Catholics are not our allies
They do not vote according to Biblical morality
They have an overseas allegiance
Their corrupt leadership covers high-ranking faggot pedophiles
They don't preach salvation by grace, through faith, not of works
America is a white, Evangelical country and only by maintaining this will we secure our liberties and way of life
America is not an Italian/Irish/Hispanic papist country
...
...
...
...
...
...
All papists are traitors. They have always been enemies of our nation. Their loyalties are to the pope of Rome, not our people. One of the grievances listed by the First Continental Congress was "the act passed in the same session [of parliament] for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec".
You cannot be both Romish and American
Catholicism is heresy
Amen
...
>papists are not our allies
>statistic shows that they just resemble American average
I admit that some Catholics have degenerate views, but it's due to the corruption of Vatican II, not nature of Catholicism itself.
>pope of Rome
He thinks that open heretic can be pope.
The American average, 7 points more Democrat than Republican
Good points until the salvation part.
Protestant view of salvation by faith alone is retarded hippy nonsense and the reason people say Christianity is a cuck religion to make us slaves of jews.
Good works are what saved Europe, civilized the Germanics to be worthy successors to the Romans.
Obviously there is no salvation without faith but the world is man's domain by God's will and our responsibility is also to preserve goodness and manifest His grace IN that domain... failure to do so is a betrayal of the sacrifice Christ made
Cultural Catholics aren't Catholics.
Vain speculation with no scriptural consideration
The bible teaches that a sinner is justified by faith alone
Abraxas outranks the Demiurge.
Please refrain from shitty trolling. Reminder to sage these threads.
Also reminder that there is only one true Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself over 2000 years ago, that would be the Catholic Church.
Another protestant retardation; that the scripture is the only means by which God's message can be imparted to us.
But still, there is plenty of consideration. If not, the view wouldn't have held for so long.
>that the scripture is the only means by which God's message can be imparted to us.
No one believes that. One can preach the word of God
We believe only God's word is to be taken as divine.
Current avatar of Abraxas.
It also teaches that faith without works is dead.
"As the body without spirit".
My first loyalty is to the church which the vactican has betrayed
also fuck the JEWNITED STATES
I get that you guys hate demoncrats, but look how cucked everyone else is. Jehovah's are only 7%, Atheists are 15%, Agnostics 21%, hell even Orthodox are 34%
Catholicisms pope is false.
...
"We are justified by faith alone, but faith is not alone"
-John Calvin
Catholics are not American, and they will be killed on the day of the rope.
>Seventh Adventist voting majority Democrat
This is a bunch of hoo-haa
Pew research, but it wasn't this election
And if God's word had been consigned to what had already been recorded by prophets at the time of the birth of Jesus, Christianity wouldn't exist. But it wasn't, His word was spoken further.
Sola scriptura is vain nonsense.
Why not finish the quote? You cut it off in the middle of the sentence.
He says He's finished speaking. What, are you Muslim or Mormon or something? The bible alone is God's word.
James 1 disagrees
"22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like."
The guy you're quoting is debunking the argument you're trying to use him to make.
He even used the same passage I did.
"True justifying, saving faith is a vital principle in the soul, of all obedience- Saving faith is not a dead, inactive, fruitless faith. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, says the Apostle (James). That is not the faith which God requires; a barren, unprofitable faith is only dishonorable to God and injurious to the soul. SHOW ME THY FAITH WITHOUT THY WORKS, AND I WILL SHOW THEE MY FAITH BY MY WORKS (James again)."
And then where what you quoted begins
"We are justified by faith alone, but faith is not alone in the soul, it is accompanied with every other grace, it cannot be separated from a principle of life and universal obedience."
> Being this dumb
Most Catholics in the US are Latinos, and they vote for the left because they are dumb and dependent on welfare, not because of Catholicism.
>Christcucks
Note how catholic countries have a lower abortion rate and less degeneracy than Protescucks in Europe
refer to
Thanks for supporting my point.
>The guy you're quoting is debunking the argument you're trying to use him to make
No he isn't. You don't understand what he's saying, and/or you don't understand what I'm saying. This is how he commented on Canon 2 of Session 6 of the Council of Trent
>It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.
Now, would you kindly show where this conflicts with me?
...
There are a few Catholic right wingers in the UK but nearly all of them are rich families in the South of England who never converted.
Everywhere else you find Catholics you will also find leftism and all its wonders.
Then name infallible Bible that is God's word perfectly preserved.
Only original manuscripts are infallible word of God and they are mostly gone. What isn't gone is Church teaching and only by studying closely both Holy Scripture, and infallible teaching of the Church can one achieve true understanding of Christian dogma.
What the hell does that change? Remove all the black and brown people and ratios won't charge.
Exactly, it's the 34% Latino who are voting for the left and committing crimes.
Besides early Gospel wasn't written but spoken (i.e teaching of the Church).
>who identify as
Yeah, that's very reliable.
I did show you.
The point of "salvation through faith, not works" is to separate the two when in fact, not only by the word of God but by the teaching of your pastor here, they are not separable.
There is no Catholic that says doing kindness to others for your own vain fulfillment will lead to salvation.
I already said you can preach God's word
>Only original manuscripts are infallible word of God
No sir, only the original text is the infallible word of God, and it is completely preserved
>What isn't gone is Church teaching
Your pope is a 7th century novelty, and your magisterium even later than that. I want nothing to do with it.
>only by studying closely both Holy Scripture, and infallible teaching of the Church can one achieve true understanding of Christian dogma
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
You said, "most Catholics in the US are Latino"
The numbers show a majority are white, only a third are Latino
Even voting in a block, many white Catholics would have to vote Democrat. I would even guess this is higher since Latinos do not vote as a block Democrat, and the white voter turnout is much higher than latino
Yes, that was wrong. But most of the criminals among that group are most likely Latino.
You do not understand what we believe. The bible, Luther and Calvin all taught that while saving faith is ontologically inseparable from good works and love, forensically faith alone will acquire a verdict of justified, because faith alone brings the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness.
I didn't share the incarceration stats
>doing kindness to others for your own vain fulfillment
Heck, even if one would do it out of compassion, not for the selfish reasons of feeling better; he wouldn't reach salvation, for no man is without a sin and even one sin makes you an enemy of God.
Only way for one to be granted forgiveness is to have true faith.
What it changes is the meaning of the ratios. The religions don't have anything to do with it.
It is. American blacks are overwhelmingly Protestant. Mexicans are unlikely to pretend to be white.
There is a grand total of one good Catholic country on the planet and it is Austria. Everywhere else is famous for people leaving it to go and live in a Protestant country, then complaining about it. See: the millions of Poles and Irish that come here
It clearly does. Religious people make to 75% of the USA population. Why do they commit 99% of the crime? You'd easily apply this same question to blacks.
Not only that, but also most likely the ones to do what i mentioned earlier.
>I already said you can preach God's word
Yes, and that's exactly what the Church does.
>and it is completely preserved
Where?
>Your pope is a 7th century novelty
Who is St. Peter, Gregory the Great, etc.
>your magisterium even later than that.
Church always taught word of God and condemned heretics. "Creation" of magisterium didn't actually create anything what wasn't already there. It only served to clarify, where Church is infallible and where it may err.
>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition
As I said previously, word of God is also teaching of the Church.
>correlation = causation
Plebbit tier argument, move along folks
If that were the case, you'd be saying the same thing as Catholics and Sola fide would be a completely pointless concept.
But the point of it is that works have nothing to do with salvation. It's essentially just redefining what grace is, so that a person can have salvation without needing to follow Christ's teachings on how to act.
>If that were the case, you'd be saying the same thing as Catholics
Catholics say one must not mortally sin or they will be condemned. They say that the efficacy of baptism extends only to past sins, not future ones, and so if one commits a mortal sin after baptism, they must be restored to the state of grace through confession, and must increase their justification through penance and works of love. This is what the reformers condemned as works-salvation, and it is truly such a perversion of the biblical gospel that it is a false gospel.
>so that a person can have salvation without needing to follow Christ's teachings on how to act
Yes that's exactly what we're saying. It's called the law-gospel distinction.
>Yes, and that's exactly what the Church does.
Your church laid anathemas against God's word.
>Where?
It isn't in one manuscript, it has been preserved across thousands of manuscripts.
>Who is St. Peter
One amongst several co-equal presbyter-bishops before the novelty of prelacy developed.
>Gregory the Great
The last bishop of Rome, who said that any who would claim the title universal bishop would be the forerunner of Antichrist. His successor, Boniface III, the first pope of Rome, declared himself universal bishop.
>Church always taught word of God and condemned heretics
The Christian Church most certainly did, but she never dared to arrogate to herself what your bishops did.
>As I said previously, word of God is also teaching of the Church
And yet, to what did Paul commit Timothy and the other Ephesian elders when he gave his final farewells, but the holy scriptures? By adding your church to the word of God, you repeat the error of the pharisees, teaching traditions of men for the commandment of God.
>and it is truly such a perversion of the biblical gospel that it is a false gospel.
And yet you've offered nothing to demonstrate this. The most you can do is posit that those works of love were not done out of faith but for personal fulfillment.
>Yes that's exactly what we're saying. It's called the law-gospel distinction.
So you admit to defying the gospel that the following of law is a tenet of grace and thus necessary for salvation?
>And yet you've offered nothing to demonstrate this
The Epistle to the Galatians
>The most you can do is posit that those works of love were not done out of faith but for personal fulfillment
The works of love were done for reconciliation with God. That is what makes them false, because "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
>So you admit to defying the gospel that the following of law is a tenet of grace and thus necessary for salvation?
I admit that we do not mix law and gospel, but keep them separate as scripture does, since through works of the law will no flesh be justified, but through the law comes knowledge of sin. The law says "He that does them shall live by them", while the gospel says "The just shall live by faith."
...
>Your church laid anathemas against God's word
If you refer to ban on reading the Scripture, then yes, that was misguided, but disciplinary measure. Disciplinary measures aren't infallible teaching of the Church.
>It isn't in one manuscript, it has been preserved across thousands of manuscripts.
Then name them. If they are original, they are indeed infallible, but any translation or transcription of them isn't.
>One amongst several co-equal presbyter-bishops before the novelty of prelacy developed.
Then what is the meaning of John 21,15-18?
>The last bishop of Rome, who said that any who would claim the title universal bishop would be the forerunner of Antichrist.
If he indeed speak such and in the meaning you allure to, has he done so ex cathedra?
>And yet, to what did Paul commit Timothy and the other Ephesian elders when he gave his final farewells, but the holy scriptures?
Yes, indeed. Teaching of the Holy Scriptures were to be safeguarded in the Church. That's precisely my point.
>By adding your church to the word of God
It isn't "our" Church. It's Christ's. He is the Head of it.
And what Church added as infallible it's not to change the Gospel, but to further understanding of it. And if Church where to add something that contradicts Gospel, or earlier defined dogma, then it's no true Church at all. For that would be an act of heresy, there's no place in Christ's Bride for heretics.
>Epistle of the Galatians
Again debunks you.
"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
The passage you're quoting is an address to someone betraying Christ's sacrifice by allowing themselves to be circumcised (a submission to slavery) and using the law as an excuse. Are you trying to be slimy on purpose?
>that face
">le meme atheist Jesus monkey face
"According to the description of Neave’s methodology on the “Religious Tolerance” web site where the Jesus reconstruction is posted, this is one more example of extrapolating scant evidence into what someone already assumes.
Science is pretty good at deriving knowledge, at least of a materialistic sort, from actual present objects. When dealing with remains of what once was, its conclusions are much less reliable. Every biblical archeologist, for example, is the one true expert, with all the rest maddeningly obtuse.
Neave’s reconstruction is even farther removed from any solid evidence. People with a fuzzy grasp of the scientific method don’t understand what’s wrong when scientific “facts” are based on a series of assumptions.
Neame’s portrait is based on the following assumptions, none of which qualifies as proven, or even necessarily likely: 1. “Jesus resembled a typical peasant from 1st century CE Palestine.” (Who knows how much difference there was in appearances? Palestine was at a crossroads of civilization, with Romans, Phoenicians, Arabs, Egyptians, and many other types likely to have been well represented). [LA replies: Jesus resembled a peasant? He was a rabbi.]
2. Neame and colleagues “started with an Israeli skull dating back to the 1st century.” (Possibly it could be dated with such accuracy, although archeological dating is not the most exact science. And how does anyone know that it was the skull of an “Israeli,” and not a trader or traveler from somewhere else? Then, as now, there was no law against dying wherever you happened to find yourself.)
3. ” … a person with abroad peasant’s face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose.” (Skulls do not have hair or noses.)
>If you refer to ban on reading the Scripture
No, I refer to the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent
"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
>Then name them
You expect me to name every manuscript of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament? Did you not notice the word 'thousands'?
>Then what is the meaning of John 21,15-18?
Peter had denied Christ three times. For this reason, Christ asks him three times if he loves Him, and after each positive answer He exhorts him to feed His sheep. The third time Christ asks, Peter was grieved, because it reminded him of his thrice denial. By giving this command to Peter three times, Christ comforts Peter that he is forgiven for denying Him thrice.
>If he indeed speak such and in the meaning you allure to, has he done so ex cathedra?
That is an anachronism. He didn't think himself head of the Church, so he didn't have the concept of ex cathedra declarations.
>Teaching of the Holy Scriptures were to be safeguarded in the Church
No, that is a complete reversal. He did not entrust the teaching of scripture to the Church, but the Church to the teaching of scripture.
>And if Church where to add something that contradicts Gospel, or earlier defined dogma, then it's no true Church at all
Then I exhort you to come out of Babylon and come to Christ's Church, because by your confession it is no true church at all.
>"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
This means the opposite of what you think it does. Faith which works through love is a living faith and the only instrument of justification, as opposed to works of the law, which do not count for anything.
>The passage you're quoting is an address to someone betraying Christ's sacrifice by allowing themselves to be circumcised (a submission to slavery) and using the law as an excuse
What they were doing was seeking to be justified by works of the law (like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), and Paul condemns it as a different gospel, which is not another. He says that if one seeks to be justified through the law, they are still in their sins. They are "betraying Christ's sacrifice" because they are regarding the blood of the covenant as an unclean thing and seeking to establish their own righteousness.
>This means the opposite of what you think it does.
It doesn't. That's why you've suddenly shifted to talking about works of the law, despite Sola fide being a rejection of works in and of themselves.
Seeking salvation by submitting to rituals has nothing to do with either side of the argument and you know that.
"Who hindered you from obeying the truth?"
>That's why you've suddenly shifted to talking about works of the law
All works are works of the law, whether motivated by fear or love.
>despite Sola fide being a rejection of works in and of themselves.
A rejection of works in justification
>submitting to rituals
The law is not an assortment of rituals. It includes the decalog and everything summarized therein.
>"there's a biblical way to vote:
>votes for a pedophile that had sex outside of marriage
>america
>white
>All works are works of the law, whether motivated by fear or love.
Are you a Jew, then?
>A rejection of works in justification
That's what the discussion is about.
>The law is not an assortment of rituals. It includes the decalog and everything summarized therein.
Then Paul was criticizing the decalog? He was criticizing Jewish practices.
>Then Paul was criticizing the decalog?
No, he wasn't criticizing anything but the attempt to be justified by keeping the law. Paul does not even take issue with the practice of circumcision in and of itself, but only as a means to be justified.
Even though he prefaces it all with:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery"?
Okay, I can see you're just being openly dishonest now, thank you.
>Even though he prefaces it all with:
>"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery"?
The "yoke of slavery" is being obligated to keep the law.
>Okay, I can see you're just being openly dishonest now
If you can't keep up you could just say so. There's no shame in surrender.
Stop your divide and conquer shit. If anything, that graph proves that Catholics are divided equally which is no surprise among such a large demographic. In fact, if we counted only spic Catholics then it would be mostly blue.
"the law" referring to Jewish law, which you've just claimed is what all works, including "good works" that are taught in gospel, is in service of.
In other words, you're a Jew.
>divide and conquer shit
>between catholics and protestants
is this the power of american education?
Wtf is wrong with the Orthodox? Aren't they all Eastern Euros and Greeks?
Let's all take a second to appreciate how neatly this conversation's tied back to my original point: Protestants are the reason Christianity is seen as slavery to Jews
Are you kidding me? If anything the best parts of Europe are the Catholic parts. Even Anglicanism is basically just a compromise between Catholicism and the Nonconformist churches in England. The reason why our Puritans left England was because the Church of England was too Catholic! The most cucked countries in all of Europe today are primarily Lutheran. Most of our greatest presidents in America were high church Anglicans, not Baptist corncobbers. England, while not Catholic on paper, is spiritually far more Catholic than it is Protestant.
Believe me, in the long-term, if you want a chance of stopping this degeneracy, you should be converting to Catholicism and either joining the priesthood or raising a huge Catholic brood with a Catholic whilst encouraging your sons to enter the clergy or raise large families themselves.
t. American Catholic of English and Rhenish descent
Yeah, retard, I am well-aware that Prots are heretics but that doesn't change the fact that we can set aside our differences for the time-being to stop degeneracy. If anything, I think we should be convincing more liberal Catholics of the serious damage they're doing to civilization in the long-term by voting Democrat. Demonizing them will not help in this effort.
>"the law" referring to Jewish law
Is Deuteronomy 27:9-26 just Jewish law? Because Paul quotes it against works of the law in Galatians 3:10
No, it's not "just" Jewish law. But he's quoting it in the context of it being Jewish law, and in context of thew Jews reliance on it. Because it's in the same context as he talks about circumcision, which IS "just" Jewish law, and their selfsame reliance on that.
You are out of arguments and grasping at straws.
>No, it's not "just" Jewish law
Oh ok, then papists rely on works of the law and are under a curse
>But he's quoting it in the context of it being Jewish law, and in context of thew Jews reliance on it. Because it's in the same context as he talks about circumcision, which IS "just" Jewish law, and their selfsame reliance on that.
So?
>You are out of arguments and grasping at straws
Is this what the shrinks call projection?
A lot of Catholics are mestizo.
>Oh ok, then papists rely on works of the law
But they don't.
It's you that asserted all works are works of the Jewish law which Paul was referring to. Including the "good works" which the Bible teaches us is a necessary facet of grace.
YOU asserted this. And you still haven't done anything to substantiate it. Because it's a lie, an invention. And a heresy.
"The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty."
>It's you that asserted all works are works of the Jewish law
Works of the law means obedience to God. God commanded the Jewish law, ergo obeying it is a work of the law.
You already I'm correct when you admitted Paul defines 'works of the law' as more than Jewish law.
Saying he used the phrase in the context of Jewish law is quite literally the opposite of saying he defined it as more than that.
What will your next attempt at a lie be?
>God commanded the Jewish law, ergo obeying it is a work of the law.
And Paul states that reliance on this for salvation removes you from God's grace. Your claim was that this also applied to every other works, including the ones Paul and Christ himself teaches are FACETS of grace.
See
>Saying he used the phrase in the context of Jewish law is quite literally the opposite of saying he defined it as more than that.
Jewish law is part of God's law. Because you admitted that 'works of the law' is not just Jewish law but all of God's law, you admitted that Romanists rely on works of the law.
>And Paul states that reliance on this for salvation removes you from God's grace
God's grace is not some ontological "thing" which can be infused into a soul. Grace means "unmerited favor". It is given effectually, not universally.
The grace away from which the judaizers fell is the free grace of justification through faith in Christ alone.
>Your claim was that this also applied to every other works, including the ones Paul and Christ himself teaches are FACETS of grace.
Romans 11:6
>They don't preach salvation by grace, through faith, not of works
this sentence gave me braincancer. You'll hear from my lawyer.
Evangelicals are the retards of Christianity.
Vatican >>> anything in Shartmart JewSA.
Republican White Atheism is the best philosophy. no fedora tipping, just hating niggers jews arabs fags and women
>Because you admitted that 'works of the law' is not just Jewish law but all of God's law, you admitted that Romanists rely on works of the law.
And this is another lie for two reasons:
1) The Jews' relationship with that law is entirely different from Christian, since they're the """chosen people""" and don't need salvation. Trying to hold them in the same context is simply dishonest.
2) You haven't demonstrated anything that has to do with RELIANCE.
>the free grace of justification through faith in Christ alone
>faith in Christ alone
James 2:26
>Romans 11:6
Nobody has claimed that faith is based on works. I've said explicitly, and given you the passages to substantiate it, that works are a facet of faith.
Your mouth is full of lies.