god, I hate Protestants so much...
>confess
so you can do the same thing again tomorrow, Roman fucks
>France, Italy, Spain, Portugal
holiday resorts for rich Protestants; those countries are full of lazy Gauls and Latins
papists are cucked as fuck with a kike placed, commie, fag loving muzzie worshipper in charge.
we are an independent baptist board, bitch
youtube.com
youtube.com
When I was in South Africa, it was the opposite, had this gorgeous Afrikaner blonde just nonchalantly tell me I'm not a Christian because I'm catholic.
You have to go back to the core believes that all branches of Christianity believe.
>all the heresy in this thread
Baptists, protestants, wahtever... God still loves you friends. You'll get better.
Of course user. Everyone who actually cares about Western civ has read pic related & many other books, & knows without Catholicism, Europe will degenerate, as we are seeing now
stop spoonfeeding redditors
Catholicism is the persona of cuckery. Enjoy watching your kids bukka.. i mean baptism.
Orthodox is the real og.
Κύριε Ελέησον
If you haven't attended Latin Mass then you aren't a real Catholic, merely another so-called Catholic which is comparable to Southern Americans, who are all but Catholic in the name.
Also, I'm loving all these Luther lovers who autistically scream about how the Catholic church is a pawn of ZOG, meanwhile the man who caused numerous religious in-fighting and almost caused the collapse of the Catholic Church isn't a subversive kike Germanic.
>we
Go back to r*ddit.
Why do the Orthodox admire heretics?
>Orthodox Patriarch praises Luther on freedom
>He himself very much welcomed this increasing interest on the part of Orthodox theologians as Luther’s concept of freedom had a turning point in the history of the understanding of freedom and was therefore of “epochal significance” for Christianity’s dialogue with the modern world. It was of special importance for the Orthodox Churches at he moment as their belated dialogue with the modern world was now “in full swing”, he underlined.
Nah, Calvinism is the best.
If you want to talk about heresy...
>Appointing a "Pope" claiming he is holy and a representative of god when there should never be someone with that amount of power
> Ordering the Orthodox church to recognize the Pope when the fucker came out of nowhere
>Dumping fuckloads of cash in Churches and representatives when Christianity is meant to be a minimalist religion.
>Throwing around the word saint without any evidence of miracle. What even happened to standards? A saint must mirror people such as Saint Spyridon.
>Banning sciences when in the Byzantine era astronomy and literature where ripe and nobody needed to push the idea of a flat earth
>"Flat earth" WTF?
The Orthodox Church supports some of the Lutherans values of simplicity and free will
Nice discount branch
>Flat earth" WTF?
This is the part of the post that proves it to be bait, by saying an argument that lacks such an high amount of logic, that you will disregard all the other arguments. However, that was always the plan of the poster, that will tell you that you are right on that one, but will demand you to prove him wrong on the others
Don't answer his bait
how can cuckthalics even compete?
faggots
Way to kill an argument..
Don't bother, too much delusional amerilards on this board.
Where's the pederast on the catholic side?
The knights templar were killed by the Catholic church and members admitted under torture of worshipping "baphomet"
The Catholics are the biggest hypocrites of all time.
They perfected the art of torture hundreds of years ago, and mastered the practice of sexually assaulting little boys in the modern age.
And they act oh so holy like their shit doesn't stink.
Can't stand those fucks.
Prods are better, but awfully goofy.
Paganism/Asatru is the one true White faith.
Oh, I'll make it mike that
>in the modern age
You are naive if you think that it is something recent, it was just uncovered recently, this has been going on for centuries
No doubt they were contrary to Jewish expectations with regard to the Davidic Messiah (even if we make allowance for the great diversity in the Messianic expectations of the period). And Jewish expectations were based on current and widely accepted interpretations of the biblical texts understood to refer to the Messiah(s). The discrepancy between this biblically based picture of the career of the Messiah, and the actual career of Jesus, created the need for innovative interpretation of traditional Messianic proof-texts, but also innovative selection of new texts which had formerly not been taken to refer to the Messiah. In Luke’s gospel, this novelty of the Christian scriptural ‘proof’ of the Messiah’s career is most vividly brought out on the journey to Emmaus in Luke 24: the risen Christ ‘opened’ the scriptures so that the disciples could see things in them they had never seen before. [The risen Jesus] opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, • that the Messiah should suffer • and on the third day rise from the dead, • and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’ (Luke 24:45–7)
The early Christian world of 665
And no this is not Catholic answer and was in fact written by a Lutheran
k
The Church ... has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: (1) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth ... (2) and in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; (3) and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God and the advents [of the Messiah]: • the birth from a virgin; • and the passion; • and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven ... of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, • and his [second] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ... to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race ... (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1) As the excerpt from Irenaeus makes evident, the development of a Christological ‘proof from prophecy’ is intimately linked with the crystallization of a Christological ‘rule of truth’ or ‘rule of faith’, which some decades later was incorporated in the second article of the Old Roman creed.15 Much more is at stake here than a mere parallel development of two parts of the Christian tradition. The ‘rule of faith’ serves as the basic exegetical criterion for the development of the biblical ‘proof from prophecy’. This is probably indicated already in a famous saying by Ignatius of Antioch at around 110 ce:
Pg 666
Isn't it a bit ridiculous to compare trailer trash backwoods churches to something like the Anglican Church that has old beautiful buildings and plenty of theologians through the ages? Not to mention Catholicism isn't exactly all intelligence and beauty either.
I heard some men saying, ‘if I find it not in the charters, I do not believe in the gospel.’ And when I said to them that it is in the scriptures, they answered me, ‘that is exactly the question.’ But to me the charters are Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is his cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is through him. (Ignatius, to the Philadelphians 8.2) It would seem that Ignatius’ opponents required a full proof from prophecy for every point in his gospel proclamation. When he says that to him the ‘archives’ are Jesus Christ, his cross and resurrection, this does probably not mean that for Ignatius the Christological creed replaces the scriptures, but rather that the Christological rule of faith contains the hermeneutical canon according to which the scriptures should be interpreted.
Where is sola scripture?
>the pope is the most corrupt man on the planet and if you believe in "evil" or the anti-christ the snake audience hall says it all
>He is a pedophile and probably has a large hand in running trafficking rings
>Black pope is more powerful and more corrupt
how the fuck do you believe a religion and follow a book made up by a crazy ruler in 300 AD rome?
You look deeper into history.
See
Catholics are probably the single greatest enablers of the spic invasion in the US
my man; you goin' to liturgy this morning?
>Kek flag
I see your tactics
We are all one under Christ
Can you care to explain
this is why the bible should have stayed out of the vernacular
>cathshits openly reject the bible
>christian
Filthy
MeanwhileWhy do history contradict the protestant
Orthodox
Fact of the matter is they are both foreign sandnigger religions of worshipping a dead kike on a stick.
The only thing Abrahamic religions deserve is total annihilation desu
>mocking anyone who got crucified ever
>mocking the son of god who got crucified
wew lad if only u knew
but being a devout catholic you knew all about Knights Templar and stuff yeah?
what are you pagan or worse sub-human atheist?
also fuck off with kike thing
>putting all protestants under one category
Every other denomination than Lutheran Christianity is gay desu
Protestants contradict the history of Christianity itself
Check this out from The Early Christian World page 482
Whatever the liturgical use of the ‘institution narrative’ may have been, it did not function as a ‘consecration formula’ for the setting apart of the bread and cup. What ‘consecrated’ the bread and wine was the prayer of thanksgiving (Eucharistia) itself. Nevertheless, that Christians of the first three centuries understood the Eucharistic bread and wine to be identified in a rather realistic manner with the ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of Christ is also clear. So Ignatius of Antioch (c. 98–117 ce) can refer to the Eucharist as the ‘medicine of immortality’ (To the Ephesians 20.2) and can draw a Christological parallel between the incarnation of Christ and the Eucharist, indicating...
Cont
that certain ‘Docetists’, who denied the reality of the incarnation, also abstained from the Eucharist because ‘they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ ...’ (To the Smyrnaeans 7.1). Justin Martyr notes that the Eucharist is not ‘common bread or common drink’ but the ‘flesh and blood of [the] incarnate Jesus’ (Deiss 1979: 92), and Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) asserts that ‘the bread ... when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, the earthly and the heavenly’ (Power 1991: 15). If a short time later, Tertullian can refer to the bread or wine as the ‘figura’ (figure) of the body or blood of Christ (Adversus Marcionem 4.40), this should not be interpreted as a repudiation of realistic in favour of symbolic language, but within an overall philosophical context where ‘symbol’ participates in the reality being signified. Related to this is the early Christian notion of the Eucharistic action as the church’s ‘sacrifice’ or ‘offering’, an association made as early as Didache 14. Viewed as the fulfilment of the ‘pure sacrifice’ of Mal. 1:11, the earliest interpretation of this ‘sacrifice’ appears to have been the ‘offering’ of prayer and thanksgiving as the church’s ‘bloodless’ offering of praise in contradistinction to the ‘blood’ sacrifices of Judaism and the religions of the Graeco-Roman world. Its relationship to the Eucharist thus had to do with the great ‘Eucharistia’, the prayer ‘offered’ over the bread and cup.
I'd probably be a Pagan if there was any trace of it left. I would like the true religions of Europe to still exist which had existed for centuries but were wiped out by Christians chimping out
>Cash4Heaven scam
Lost it
UHYYYUCK
I know it's meant to be funny, but, let's be serious now, the only thing they really got going is the gold and money.
>Implying Pagans didn't constantly attack monasteries, murdering unarmed priests
Catholics are a bunch of pedophiles and subhumans united in their Satanic worship of a false prophet who practices simony, deceit and murder around the globe. Only through faith can you be saved.
christianity asimilated the best parts out of pagan beliefs all that had value
chimp out? Europe started to decline at the same time with christianity also fighting kikes is the job of christians they are Christ killers also if you get defeated then what beat you is better
catholics are fucking awful. Dont get me wrong i dont hate them all but the majority of them are as slimey as jews.
But why is sola scripture missing from the earliest phases of Christianity?
...
Heresy. Simple as that
Check this out from Early Christian World page 508
Protestants hate this book
The Shepherd of Hermas The Shepherd of Hermas, a book of revelations granted to Hermas in Rome by the agency of two heavenly figures (the first an old woman and the second an angel in the form of an shepherd), was well known and highly valued in the patristic church. Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen speak of it in terms that suggest they considered it scripture. Tertullian appreciated it greatly until his Montanist conversion, after which he could no longer tolerate its offer of a second chance to the repentant. Along with Barnabas, it was included towards the end of the Codex Sinaiticus of the New Testament in the fourth century. By the time of Eusebius and Athanasius, it was understood to be not part of the canon and therefore not to be read publicly, but nevertheless to be beneficial for private reading. The Shepherd was the most widely read Christian book outside our present biblical canon in the first five centuries of the church. If today 1 Clement may be the best known of the Apostolic Fathers, Hermas was then
>the apostles are heretics
Sup Forums is an Orthodox board, hear me out
We would never succumb to central leadership from an elected man that claims infallibility. The Orthodox Church provides that.
We are traditionalist in nature. The Orthodox church provides that.
We believe in independence and liberty above all else. The Autocephalous Patriarchates provide that.
We mistrust and and want nothing to do with the Jew. The Orthodox Church supports that.
We hate and want nothing to do with Muslims of any kind. The Orthodox church supports that.
We believe in strong patriarchal family unit and want nothing to do with tattoos, homosexuality and degeneracy of any kind. The Orthodox Church supports that.
Am I wrong?
we're all christians and that's all that matter, jessiposter
>the words of the Apostles are the scripture
>Shortly a bunch of heretics spread their heretic beliefs all around
>Cathocucks cannot comprehend this
>everyone apostate
>L O W
>E N E R G Y
Dude, if you want the pic on the right, you go to Spanish Mass. If you want Beamer-free worship, you do not go to Spanish Mass. If you want to remove kebab and conquer Jerusalem, you go to Latin Mass.
Not every Protestant group is sola scriptura though.
no you are not wrong
>conquer Jerusalem
More like conquer Constantinople for your (((Venetian))) overlords
How about you stop talking shit about the Holy Father, you fucking degenerate?
Frank is a hard ass nigga.
thats a funny as fuck meme but whats the forged document the bible?
naw nigger
Anglicans don't count
>A catholic church full of Latinos
Wow, could this be because, I don't know, Hispanic areas were settled by Spain and Portugal, CATHOLIC powers? Gosh, those two things couldn't possibly be related. It's not like you can go to Canada and France and see white catholics
The Shepherd of Hermas The Shepherd of Hermas, a book of revelations granted to Hermas in Rome by the agency of two heavenly figures (the first an old woman and the second an angel in the form of an shepherd), was well known and highly valued in the patristic church. Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen speak of it in terms that suggest they considered it scripture. Tertullian appreciated it greatly until his Montanist conversion, after which he could no longer tolerate its offer of a second chance to the repentant. Along with Barnabas, it was included towards the end of the Codex Sinaiticus of the New Testament in the fourth century. By the time of Eusebius and Athanasius, it was understood to be not part of the canon and therefore not to be read publicly, but nevertheless to be beneficial for private reading. The Shepherd was the most widely read Christian book outside our present biblical canon in the first five centuries of the church. If today 1 Clement may be the best known of the Apostolic Fathers, Hermas was then
Didn't know these guys added to the bible