Here's what Christianity ACTUALLY teaches about immigration

Pro-Tip: It's not what the Jewish tagline or (((Pope Francis))) claims it is.

In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas was careful to divide relationships with foreigners into two categories: peaceful, and hostile. Among peaceful relationships, he identified three types of encounter which the Jews might have with foreigners who entered their lands:

Sometimes, foreigners simply passed through their land as travelers;
Foreigners came to dwell in their land as newcomers. In Exodus 22:21 and again in Exodus 22:9, the Law protected the rights of newcomers, warning “Thou shalt not molest a stranger”; and
When any foreigner wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. In this instance, the newcomer was not to be automatically admitted to citizenship. Immigrants from some countries were not to be admitted to citizenship for two or three generations.
“The reason for this,” Aquinas wrote,

“...was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/7xkvNoVaFvU
youtu.be/dPqSelVJvoA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture was necessary for full citizenship.

While the Law prescribed means by which residents of certain nations (the Egyptians, the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother) should be admitted to fellowship after the third generation, others (such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship, because people of those lands had been hostile toward the Jews. The Amalekites, who had been even more hostile and had no fellowship of kindred with the Jewish community, were never to be admitted, and were to be held as foes in perpetuity.

And relevant to our situation today: Because of the urgent need to protect the Jewish community, there was no differentiation made in Scripture between warlike members of the Amalekite community, and others who may be peaceful.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks even more clearly about the responsibility of government to protect its citizens, even while welcoming the stranger. It's sometimes reported that the Catholic Church teaching requires an open-border policy under which immigrants can enter the country without restraint. Actually, though, there are important qualifiers which must be considered.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

So a nation is not required to accept an unlimited number of immigrants, which would impose a burden on its own citizens.

The Catechism continues:

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.

It is not wrong, according to the Catechism, to impose restrictions – such as President Trump's 60- to 90-day moratorium on immigration from certain areas – while plans can be enacted to ensure the safety and well-being of the American people.

Finally, the Catechism acknowledges that immigrants are only to be welcomed if they are willing to obey our laws.

Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

The President's Executive Order

President Trump, in issuing his Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”, echoes the need for protections which is delineated in the Catechism

pol btfo. Save this for every time some lefty or atheist comes here spewing lies and bullshit

Don't forget this is all immediately accessible information that people who claim to know what Christ taught deliberately ignore.

Don't ever let someone shame you into being walked over because they're "pretty sure" Jesus taught X.

...

stop being pagan

>pol btfo
do you even know what that means?

Good thread

It's true to the extant that atheist redditor shills have infested this board to consistently denigrate the large number of Christian posters here for no reason other than their own crypto-jewishness aka atheism.

I bet you were paid to post that cuck cuck shill cuck.

>athiest redditor shills are Sup Forums
gtfo you dumb fucking faggot

you know Sup Forums is a christian board right?

There are a ton on here and they are slowly ruining the board actually. They're the dumbest most misinformed people on here, and it starts with their brainlet understanding of Christianity. But it extends much further.

If I had to guess, they are the kekistan crowd who came here during the election. I love the President and I even generally enjoy ptg, but there is some serious cancer here now and their main focus is spreading lies about Christians. So chill out coolest monkey in the jungle. Besides, you were paid to say that cuck cuck cuck.

Here's the screencap

They are probably Evangelists. Evangelists is CIA in disguise. CIA is pushing hard for Muslim invasion.
Source: compiled list of CIA fronts in pastebin.

Fkn saved

>a whole text approving /pol's views
>pol btfo
Dear newfag, I'm a bit confused

I'm completely fine with legal immigrants. Also use KJV and don't post c*Tholic garbage

God bless you a thousand times more brother

>In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas
I'm out.

Ah look some dickhead protty coming in to shit up a good thread with in-fighting. If you actually had a theology maybe you could share something too instead of attacking a conservative Christian.

>a tremendous christian thinker
>"don posd b/c gatholig"
If you have issues with Aquinas, and are incapable of articulating what those issues are, your understanding of Christian theology is seriously suspect.

youtu.be/7xkvNoVaFvU
THIS

Seig Heil !

OP you have done Gods work today and have earned your self a well deserved screencap. Today OP sucked no dicks, he did not even look at trap porn.

Yeah I dunno man.

>implying c*Tholics aren't in bed(literally) with the muslims.

We're being raided hard, user. An influx of plebbitors and fedoras yes, but also a coordinated attack.
saved
right on cue, shill

sauce?

>right on cue shill
not meant for you user meant for

Why don't you use the Bible itself to prove your points? I don't care what Aquinas or the government of the Vatican said back then, I care what the Bible says.

But you are right, the Bible is against certain forms of immigration. The first form of immigration that the Bible is against is purely economic immigration. There are multiple examples of economic immigration in the Bible, and whenever it happens, God punishes it. When the children of Israel go into Egypt to escape the famine, God hands them over into Egyptian captivity. We shouldn't just immigrate to another country for economic reasons, because the Bible is clear that God alloted the different peoples their own nations and "the bounds of their habitation".

The Bible is also clear that if you reside as a foreigner in another country, you need to follow their laws to the letter. This fact alone removes about 95% of all immigrants in the West. Nearly all non-whites in Europe and America are illegals who just came there and ignored immigration proceedings.

The other type of immigration that the Bible is against, is mass globalist immigration that's purposely orchestrated to destroy and wreck nations. Globalism is Satan's master plan for the end times.

That's not to say that real, legal immigrants shouldn't be treated as your own and with dignity.

Real refugees should also be treated with dignity and accepted, but Europe has not accepted any real refugees since the Bosnian war. Muslims from the Middle East cease being immigrants when they enter Turkey, Italy and Greece. Then they're economic globalist mass immigrant pawns of Satan.

Oh Protcucks, you never fail to amaze me.

Someone who loves god talking shit to a satanist isn’t “in-fighting”.

If you're going to write off one of the preeminent Christian thinkers, who still reigns as an unstoppable force in even the post-enlightenment west, because he's Catholic, then you have no interest in preserving your culture or your heritage, and are instead more interested in spiritually fellating yourself all the to the grave.

Christianity is dated.

>lol disregard holy texts listen to the traditions of the scribes just like jesus told us to do.

cathocucks are mentally ill

Incare more about what Psalms and Proverbs says over (((thomas))))) (((Aquinas))

>1 post by this ID

okay.

...

...

Catholics know this which is why they voted Trump. Unfortunately our Boomer clergy isn't on board with what the Church teaches.

pic form

...

Protty:
>faith alone saves, nothing else matters
>catholics have faith in jesus christ
>but... uh... catholics aren't saved because of other things they do
So faith alone doesn't save?

pol is an atheist board now.

no those are just trolls from Sup Forums and the occasional actual shill.

Faith alone saves, faith and beliving you need to be a good boi does not.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to cite Biblical arguments and not rely on man's words.

So many of these doctrines can be defended Biblically, but you undermine your own argument when you start looking for church fathers or the Vatican government to bolster your points, instead of looking to the Bible. And it's not even a good way of convincing anyone BUT other Catholics.

Alright then. So do you have a atheist-chan? That's the number 1 requirement

I'd like to think that this is just shilling, however, just in case not.
Why is it that you protestant claim so much to do things ''by the book'' and yet disobey it on many occasions.

What about Apostolic Succession?
That is never brought up by pastors is it.

In other words, it is hypocritical of you to say ''I just read the Bible'' and yet ignore most of it's teachings, furthermore, it is incredibly vain to think that you alone have the knowledge to comprehend God's word alone.

An educated collective is far more suited to tackling this thing then a lone man, with the limited knowledge of writing styles could ever be.

You must recognize that Catholic teachings and Aquinas especially are built upon God's word.
They do not go against them or aim to subvert his meaning.

>What about Apostolic Succession?
That's never mentioned in the Bible

BTFOOOOOOOOOOOOO

There is already a pagan chan.

>That's never mentioned in the Bible

>1 Corinthians 11:2
>2 Thessalonians 2:15.
>Acts 1:21-26
>1 Timothy 1:6
>1 Timothy 5:22

I'm just going to leave this here.

>You must recognize that Catholic teachings and Aquinas especially are built upon God's word.
Okay, then use Aquinas' Biblical argument to prove your points, don't say that "Aquinas said" or "the Cathechism says". It's not like the old church fathers were infallible, as proven by their numerous warped teachings of the past that the church has walked back.

Just use the Bible.

None of those even remotely show Apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is a completely made up doctrine to justify a political monopoly on Christianity.

>Listen to the corruptible Man's manufactured belief on the bible, goy
>Don't take the text of the bible which has been consistent and has proven itself to be correct time and time again seriously
Fucking retard.

>2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
How is this apostolistic succession? Paul's just saying follow what I teach, nothing about people being the keader of the church Peter was the keader of.
Fix your list then I'll look at the rest

It is AMAZING, literally AMAZING how quickly Protestants shit up any discussion about Christianity. They are, surprisingly, probably worse than atheists.

Still not sure why they even take issue with Catholics. Remember they believe faith alone saves, but even though Catholics have faith, somehow we still go to hell because they have a vendetta.

Pure nonsense.
>be protestant
>come into thread dropping pornographic images and saying catholics are muslims
>still manage to act high and mighty
>never talk about the thread's topic

>Still not sure why they even take issue with Catholics. Remember they believe faith alone saves, but even though Catholics have faith, somehow we still go to hell because they have a vendetta.
See

I dont see her/him get used. Heh i havent seen one for few years.

Also im talking about atheist chan. Not pagan chan.
The latter is a theist.

At this point I can't understand protestants anymore. You contradict yourself as much as islam. The bible was translated in a way to make man understand and combat against the strains of heresy seen under arian and other such people. If Luther was alive he'd be a catholic.

Which is why Protestantism is a branch of Catholicism and Lutheranism is literally indistinguishable from Catholicism.

you're all idiots and kike lovers so who cares lol

It's hilarious how Christcucks all have their own interpretations of the bible. How do you know which one is correct? I can take scripture from the bible and twist it around to mean what i want it to mean. Besides Christcuckery hasn't done anything at all for the white race recently. I used to be one, there were interracial couples everywhere in the church. Most chirstians unironically believe "we're all gods children" and that racism is bad. There was a white couple with adopted african kids.

It's shadman.

Something isn't canon unless it is accepted by an Ecumenical council.
The Church is convinced that this won't happen because Jesus claims that: ''He'll never let the gates of Hell triumph over the Church.''
Read the list.
You'll understand.
>Independent Baptists
>Citation needed

I'm the kike lover, yet you have a "pope" who meets with Rabbis and goes to Jewish psychologists? Your pope is literally an atheist, don't tell me about loving kikes.

Christian Zionism is mostly a Protestant thing, until the Catholic church also embraced it in 1962.

As an agnostic. Tip harder faggot

How about you fix your list first?

So faith alone doesn't save. You're qualifying that doctrine by saying that you must have faith in addition to adhering to a certain set of doctrine.

Either faith saves alone... or it doesn't. It's that simple. Catholics have faith in Jesus, so if that isn't enough to save them, your entire theology is a lie. The second you add ANY additional qualification, you've changed your original statement "faith alone saves."

Where in the Bible does it say that people are not saved if they are committed to living a good life? Brainlet.

Sharing my experience with church is "tipping" ? I gave christcuckery a chance, i just didn't really like the Israel praising, the interracial couples, the adopting African children, and as well as helping anyone but white people. Cry more you faggot. Christians here larp as crusaders but in reality they follow "cuck" the religion.

You have to believe the right gospel. The right gospel is that your saved by faith alone

Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

>in b4 Father's will is do works
John 6
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

>in b4 James 2
youtu.be/dPqSelVJvoA

…14 To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, who by grace has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope,…
-2 Thessalonians 2:15

See?
Reading isn't that hard.

>Ecumenical council
That's funny, because the Bible is 100% against ecumenism. The only reason for someone to arrange an ecumenical council is to compromise on doctrine.

Of course the gates of hell won't triumph over God's church. That's why the Catholic church is literally an atheist organization and your pope is an atheist -- because you're not the church of Christ. You're a giant globalist one-world government.

If you TRUST your own works to save you in any capacity, then you're not saved. Only if you trust 100% in Jesus you're saved. That's the gospel and that's what he means.

Again he's just saying hold to your traditions. Nothing about apostolistic succession

Also use KJV

...

The modern church is a heretical creation. No where in the bible or anywhere does it say God or Christ founded a particular church, exception the assertion from the church itself. The church is simply man's way of corrupting the text of the bible and manipulating it protect the (((elites))) in power or whatever is useful to them. This is why you see woman priests in Sweden. Take the bible for what it is. Don't point to a retard churchman and appeal to authority, because God is the highest authority, you heretic.

>the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter
What I love about this verse is that Catholics believe the apostles shared super-secret extra-Biblical information that wasn't written down in the epistles.

I'm sorry, the apostles did not share extra secret information that they only shared orally and that survived orally within the Catholic church but was never written down in the epistles.

Not only is that completely unbiblical, but it's almost the most retarded way ever to preserve God's word. God preserves his word as a written text and everything they taught that we need is found in the epistles.

noice

Protestants ruined another thread with their secterianism again.
Sorry OP, but I have stuff to do, can't stick around.

Anyways, hope you guys see the light.

They said themselves that they only wrote down Jesus's most important teachings in the Bible.

>They are, surprisingly, probably worse than atheists.
Don't be a hypocrite, user. With that being said, I agree with everything you've stated about immigration and what real charity is. I think Protestants are also in the right to call out the controllers within the Catholic church, who have clearly started playing for the wrong team. I hope you don't take what I have said the wrong way, user. As I truly believe you are my brother, keep walking that narrow path.

doing God's work brother

>I'm a catholic, inspired by internet memes and crusader kings 2 !

No, you're a dumb easily misled cuckold.

>Implying people who follow believe in christ and follow the bible can only be Protestant or Catholic
You have much to learn.

>They said themselves that they only wrote down Jesus's most important teachings in the Bible.
Ah, the rest survives within the dark golden chambers of the Vatican and you need to ask your pedophile church father to teach these secrets to you! :)

saved
thank you user

t. worships gender-neutral God now

Vatican II was foretold as the Great Apostasy.

Anyway the days of the greatest suffering are coming soon. At least afterwards the Church will be unified again and the protestant heresy will be no more.

Such a based monk.

Where does it say prophecy ended with the death of the apostles? Those saints and blessed people you are defiling with your words, they have led llives that make you not worthy to kiss their toe.

Meanwhile protestants promote usury, but will laud a guy like Kim Clement because he foretold Trump's presidency in 2010. Who is to say that information didn't come from Satan?

Anyway catholic prophecy foretold many wars and turmoils throughout history, including WW 1 and 2. If only you would know your snake mouth would be shut soon.

It's also more or less against culture mixing. If someone could point me to the specific part in one of Paul Letters (I think) I would be happy

So are you arguing for taking the bible strictly literal since men are corruptible and their interpretations can't be trusted?

>10 posts by this ID about the importance of biblical citations that are entirely devoid of biblical citations

this post would have been a great place to cite the bible if you weren't so busy not doing good works

>(1 Corinthians 11:2) Now I commend YOU because in all things YOU have me in mind and YOU are holding fast the traditions just as I handed [them] on to YOU.

>2 Thessalonians 2:15) So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain YOUR hold on the traditions that YOU were taught, whether it was through a verbal message or through a letter of ours.

>Acts 1:21-26

>(1 Timothy 1:6) By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk,

>(1 Timothy 5:22) Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.

No where do these verses imply Apostolic Succession. In fact, the Bible is against that. The reason being is that only Christ is the leader of the Church, no man is. Even your own Catholic Scholars admit that.

>“in the strict sense, the apostles left no successor,...“historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority...: “The corruption of the papal court under unworthy men approaches the incredible [unbelievable]. ... the adventurers and bandits who were elected to the papacy had no interest in affirming spiritual leadership of any kind.” - Catholic Scholar John L. McKenzie, professor of theology at Notre Dame, "The Roman Catholic Church" (New York, 1969), p. 4.

...

I'll take that as a yes then.

I'll take it your catholic then? Maybe you can enlighten us on the verses where God or Christ gives any Church credibility. The Catholics are having a really hard time on this one. I'd doubt you'd do it since you are a low effort shitposter.