How do you become protestant...

the clever prot who just said "just believe the bible" as if the bible interprets itself, all you need to do is read it. lmao

How do you become Catholic? Do you basically just molest children and do whatever the heck you think the Pope is saying? And belief in Christ and loving thy neighbor and ecumenical councils are just optional and symbolic and you an just yolo it all?

It is weird how some of their dogmas are defined. For instance, did you know the church believes you’re unsaved if you disagree with them on the immaculate conception? It’s true, you could follow all Catholic practices to the T and be unsaved cause of that one belief.
What’s funny is this: Orthodox and Protestants believe in the trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, and the glorious resurrection. However, they don’t believe in the immaculate conception. However, Muslims are unitarians who believe Jesus was a mere prophet who wasn’t crucified or resurrected; yet they do believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. This explains CCC 841 more than anything else

Then all of Christianity would be refuted you genius.

We love you too. 😘
May someday you too will experience God's eternal, holy mercy and follow what He said as intended for His people, as His people.

May you receive many blessings from the Lord.

...

Lmao, it's actually true.
That is eye-opening.

Sure, the bible requires interpretation. That doesn't mean its unreliable. Take Steven Anderson, for example. He makes obvious errors in his exegesis, because he is driven by his IFB traditions and ensures that his reading with the texts always comports with that. It's a general problem with all denominations (yours included).

The actions of individuals have no bearing on the theology they adhere to. Every Christian from the time of Christ has repeatedly sinned and sinned and sinned, so what? Christ is refuted because his followers sin?

How DOES this keep habening?!

When you guys resolve the filioque, feel free to start sternly preaching about disunity at us.

Attached: randy-shock.jpg (255x230, 13.83K)

Here's what you need to understand about Catholicism: the laity doesn't make the doctrine, so they always make up dumb stuff like Wilgefortis or Santa Muerte. That's folk Catholicism, or what the church calls a "Catholic Cult," and they don't define Catholicism.
The clergy is corrupt and shiftless, but they also don't represent Catholicism. Judas was an apostle, and he didn't define Christ's ministry, did he? So even though a lot of the clergy is embroiled in abuse scandals, and the pope espouses liberal modernist universalism at every chance he gets, that's just the natural corruption of humans in power. It's a heresy (donatism) to believe the clergy must be blameless. The clergy is corrupt, and they don't define Catholicism.
What defines Catholicism is the dogmas, which you can read in the Catechisms. Just not the Vatican 2 ones. Those are modernist heresies, and if you take stuff like CCC 841 at face value, you're going to go wrong. Remember, that stuff was made by the corrupt clergy, and they don't define Catholicism.
Some people go to far here, and assume that we need to break away from the church because the clergy isn't even Catholic anymore. People like Sedevacantists, for example. Those guys are way off! Even though the clergy is corrupt and heretical, you can't break away from them. The Vatican still leads the church. If you're a sedevacantist, you're basically a protestant. You can't form your own church, even if you call it a Catholic church and you believe in traditional Catholic dogmas and you worship in a traditionally Catholic way and even if you trace your continuity to the Roman Catholic Church. Those guys are schismatics and they don't define Catholicism.
So what does define Catholicism? I do, and the Church Fathers (I haven't read all of them, but I know they are all in 100% agreement with both each other and with me) do, and all dogmas before Vatican II (such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception from 1854) do. Those sources are where you can find the church as it was preached by Jesus Christ to the apostles. Current estimates say that I'm the only Catholic who's real.

I'm not Catholic so I don't need to defend their dogmas/doctrines but it's a simple matter of logic that the sins of individual catholics, even high ranking clergy don't invalidate their teachings/dogmas. So your long-winded rant is pointless.

Its a copy pasta

Literally the entirety of the Catholic Church is flawed in some way. The laity is faithless, the clergy is corrupt, and the dogmas are inconsistent. The pasta is merely a verbose way of saying that

There is nothing inconsistent about Catholic dogma, unless you're a schismatic or a heretic.

As for the Laity and Clergy:

He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.

27And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.

28I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.

29And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

30And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:

31If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:

32I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.

33But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail.

Church dogmas aren’t inconsistent? Meaning, they are consistent? Okay, what is the consistent answer the consistent church throughout history would consistently give to this question: “is the death penalty morally wrong?”
Please provide citations from infallible texts in the past and present, to show how consistent they’ve been on this issue

10/10

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/

If you define the Church by its faithful and not it’s faith, then you obviously put your faith in people and not in the Lord. Think about that for a while.

You do what every protestant has done since the invention of protestantism. You start your own church based on a single line of scripture! For example, if you close your eyes and flip through the Bible and put your finger down at a random time, you'll hit a verse. For the purposes of this example, I hit Romans 12:10 "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another". So, now I head down to the court house and file a DBA license as "The Church of Brotherly Love" and *BAM* I'm a protestant church!

So, Romans 12:10 is the "bros before hos" verse? I like your church. How do I join?

Fine, doctrine. You’re being pedantic in order to avoid the fact that the church went from wholly supportive to wholly against this major issue

Dogmas have been added long since the apostles. Doctrines and attitudes on important issues have changed. The laity and clergy are faithless. The whole thing is a bust

Here’s what the church says in the council of Florence
Okay, that’s pretty clear. No rooms for interpretation: nobody, not even those martyrs outside the Catholic Church, will be saved. That’s very clear. And it’s from an ecumenical council. This document is binding on all Catholic faithful.

This is something the pope said in a speech on Christian unity. Now, certainly the answer is easy: the infallible document is correct and the random speech that DIRECTLY contradicts it is wrong. But wait, isn’t he just endorsing what the catechism teaches?
So it used to be “gtfo heretics, if you’re not in the physical body of Christ even your martyrdom is invalid,” but now it’s “well if you’re sincere and do well I guess who am I to judge lmao?”
You wanna know how to explain this discrepancy? You realize that even though God is clearly real and Jesus is truly Lord, the Catholic Church is not and never was his church, and you seek God elsewhere, going from Protestant church to Protestant church to Orthodox Church while you read the Bible three times over thinking “well I just wasted a bunch of my time and now I need to find Christ before it’s too late”

It's not even doctrine but if you really want your narrative we can still roleplay it is and you're right.

Neither the pope nor the catechism are doctrine.
The pope can say whatever the frick he wants, and the catechism is more akin to an instruction manual or a FAQ rather than doctrine.
I already said in another thread that one could (theoretically) disagree with the catechism and still be Catholic as long has he adheres to Catholic doctrine and dogma.
As for the whole martyrdom thingy, being in unity with the Catholic Church, a.k.a. being part of the Catholica, or the Mystical Body of the Church, is not defined by schism.
It is funny how you are interpreting a council on your own by the way.

Nobody's interpreting anything, it's the plaintext reading of it.
Those are two contradictory statements. No interpretation required, plain reading is enough

As for real dogmas, they still aren't consistent in the sense that they are not unchanging. The assumption of Mary wasn't a dogma until 1950. What happened in heaven in 1950? Did all the saints who didn't believe in the assumption of Mary during their life get flung back in purgatory for a few years? Why did God change his mind in 1950, and decide that what wasn't dogma for so many years suddenly needed to be dogma?
Why didn't any of the prophets or apostles or Jesus Christ himself ever mention purgatory by name? Seems like a pretty important thing to mention. They always talk of Heaven or Hell, but there's an entire third world we could go to after death and they don't even prepare us for it? And God doesn't even decide it's dogma until 1254? What happened in Heaven in 1254? Why is Catholic God so inconsistent?

You aren't quoting the council anymore though, so yeah you were interpreting the council on your own.

This was something that has always been believed, and was formally declared a dogma in 1950.
Of course dogmas can be added to, IIRC they added certain dogmas as a counter against Arius too.
Dogmas never change, the list can by addition but dogmas cannot be scrapped.
You cannot find a former dogma, doesn't exist.

That's a direct quote

I'll answer since this thread devolved into catholic mud flinging as usual.

"Protestantism" isn't something you convert to because there is no "protestant" church or unified protestant belief. It is a wide catch all term usually refering to non-Catholic and non-Orthodox denominations that arose out of the reformation and a bit after.

In older denominations such as lutheran or presbyterian "conversion" is the same a catholicism. A period of catechesis and learning about that brand of christianity found in their own confession. Like the Book of Concord (lutheran), Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), London Baptist Confession (Reformed Baptist) etc

Athiests are kind of protestant if you think about it.

Oh well my bad but that big lump of green text wasn't really readable.

The whole council was agreed on and ratified in a papal bull, but nothing new in terms of dogma nor doctrine came from it.
As with the salvation of non-catholics the Church is very clear: they aren't no matter what which pope says.
Who belongs in which way to the Church is a whole other theological discussion however.

Fun note: It is allowed to change/update the Catechism, but the writings of that Ecumenical Council can't be changed.