Catholic Questions

Honest question for catholics: has it ever even been proposed to you that the church of Matt 16:18 does "not" mean one institution, but the existence of believers at all?

Attached: DvcU3yoWkAEpYYv.jpeg (360x360, 32.07K)

Yes, multiple times.
Of course I never get a COMPLETE hold of what that means. What does it mean that Peter is the head of the church, then?

Peter is not the head of the church, "this rock" is the confession of Christ as Lord found in verse 16

What is that icon depicting? I don't know all the biblical stories that well.

I am not a Protestant because the Protestant tenets make no sense whatsoever.

Sola fide – but fide in what, exactly? Faith needs a content. If this content of faith is just "Jesus Christ is God Incarnated and died to save us and is the source of our salvation", then, well, the Catholic believes that too, which puts the Protestant in a kind of Pascal's Wager situation: if this sort of faith is enough, then both Catholic and Protestant are saved; if the Catholic is right, however, the Catholic is saved and the Protestant is damned. A broad sola fide is thus entirely compatible with Catholicism, since the sacraments are just derivatives from the faith in Jesus Christ.

But if sola fide is more restrictive than that – if it encompasses a certain set of beliefs beyond the divinity of Christ and His redemptive gift – then this too is a problem for Protestantism because there are severe differences in belief among Protestant Churchces. Some consider Mary theotokos, others consider her just a noble woman; some believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, others believe the act to be entirely symbolic. In a restrictive view of sola fide, Protestantism becomes a gamble, as there are many roads to which the free examination of scripture can lead.

Sola scriptura and free examination – but texts don't read themselves. Just like law needs an interpreter to be applied and to say what the text is actually conveying, scripture needs an authoritative interpreter or else it is a gamble, since it is a mixture of symbolic and literal descriptions often without a clear guide to describe which is which. Is Christ speaking literally of the Eucharist being His blood and His flesh? I can read it both ways, but there is only one true answer, answer which I need in order to properly live in Christ. Or else I am, again, gambling with my soul.

In short, the Protestant approach to the faith seems completely incompatible with a mechanism designed to guide mankind to salvation.

So why Catholic? Because I trust it to be the church Christ founded. It is old and despite its up and downs it has been involved in too much good and survived too much evil for me not to believe there is something divine about it. Indeed, if it turns out that the Catholic Church is false, then by no means that will mean that Protestantism is correct. Most likely the true church would have been lost to time and we all would be completely hopeless.

Sola scriptura emphasizes the Bible alone as the source of authority for Christians. By saying, “Scripture alone,” the Reformers rejected both the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Pope and confidence in sacred tradition. Only the Bible was “inspired by God” (2 Peter 1:20-21) and “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Anything taught by the Pope or in tradition that contradicted the Bible was to be rejected. Sola scriptura also fueled the translation of the Bible into German, French, English, and other languages, and prompted Bible teaching in the common languages of the day, rather than in Latin.

Sola fide emphasizes salvation as a free gift. The Roman Catholic Church of the time emphasized the use of indulgences (donating money) to buy status with God. Good works, including baptism, were seen as required for salvation. Sola fide stated that salvation is a free gift to all who accept it by faith (John 3:16). Salvation is not based on human effort or good deeds (Ephesians 2:9).

Sola gratia emphasizes grace as the reason for our salvation. In other words, salvation comes from what God has done rather than what we do. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Solo Christo (sometimes listed as Solus Christus, “through Christ alone”) emphasizes the role of Jesus in salvation. The Roman Catholic tradition had placed church leaders such as priests in the role of intercessor between the laity and God. Reformers emphasized Jesus’ role as our “high priest” who intercedes on our behalf before the Father. Hebrews 4:15 teaches, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus is the One who offers access to God, not a human spiritual leader.

Soli Deo gloria emphasizes the glory of God as the goal of life. Rather than striving to please church leaders, keep a list of rules, or guard our own interests, our goal is to glorify the Lord. The idea of soli Deo gloria is found in 1 Corinthians 10:31: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

from gotquestions.org/five-solas.html

Careful using that as justification. Buddhism is old too and a Buddhist could also say

Hence why I didn't restrict my position to just the church's age.

I understand this, but that doesn't answer the problem I have with sola scriptura. Unstated in the comment is that the text dispenses the need of an interpreter, but that opens the door to people having wildly different interpretations of the text; in other words, having faith in different things.

That excerpt also doesn't answer my issue with sola fide. Accept it by faith, sure – but faith in WHAT? What is the content of this faith? How exacting must it be? If it is broad enough, then even the Catholic is put inside it (which puts Protestants in front of their own Pascal's Wager); if it is restrictive, then choosing a Protestant denomination is a gamble, as they all have wildly differing beliefs (caused partly by the free biblicam exam that is corollary to sola scriptura).

We're told to judge a tree by its fruit, and following church history you can see there a several ups and downs yet it still stand strong on its rock. I believe that gives justification. I can't believe in any denom made in the last few hundred years. It's just too early. There may be a crisis now, but that's all the more reason to stand with it and work through the tough times. The church is married to Christ, and He won't abandon her.

And to add: the difference is that we have reason to believe Jesus existed and was raised from the dead.

Every individual is accountable before God for rightly dividing the word of truth (2 tim 2:15)
Compare apples to apples: what's the situation in the catholic world? There have only been seven instances of infallible declarations made by the pope in 2000 years. Everything else is not seen as divinely handed down to the same degree, and there's regular productive theological debate between fellow catholics.

the gospel
You're still thinking in terms of trusting an institution with your salvation, not the individual receiving the gospel and becoming right before God by belief
The point is the removal of works to receive salvation.

I personally view the gospel as detached from any brand logo or organization, in that it exists in truth objectively. And I couldn't make a statement that no one had been saved since 1500 because of this.

Had the Catholic church fallen away from the true gospel in 1500, it does not invalidate any facts to say it was reformed and corrected from Catholic error by Protestants. Instead, if such an event had occurred, I would say it questions our definition of Church. Is it a hierarchical structure composed of men or a compilation of Saints regardless of if they agree on every last extraneous point?

I would say a Protestant doesn't have a right to say his interpretation is right based on the "Holy Spirit" but in regards to his salvation then yes, I think the principle work is done only by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through God's word. And in that I can't disagree with a Lutheran or a Baptist over salvation, and in fact find common ground, with our own differences being the form and function of certain extraneous doctrines mostly regarding the nature of God.

I hope this doesn't come across as combative, I just want to give you some counter points if you would like to expand on what you've said.

Discovering the Theology of the Cross and wrestling with it. I cannot find anything I agree with as strongly as the Solas, and to me they must be the basis for any rational approach to a frankly irrational truth. The idea of man's fallen state mixed with Christ's redemptive act, in my opinion finds it's most powerful and truest expression opposed to the Catholic view of justification. But I'm not here to argue, and I thank you for sharing what got you into Catholicism.

I was raised Catholic and I was never introduced to Protestantism.
I first started flirting with the idea of Protestantism when I heard that Luther was a huge antisemite.
That prompted me to look into antisemitism in the Bible and I realized that the old testament is all about the Jews failing God time and again and being incredibly sinful and degenerate and often outright evil. The new testament has Jesus rejecting the Jews and calling them the sons of the devil.
So I realized that Christianity as a whole is properly anti semitic if one takes it seriously, regardless of denomination.

Now you could say that the hatred of Jews is not a good motivation for being a a Catholic, but it's not just that. I find the Catholic church to be the most authentic and only surviving inheritor of true European spirituality. In many ways, Protestantism made Christianity less European and more "Jewish", by rejecting 1500 years of tradition built around the Bible.

I don't particularly think that your denomination matters all that much as long as you genuinely build a good relationship with God, but Catholicism just feels right.

I wish I could but I'll have to request this instead:
Could you summarize for me? Yeah, the post that you're replying to? I need to know what you understood form it.

Attached: NervousMissionary.gif (500x500, 5.24M)

That does seem to give credence to my concern about it being, essentially, a gamble on hitting the right interpretation of scripture.

True to an extent. But that doesn't depose against Catholicism because Catholicism doesn't uphold sola fide. And Catholicism explicitly shields the honestly ignorant from incurring into damning mortal sin.

Doesn't answer my question. The Gospel is a text and needs to be interpreted in other to have its meaning extracted. Free, honest interpretation can lead to an individual extracting meaning A (and thus having faith in A) and another meaning B (and thus having faith in B).

At least one of those will be wrong which means that at least one of these individuals will lack the requisite faith for attaining salvation.

No, I am not. By "denomination" I don't mean physical churches, but a set of beliefs/interpretations of the Gospels (including one's individual one that isn't shared by any known church) to which the individual assents.

Are you sure you want to tie those two sentences in the same line? The first statement is not orthodox at all, unless you are speaking about people that don't know about Christianity/Catholicism, which given the context you aren't.

Really hard not to argue on this but I'm just gonna make a few points.

– Martin Luther shockingly was not anti-Semitic and I really wish Lutherans would uncuck themselves from even approaching the issue. Luther absolutely hated the religion of Judaism lying to the Jews. Most if not all of his insults are directed express at rabbi's lying to their own people preventing them from hearing the gospel. The insults are almost the exact same compared to what he used on Catholics.

– The Old Testament represents all of us. We continually fail just like they did. The New Testament is Christ's fulfillment of so many promises including prophecies about the punishments on the Jews for having hard hearts and ignoring him.

Really it's a testament to the religious rules we try to live by in light of the fact that we can't, and how even the supposed Holy People failed at it too. It's a helpful contrast in showing why Christ matters so much, and God's great patience.

Sure I'll try. It was hard to decipher some of what you were saying to be honest. The main thing I think you were trying to say was that if the Holy Spirits guidance that I proposed was true, then things would look different in Christianity. Since you believe events have occurred that makes this impossible, you are hinting that the only denominations still valid are the ones with a strong tradition stretching back towards the beginning.

I obviously disagree with a couple of your thoughts but that is the best I could understand from you. I was a little confused by your use of the word story. Hope this is fulfilling what you asked.

As a side question how does this agree with the fact that original evangelists were unlearned fishermen?

It's not very hard to explain to people they are wicked and tell them about Jesus.

I agree that church leaders bear the responsibility for correctly teaching the scripture, and it's a topic to handle very respectfully

Directly answers the question; you asked, "faith in WHAT?"
The gospel is the correct articulation of how man receives salvation. It is the "good news" It is not one text. It can be restated in different ways, even in the Bible
"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1

Understanding the Gospel is easy enough for even illiterate "little children" to do it in the NT, and it doesn't require developed systematic theology systems to correctly explain. Therefore, this can not be used as a philosophical reasoning that God gave special interpretive powers to a certain man who developed it into a certain institution

I know that but I really think that spiritual practice is what really matters in the end. You add sacraments to that and a nice Catholic framework of reference and I think you have all that you need. No amount of scholasticism will save you, only the grace of God that you accept through faith and spiritual practice (prayer and a life lived in Christ).

I disagree with the idea that you can separate the ethnicity and the religion of Jews into separate entities. Judaism is an ethnoreligion. And there are literally no Jews who uphold their ethnic cultural identity after converting to Christianity. They fully assimilate after converting. Identifying as a jew translates to the rejection of Jesus Christ in almost all cases.

Well yeah, that's what the guidance of the holy spirit would mean, right? At least some people hold the true belief at all times.

Now moving on.

Belief that the Catholic Church was ever correct implies that the Catholic Church was, is and will be always correct. That's what the Church states.

Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden of Eden because of Eve being tempted by Satan into sinning.

Hey no offense man, but I think you might have misunderstood Catholic/Orthodox theology.

We don't teach that your actions save you or that you can merit salvation.

As well as, we don't teach the goal of life is any of the things you mentioned.

Heres a paper you might be interested in.

Why are you a pedophile?

The text of that post was all copied directly from the website i shared, it was meant to show the intent of the reformers on each of the solas
I don't doubt that many catholics are intending to glorify the lord, but I think that was suspect in the era of indulgences

What the Church states is irrelevant if the gospel is objectively true on it's own.

How do you explain messianic Jews then?

It'd be more proper to say Jews aren't a race if Jew is a distinction between Gentile. After all the dividing wall came down.

Ancient Israel would be a race and it's existence today is mostly not questioned due to P.C. culture but I suppose any serious investigator would be in doubt since most of the genealogical records were destroyed in 70 A.D.

But that's besides the point. The real point is the Bible doesn't really give you credence for an Euro-centric view of the Gospel to be held in opposition to Jews (as a race)

True, but that doesn't concern me unless we argue down that the gospel is supposed to be interpreted on its own.
Of course, tracing back to my earlier arguments, I find it highly unthinkable that people wouldn't realize such important truth(Sola Scripture) until the Protestant Reformation.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't Messianic Jews a outlier, and don't they reject Jesus Christ as being the savior?

The concept does exist in some form simply by way of canonizing the scriptures. That implies a distinction between divinely inspired text and "helpful" text like maybe say the ancient church fathers.

I'd also wager it'd be impossible to find a church father that would agree with another text coming along that fundamentally changes the gospel. This shows again a distinction between what is changeable and what is not.

If we're able to take those two thoughts I would imagine it'd be easy to say Sola Scriptura was bred out of the necessity of a priesthood slowly turning away from the gospel and into their own texts like rabbis.

In fact the Talmud and the OT are great examples of Sola Scriptura too. Would the Jews have been so wayward had they followed their oral tradition?

The concept exists and has always existed, it just got a new name in the reformation.

I admittedly don't know an incredible amount on messianic jews, but to double check that is what the wikipedia page says.

This directly contradicts the assertion that to identify as a jew (racially and culturally) means you must deny Jesus too. Only religiously is that true.

...

by huge antisemite you mean hating Moses then sure he was a big one

The Bible verses you quoted were in reference the OT and not the NT as there was no compiled NT at that point. The Bible was compiled by the magesterium and tradition of the church.

The bible teaches you are saved through sanctification that is too say by following the New Law and by Baptismal Regeneration (being born again through baptism)
youtu.be/L14UNjaZJm8

>Sola gratia emphasizes grace as the reason for our salvation.

see above

The church recognizes that Jesus is the high priest and intercessor. The clerics of the church take part in Christs priesthood and are his ministers. They act in "persona Christi" or on behalf of Christ.
See: Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23

The church doesn't have a problem with that.

Oh I see it now, I wasn't looking that closely and the figure (God?, an angel?) holding the fiery sword threw me off a bit.

Oh I see what you're trying to do. In which case I am going to stop you right there and tell you that the whole idea is impossible.

I've been trying to formulate all the problems with this idea, but honestly, I'm getting tired now. This is the 5th rewrite or so. I'll make short bullet points instead.
-The belief is that the Church would remain the same form 100 AD to Jesus Christ's return, and anyone that suggested otherwise was heretical
-Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-Usually, something would accompany such change. Remember how things change form salvation only being for the jews to going to the gentiles too. God himself came down.
-The church has had ups and downs and returned to normal each time.

For me, it was reading E. Micheal Jones and watching the Venerable Fulton Sheen that put me on the path of Catholicism. The only times I've had mystical experiences that I felt made me closer to God all occurred while I was looking into Catholic parishes and began praying the Rosary. When the soundness of the theology and teachings of the Church lined up with my own experiences, I knew that joining the faith would be best. I'm not confirmed yet, but I will be this coming Easter.

Attached: c6085bff91c1e5989c421e571b3a9544b0add77b2088f1be24efe753d56597c4.jpg (480x640, 38.39K)

The gospel will remain immutable yes. Traditions naturally formed by local believers for necessitating their preferred method of worship are entirely fine.

That verse is so disputed in these types of discussions that I'm not even going to touch it. We'll never agree on that note.

The intent all along as displayed by scripture was for Christ to come and redeem the world based on the original promise given to Adam before Jews even existed. That entire prophecy remained entirely unchanged. Salvation never changed it was although through faith in the Word of God.

If we're being frank here it's more like the Church tries to quell people who bring up problems or excommunicate them. You can't claim to be faultless and stable if your method of retaining consistency is sheer heavy handedness. Re: The Reformation for instance.

The whole idea isn't impossible. Sola Scriptura exists in the abstract in all the ways I've mentioned.

Whose belief? Yours? Who cares
So it's impossible for your pharisees to be pharisees because your pharisees are perfect. Romanism is such a parody of Christianity that you don't even realize your faith in the implacability of clerics is identical to pharisaism. You don't even realize this argument is just "we don't believe we're pharisees", and that the subjective beliefs of Romanists is irrelevant to objective reality.
Are you implying the corruption of the Roman church would require the direct intervention of God? As if though this is about God's teachings? We're talking about the pope's doctrine here, not God's. If you think the two are one and the same, that is very telling.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, your church has never returned to orthodoxy since it apostatized. Quite the opposite, it has condemned the orthodox gospel in the strictest terms.

Just one thing I wanted to note.
This "Catholic church became the untrue church due to its corruption" angle is legitimately impossible, I'm going to flat out say it.
But continuing that, even if you prove that the Catholic Church was deposed of being the true church during the reformation, the assumption here would be that the ORTHODOX are correct, since the Orthodox had split form us 500 years before.

If you want to continue arguing that though, I'm still up for it. Lets continue.
I'm assuming that the retort here is that they were only local traditions.
Now this is a problem.
The church's teaching was never thought of as "Traditions naturally formed by local believers", nor is it necessary for "necessitating their preferred method of worship". If ecumenical councils and all of the sort was only done for that reason, then they are all dead for pride.
The authority needed to say some of the things they said is bigger than just a tradition of man.

What I meant to argue is that, if God had the intent to replace the authority of the Church with Sola Scriptura, then he would have given a sign to people that he was doing that.

I'm sorry I think you're missing out here. The Pope isn't on Avignon anymore, various other problems were sorted out too. Unless you want to point out something specific that isn't fixed yet, barring the current state of affairs since that's after God declared he would lift his protection for 100 years, in a test similar of that in the book of Job.
Firstly, no one claims the Church is Faultless and Stable. Quite on the contrary we were expecting some adversity.
But back to the main argument: Why?

I'll be honest with you, its pretty far fetched. Firstly you implied the Church knows what is changeable and what isn't, which opens door for a whole lot of other things which in the end, would make switching form the Catholic Church to Sola Scripture impossible.

Nahhh, have fun.

Actually, I read all the context and fumbled over nothing. The real reason you're ceding the field here is because you simply can't maintain it.

Oh yeah? Well lets see.

Stated multiple times through the thread that this refers to Christianity thorough 100 to 1500 years AD.
No. How your reading comprehension crashed down this far is unknown, however.
Doesn't matter within the context of the argument. I did not place any emphasis on whether the Orthodox church or the Catholic church was the true church, merely that Protestantism can't be true.

You're trying to concern troll me aren't you?

Catholics and Orthodoxs, correct me if I'm wrong; your doctrine teaches that how one becomes justified before God, they need to undergo a process of *sanctification -with the help of the sacraments/grace- until they are pleasing in the Lord's sight, then the person's worthy of being among the heavenly hosts.

*or energies

You stated throughout what one of the last things you said means? Do you have brain damage?
Well, considering you clarified by saying "What I meant to argue is that, if God had the intent to replace the authority of the Church with Sola Scriptura, then he would have given a sign to people that he was doing that", the answer is actually yes, just that it was painted in the sophistical way typical of Romanist apologetics. It's basically saying "if God didn't want us to be corrupt and wanted us to be as He commanded, then He would come down from heaven and say so"
I used the small o for a reason, champ. The point was your church has a false gospel and has had one for a long time now.
Also, go back and read my post real careful this time and see if you missed anything.
What do you think that means, user?

Eh, roughly?
Basically getting to Heaven is not a one-time thing but a process where you slowly rise up. Everything that can grow your faith can be used to progress in this process.

:^) No being rude.
(yeah not a argument, but seeing as I'm not able to extract a argument form "do you have brain damage" either, I don't believe I have a problem with that).
How do you get form X to Y here?

I believe I did yes, I am only pointing out reading inconsistencies in your posts.
There is no way to argue out this disjointed argument, even if you claim it to be contextually appropriate.

Attached: PANTOCRATOR.jpg (1400x815, 829.26K)

Wait I would like to continue form that I just got a good one.

For the entirely of this thread I have been pointing out that if the Catholic Church ever held orthodoxy, then it would still hold it to this day. Either it was or it wasn't. That's how the dogmas and canons it held work.
How can you fall for a trap so simple?

Church Fathers

Matthew 16:18

The Protestant church started in 1500 AD. Catholicism was mentioned for the first time in 101 AD by Ignatius of Antioch (the same place where the first Christians were). Catholicism therefore was founded by the first Christians.
One cannot go wrong believing Catholicism (Roman to be more exact) is the one true Church that Christ Himself established. (Orthodox are included).

Sources:
1) amazon.com/Fathers-Know-Best-Essential-Teachings/dp/1933919345

2) store.churchmilitant.com/?product=41

Well given the fact that Judaism is an ethnoreligion to the point that you can't have mixed marriages in Israel (yes, really) and that the vast overwhelming majority of Jews reject Jesus Christ, I see no reason to find excuses for a tiny minority of Jews who larp as Jews after becoming Christian. They are an exception to the rule perhaps but only an idiot pretends that rules can be discarded due to exceptions.

If not for Jesus Christ's coming, this would actually have been a good and biblical law, mate.

Reading the bible made me convert from protestantism to Catholicism, particularly the parts where Christ appoints Peter as the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Christ says you must truly eat his flesh and blood to go to heaven, and this cannibalism scandalises most of his followers, Christ institutes the Eucharist and says this is my body at the last supper, and the apostles ordaining bishops, priests and deacons with the imposition of hands.

Then reading the church fathers who were disciples of the apostles confirms catholicism as true.

That's Catholic theology m8. The Church is the body of Christ. The Church militant on earth are a part of the body of Christ and is formed by all those who are baptised and profess the Catholic faith.

New Rite Bishop: "I'm here to get orders from my masonic Jewish handler on how to corrupt the next generation of priests and catholics to turn them into apostates and heretics"

Sola scriptura is not in the scripture. It is a tradition man invented by Luther and is extra scriptural and contra scriptural.

If you hold sola scriptura you must reject sola scriptura.

Ehhh not necessarily. The Sacraments are given to us by God to help us become closer to Him

The Church Fathers, Petrine Authority and the innumerable miracles throughout history led me to the Catholic Church.

I'd like to thank you for keeping this friendly.

I'd like to note that I'm actually arguing from the basis of the gospel existing apart from the Church. Not in a sense that the Church is apart from the gospel, for the gospel is at it's core. But more-so that the minds of men cannot change the raw truth of it under any theology without falling into error. They are subject to it, and subject to the fact that Christ died to justify them.

And maybe I should expand on that but for now I'm going to take it as an obvious presupposition. If that fact is true then I think it casts doubt on our definition of Church, and I think the Bible confirms this, in that the Church is also a spiritual composition and not a physical one.

If it is a spiritual definition, and if the gospel exists on it's own merit then I see no other alternative than saying we are forced to embrace a method of individualism. And by that I mean the gospel acts upon an individual.

If the gospel acts on an individual and the only distinction between Christian and Not is belief of the gospel then I also see no reason to attach the credit of the results to a particular Church (in the physical sense). And in fact I think at that point our definition opens up to the Church in it's proper sense being regarded as a community of individuals through which the Holy Spirit has worked in their hearts belief of the gospel and repentance. This is tied to no particular earthly Church, but rather extends beyond it.

So maybe I am not being all that clear when I argue that it's entirely consistent to say the protestant reformation retook up "the correct gospel" because at that point we aren't arguing if the Church has fallen but rather if a human institution is proclaiming the correct divine message.

The Church cannot fall precisely because it is backed by the Holy Spirit. We are promised Satan (or whatever cause) cannot extinguish it on earth.

So in another sense the Church can only exist as a by-product of Sola Scriptura because God is the only authority by which salvation even occurs. His gospel and proclamation for all men to repent is immutable and the only truth by which men receive salvation through the Holy Spirit working faith in them. If the gospel is unassailable by the minds of men I see no reason why the rest of God's word should not be treated with the same superiority.

The quality of the doctrines, of the sermons, of the worship, of the traditions are entirely earthly declarations which we all hope is correct (and helpful) in our particular institution but it is the not the primary indicator of which earthly Church can claim it's primacy. For there is no primacy to be had when competing with the Holy Spirit.

This is not to say I do no appreciate doctrinal insights from even the Catholics, nor do I find them unhelpful, but insofar as it effects our definition of the Church I think it's a moot game to try to say one institution is "the only true church" when the true spiritual Church exists beyond such bonds.

haha nice. OK let me tell this from my own dissident catholic POV

Protestants protested a different catholic system than what we have now.
If you are a pessimist you can say the devil first took the romans a bit away from the truth and then used the lutherans to underline and divide based on that.
If you are an optimist you can say these tensions resulted in healthy debate.

The only contribution I'd like to make to the thread is: salvation is not the output of an algorithm. the keys to salvation are in the Saviour's hand. Do not fear a just and omniscient judge. Do not think you can outsmart him either. He indeed gave us enough instructions for us to work on for the rest of our lives.

The most rudimentary historical survey and understanding of Christianity. If you were an orthodox Christian in the West before the so-called Reformation, then you were very simply a Catholic. On what grounds should this arrangement then change, for the upheaval of an entire civilization, for the promotion of a rebellion against authority you will nowhere find justification in proper Christianity, the rotten fruits of which only the blind can fail to see after these 500 years of 'reform'? Catholicism quite simply contains the fullness of the Faith, and Jesus Christ Himself was the first Catholic. Imagine the look on the face of a 1st-century Christian after telling him that Martin Luther or Henry VIII instituted your 'church'.

And for the benefit of all those men of goodwill, I will share these links, that they too may drink from the well of such boundless fullness:

shamelesspopery.com/reason-1-to-reject-the-reformation-the-canon-of-scripture/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-2-to-reject-the-reformation-scriptural-interpretation/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-3-to-reject-the-reformation-the-visible-church/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-4-to-reject-the-reformation-ecumenical-councils/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-5-to-reject-the-reformation-the-church-fathers/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-6-to-reject-the-reformation-patristic-scriptural-exegesis/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-7-to-reject-the-reformation-history/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-8-to-reject-the-reformation-heterodoxy/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-9-to-reject-the-reformation-logical-fallacies/
shamelesspopery.com/reason-10-to-reject-the-reformation-the-grand-finale/

Attached: pope-leo13_med-2.jpeg (166x222, 16.42K)

Christanons: I am looking for some guidance.

I was raised atheist. Brief libertarian stint in college. Ended up on /pol, with a worldview somewhere between fascist/racialist and traditional reaction. Lately (last year or so) I've been more interested in theology and Christianity, primarily because I don't think that any type of "restoration" or solution to the hellish progressive status quo is possible without some spiritual/religious element.

I've read the NT, Chesterton, Lewis, Libido Dominandi by E Michael Jones, Liberty: the God that Failed by Ferrara. These books made me think that traditional Catholicism is the answer: the complete synthesis of the good and the True. I attended mass a few times, and started reading My Imitation of Christ by Kempis.

Recently I am struggling with doubt again. My concerns are:
(a) I am concerned that with my atheist background and strong political leanings, I will always struggle with true "faith". Is pre-existing faith a pre-requisite to going through the Catholic RCIA, or is it appropriate to learn/acquire faith through RCIA and throughout one's life?
(b) I have concerns that our civilisation is so far gone that it is essentially unsalvageable, and that the Church's modern decline has led it to being incapable of mounting the militancy necessary to offer a viable alternative, particularly in North America. Is becoming a Catholic a choice to live a modest, hermetic and isolated life on the understanding that we will never "win" on earth and that our rewards will be in heaven? Or do some of you foresee the possibility that we may have a restoration of Catholic vitality and civilisation during our lifetime?
(c) Is Catholicism incompatible with anti-immigration, anti-white-genocide, and anti-diversity in our current political context where such positions are leading to the physical and spiritual death of my people?

Not for long apparently :^)

I would recommend you this vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm
150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.
If you can emulate the faith in Abraham and Mary, I am sure you will have no problems.
While I would usually say "Yeah" to that second part, I have been informed that Saints in all apostolic churches prophesy to us that that God is planning to:
1.End the Great Schism
2.Send a great Catholic Monarch to the Muslims
3.Possibly more
Use this information as you will.
See pic related.

Attached: 7433f1778d3a5b11cc404a1070a1412e55256bd6db9e7135833ddb1ebe19a713.jpg (945x1200, 150.03K)