What is more redpilled? Catholic or protestant?

What is more redpilled? Catholic or protestant?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lOcDndO7m4Q
youtube.com/watch?v=8RPwsRAKW4k&index=21&list=PLV1Xd_c5-wta8HSKFx15qdV5L-pm5XvZA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Protestants are just degenerate Catholics.

go figure

New pope is a kike homo lobbyist but normal catholics are pretty based. Protestants are limp wristed faggots in general.

not all protestant denominations are the same

...

Catholics fuck little boys so what do you think? Look at the fucking pope for christ sake.

youtube.com/watch?v=lOcDndO7m4Q

Depends on which protestants you are talking about.

Evangelicals are considerably more redpilled than catholics, who are in turn more redpilled than mainline protestants.

this should answer your question. catholocism is inherently left wing and globalist.

>Evangelicals
but they can be spilt into pro israel ones or anti jewish,anti NWO ones

it's all slave morality

why is there Anglican church and Episcopalian church on the list

>either degenerate religion
>worthy of red-pill status

Hail Odinn

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

Hispanic catholic a.k.a. catholic but not cuck.

this chart is measuring how republican or democrat religions are. how can you not see that? are you retarded?

>atheist
Holy shit.

>>>/reddit/

Traditional Catholicd know who the Christ killers are. Protties are just a tool of (((them))).
Democratic Catholics are SJW and beaners with their hand out.

Fuci you.
Protestant = interpret the bible however any pleb wants. Faggot self serving cunts is what they is

no i mean isn't the episcopal church just the american version of the anglican in which why would you have two of the same church

>Evangelicals are considerably more redpilled than catholics
>catholocism is inherently left wing and globalist.
What? In germany I feel like it's the other way around

Protestants, it's not even close. Just look at Evangelicals and Baptists in America. It's true there are degenerate segments of Protestantism, but they're branches, whereas Catholicism is rotten from the stem. The pope is a degenerate, it's an institution based off the premise that God communicates directly with a man chosen by men and you should worship him and give him shitloads of revenue in tax, and it completely misinterprets the will of Christ in an attempt to give it legitimacy by claiming Saint Peter was the first pope even though the catholic church wouldn't exist until the schism several centuries later.

Catholicism is a disgusting heresy built on greed, corruptness, child fornication, devil sabbats and sin. This is largely shown by the fact God did not permit the Church to reclaim the Holy Land. In my opinion, it's on par with Judaism and Islam as a corruption of the Abrahamic God.

B

Don't be a dumbass Protestant...

As opposed to
Catholic = Interpret the bible the way the (((Elites))) want.

nope. the anglicans separated from the episcopal

>worshiping a Jewish god

Gotta' be Protestants. If for no other reason, there is rarely a central organization (exception: Anglicans).

>however any pleb wants.
better than just a church who still follows pagan doctrine just so they could gain more followers and only exist so that the roman could gain control

Episcopalianism is the post-revolution church of england in america that now has lesbian clergy. Anglicans have become popular in the US because they have the same worship as the Episcopalians, but with less faggotry. Particularly the Anglican rite.

ok cheers

the pope is a sjw faggot and half of all catholics are shitskins.

lol, you're such a fuck slave to your betters it's hilarious

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…

We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

Neither. They're both the same universalist garbage.

Explain this

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…

We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

Catholicism is also a religion for non-whites such as Italians, the French, Hispanics, niggers etc. It's no surprise Protestanism was born in the white nations of northern Europe like Britain, Germany and Scandinavia.

The P in WASP stands for protestant.

youtube.com/watch?v=8RPwsRAKW4k&index=21&list=PLV1Xd_c5-wta8HSKFx15qdV5L-pm5XvZA

Educate thyselves. When you actually take some time to learn about European traditional religion it speaks to you very clearly, unlike Jewish-influenced religions like Christianity which put you at odds with the world and yourself.

WASP compete with Jews for top dog, Catholics are just the labor force

The protestant church was established because Catholicism is degenerate.

>kike worshippers think they're redpilled

There have been grossly immoral popes. We call them "bad popes". Popes are only infallible when they speak ex cathedra

There are three good Catholic countries; Austria, Liechtenstein and Croatia.

The rest of it is a mix of poverty and disease.

>posts Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church
>pic related

>The protestant church was established because Catholicism is degenerate.
not quite it was because the catholic church had doctrine that had no evidence for it in the bible

Catholism is corrupt and not of Jesus Christ
It's nice they are still calling him the lord and saviour of the world, but everything else is false
Sabbath on sunday? FALSE
Being okay with degeneracy like faggotry and the like, NOT COOL
and so on

Catholics, as they hate Jews.

Jesus is a Jew.

>What? In germany I feel like it's the other way around
I'm sure many Buddhist feel the same about that poll.

but Lutherans copied 95 percent of Catholic doctrine, they just didn't like political control and indulgences.

Same bullshit.

Luther if he was alive today would have started a new church

>be jew or injun
>scream catholic oppression
>be stormfag
>claim slave morality

>piss vs shit

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

Proddies explain

not worshiping mary and the saints though and the idolatry also the "holy" relics

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…

We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

Proddies explain

Daily reminder that pic related dropped the jewish question so hard

Daily reminder that the Catholic Bishops Conference of America nearly saved us from capeshit degeneracy (which was made by jews literally)

Daily reminder that JFK was a Catholic

Daily reminder that Scalia was catholic

Polycarp 17:1
But the jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary of the family of the righteous, having seen the greatness of his martyrdom and his blameless life from the beginning, and how he was crowned with the crown of immortality and had won a reward which none could gainsay, managed that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this and to touch his holy flesh.

Polycarp 17:2
So he put forward Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to plead with the magistrate not to give up his body, 'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'--this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved--suffered though faultless for sinners--nor to worship any other.

Why did the early christian do this

Catholics:
>every person who speaks spanish
>brazil
>places where the army install the leaders
>countries famous for drug cartels
>some sjw pope

Protestants:
>the british empire
>frontier people everywhere (african whites, ulster protestants)
>explorers
>every us president apart from one (who was a paedophile)
>every rich country in europe

October 31, 1517 is Reformation Day.

Halloween is a potatonigger attempt to subvert the Protestant Reformation.

Halloween was originally banned in the colonies and states as pagan.

WTF How come all the early christian become apostates

jesus lied when he said nothing will rpevail over his church. His church died

>the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
was it though when the catholic only exists so that rome may gain political power

Obviously none of the above. Baptist. Protestants are diet Catholics.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…

We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

Explain why the early christians are heretic

You mean it existed so early?

Proddie btfo

Suffer not a witch to live.

Polycarp 17:1
But the jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary of the family of the righteous, having seen the greatness of his martyrdom and his blameless life from the beginning, and how he was crowned with the crown of immortality and had won a reward which none could gainsay, managed that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this and to touch his holy flesh.

Polycarp 17:2
So he put forward Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to plead with the magistrate not to give up his body, 'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'--this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved--suffered though faultless for sinners--nor to worship any other.

How did they dare do this idolatry!

All Early christian and Church Fathers are in hell

Armenian? You'll be Universalist in 20 years.

this has nothing to do with worshiping mary and making idols and relics and why catholics still pray and worship saints

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

THE DIDACHE

HOW COULD PAUL DO THIS!!!

THE EUCHARIST IS ONLY A MEMORIAL NOT A PARTICIPAION IN BODU AND BLOOD

Neither.

Amazingly enough, sometimes the Bible uses literary techniques such as metaphors.
Do you think the world was literally created in 7 days?

Also where do you think Baptists came from?

>many desired to do this and touch his holy flesh
THEY WANT TO VENERATE HIS DEAD BODY
THEY CALLED IT HOLY

PRODDIES DONT EVEN DO THAT

STUPIF

The United States was a Protestant nation that mistakenly allowed Catholics and Jews in.

Since this mistake, the US became immediately blue pilled.

Proddie confirm for illiterate buffoon

>religion
>redpilled
pick only one

The thing that bothered Martin Luther most before publishing the 95 theses was the progressively growing practice of the church asking for money in return for indulgence, which is extremely degenerate.

PRODDIES ARE NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN

And most Protestant countries resisted Christianity longer than any others.

...

what the hell does this have to do with the catholic church being established for roman political power

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

THE DIDACHE

HOW COULD PAUL DO THIS

...

Any Sedevacantist Catholics here?

Why did the Early Christians so idolatrous

Flesh is not holy!

WHAT IS TO BE GAINED FRoM WANTING TO TREAT DEAD SHIT AS HOLY AND WANT TO TOUCH THEM

Burke.

not an argument

indulgences should have been the last straw to show that the roman church has no moral authority

>muh right v. left dichotomy

Get this amateur filth off Sup Forums. Matters of faith go well beyond political affiliation. Prots sold out to "muh free market" Republicans a.ka. globalist banker cucks.

Polycarp 17:3
For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher. May it be our lot also to be found partakers and fellow-disciples with them.

Polycarp 18:1
The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom.

Polycarp 18:2
And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place;

Polycarp 18:3
where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter.

HOW COULD THE Y DO THIS

POLYCARP IS DEAD

HIS BONES ARE WORTHLESS

>PRODDIE
>EUCHARIST MERE MEMORIAL

>PAUL
>PARTICIPATION IN GOD BODY AND BLOOD

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]
PRIESTHOOD IS OUTDATED HOW CAN HE DO ThIS

>letting dead sandniggers rule your life
It blows my mind

WHAT HAPPEND TO PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVER

Rome is the doctrine of demons. The modern Roman Church went apostate around the time of the reformation, and during the Council of Trent they sealed their fate as being forever against Christ and good doctrine.

The reformation was not innovative it was recovering the doctrines of the church fathers like Augustine.

I second this

Thus seen, rationalization as Weber postulated it is anything but an unequivocal historical phenomenon. As already pointed out, first, Weber views it as a process taking place in disparate fields of human life with a logic of each field's own and varying directions; “each one of these fields may be rationalized in terms of very different ultimate values and ends, and what is rational from one point of view may well be irrational from another” [Weber 1920/1992, 27]. Second, and more important, its ethical ramification for Weber is deeply ambivalent. To use his own dichotomy, the formal-procedural rationality (Zweckrationalität) to which Western rationalization tends does not necessarily go with a substantive-value rationality (Wertrationalität). On the one hand, exact calculability and predictability in the social environment that formal rationalization has brought about dramatically enhances individual freedom by helping individuals understand and navigate through the complex web of institutions in order to realize the ends of their own choice. On the other hand, freedom and agency are seriously curtailed by the same force in history when individuals are reduced to a “cog in a machine,” or trapped in an “iron cage” that formal rationalization has spawned with irresistible efficiency and at the expense of substantive rationality.

Proddie btfo