_ was the worst thing to happen to christian thought

You're not cute

Neither was Luther (piss be unto him)

Luther could have been highly regarded if he kept his role of reformer but he was just too high on his own farts for his own good

Lurk a decade

Please stop this isn't reddit

Almost the entire East disagreed with Augustine and Aquinas on many matters. It wasn't just later "retards" only. Aquinas even directly challenged some of them.

Although he disavowed his own writings later himself.. so there's that. I learn from his humility more than anything. He was a great man just for this alone. We should all just shut up and stop probing into God. This is the realm of heathens to do that. Christians are called to llearn from God from revelation - not philosophy. Be it the revelation of scriptures, or life changing experiences like Aquinas had when he was shown the heavens.

Oh no they disagreed guys, time to pack up and go home

First Council of Nicaea, where the romans mixed their paganism with the christianism, the emperor choose the catholic christian sect as the official christianism because it had the most similar structur to the one the empire had, Jesus was converted from the good sheperd to the Sol Invictus and they gave him that golden halo, they changed the primitive christianity to something where the rich people could go to the heaven without problem, the powerful could still smash the weak, etc…

I'm just talking about humbling ourselves before God. And all you have is some juvenile tier sarcasm? If this is how you talk to fellow Christians, who talk of GREAT things we should all rejoice in, God forbid I ever have to hear you speak to an enemy.

I can't get angry at Plotinus since he hated gnostics and produced quality philosophy, and Proclus came way too late.

The Enlightenment

The selection of the individual works to be placed into the Bible by the few and hundreds of years after events definitely shaped Christian thought. It is the worst to some, to craft a narrative that could be perceived as bearing false witness, and not to others, it depends on what you draw out or project upon. I've heard it said that Christianity was a Roman Empire subversion plot upon the rebellious Jews. The worst thing to happen though for myself is that it was left able to interpretation and thus becomes a tool or weapon for the explainer. Then again, a million years from now perhaps the ability to revisit time thru an yet unknown technology will set all records straight, and perhaps even another resurrection will indeed occur. Better rest with thought that the worst thing to happen to Christian thought occurs when the Christian is not thinking at all…

That's not true. Although I admit he might not have putten an emphasis on it since he was arguing with the retarded pelagians.
Whta the Reformers and Jansenius did was to take that stance to the extreme where one really denies free will.

Semantics. Everyone takes what is truly meant by Christian free will (having the ability to choose rationality over instinct) as a given absolute rather than a debatable concept, whereas retards who believe in new age free will actually believe in something extra that's really quite harmful and used to gaslight innocent people.

As much as the Reformation was, to some extent, necessary and unavoidable given the corruption of Rome and all the other issues in the Western Church at the time, it legitimised, with very grandiose intent, the mob-impulse, as seen in the sacking of cathedrals and killing of clergy that followed. The same impulse—fundamentally that of hubris—is what underlaid the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, i.e., the birth of secular, individualist humanism. This is why traditionalist Catholics and Orthodox alike are so sceptical of the Reformation, for it sought in no uncertain terms to "liberate" men from their corrupt past and restore purity—it is ultimately utopian.

I would contend that that wasn't the mob. Many royals funded and actively participated. It was war and a looting on the church.

They all started like that.

Every medieval and later heretic was like this.
That was their problem.
The only positive thing I find in reformation is the counter reformation and fixed lots of wrong shit in the clergy of the Church.
The good old God makes good out of evil.

That's the point of the mob: all boundaries and distinctions are dissolved to the lowest common elements. As soon as a prince joins the mob, he loses his princeship and becomes but another faceless destroyer. This is what the Reformation, I think unintentionally (Luther was no anarchist), gave space for, and it backed it up with moral and providential fervour.

Of course, the Counter Reformation was good, but it should not have required half of Europe to apostatise before happening.

Yes of course. But at least not everything was lost.
What makes me mad is that this is only about politics. winnie the pooh German princes.
Faggots like Peter Waldo, or Jan Hus (even though he had some support) never got this far because they lack that much power.

But even he had the protection of one certain prince.. I forgot whom now (some German, I think). Maybe Luther himself didn't see the implications, but the political wheels were already spinning, and in him, these princes saw their means to break free of the vatican and foam dischord. Maybe to him, it was all mere theology.. but he was a pawn in this game.

There were more Henry VIII's than just Henry… some just went about it in less spastic ways.

Not a Catholic (Orthodox here), but St. Joan of Arc is another Catholic saint I have a soft spot for. She's an enigma to me. I like her letter to the Hussites (too bad she was distracted by the British).

archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_letter_march_23_1430.html

"Jesus, Mary

For a long time now, common knowledge has made it clear to me, Joan the Maiden, that from true Christians you have become heretics and practically on a level with the Saracens [i.e Muslims]. You have eliminated the valid faith and worship, and have taken up a disgraceful and unlawful superstition; and while sustaining and promoting it there is not a single disgrace nor act of barbarism which you would not dare. You corrupt the sacraments of the Church, you mutilate the articles of the Faith, you destroy churches, you break and burn statues which were created as memorials, you massacre Christians unless they adopt your beliefs. What is this fury of yours, or what folly and madness are driving you?"

You really don't know anything, do you?

The only thing I know is that I don't know anything :^)

To be fair, Plotinus did attack some proto-Gnostic type of groups, but funnily, they're about the only ones who made full use of his crap. Or their subgroups (like Jewish Kabbalists). True Gnosticism as Christianity had to war against came after Origen (but he himself was a Plotinus fan). Origen spawned two types: The Gnostics… and unfortunately, St. Augustine borrowed some of his concepts (as well as direct ones from Plotinus, like his concept of the Trinity and absolute divine simplicity). But borrowing from some heathen on the TRINITY of all things is about the worst thing you can do. They're not the same thing, just because it may seem similar at first glance. This also leads to the faulty notion that humans can know God just through philosophical models.. when they can not..and leads one to believe that all men have some spark of divine knowledge of them.. regardless of Christ.

Or in other words
Brilliant. That couldn't be said better.

First post worst post.

Redpilled.

Attached: 1490250490247.gif (270x138, 1.71M)

Vatican 2.

IIRC Vatican 2 wasn't binding, though. Neither of the Popes overseeing the council ever invoked infallibility.

Jesus

One just needs to look at the consequences.

you can't blame him, you'd have to blame the early christians who adopted his thought to contend with paganism. It was inevitable though, scholasticism is its culmination

It wasn't necessarily to contend with paganism per se at first either. In the earliest days, Christianity was seen as the religion of peasants/slaves/and dumb women. And it wasn't even respected from a Jewish standpoint. The same scoffing pagans would point out Jews disowned this sect too.

A few like Marcion snatched it up for their own purposes and tried to present how "philosophically" respectful it was, and he was glad to dismiss everything Jewish too. This was even worse.. for now you had something armed with Christianity, but stripping the gospels and the history behind it, and preaching neoplatonic/proto-Gnostic nonsense. In came the likes of St. Justin and Irenaeus (and Tertullian, although not a saint), and they knew philosophy very well. They upheld orthodoxy and OT history alike, and then proceeded to attack all angles (rather successfully): Be it Jew, Gnostic, etc.. They knew how to speak the language of these enemies, but they never imitated them. The only one who went all out with trying to merge Neo-Platonism was Origen… he tried tempering down some of the extreme angles of proto-gnostic thinking, but in the end, he was as big a fag as they were (or maybe not a fag.. since he chopped his own penis off). He has some great things to say, but one could get sucked into that and not draw the lines somewhere.

Unfortunately, St. Ambrose was a friend of Origen.. and even though Ambrose was strictly on the orthodox end, he must've encouraged the younger St. Augustine to glean some things from Origen. It's said that St. Ambrose copied much of Origen's library, so it's likely St. Augustine had access to it.

Papa Argentino & Luther

...

...

Jesus has always existed, before time. "Before Abraham was, I am." He's the Word of God.

You're very rambunctious. But I forgive you. You don't have the power to cast me in the lake of fire anyways. I'll just say again: I preach humility before the mysteries of God, and you condemn me to hell? It's not going to happen. Just remember that it was our Lord who said:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

I forgive you, but try not to do it to other people. Break the habit. They may not all forgive you, and it'll linger, and you'll not remember what you said or confess it before a priest.. until death comes for us all, and the demons in the air try our souls with every stupid thing we say.

Wew I liked her already but man now I love her.
And specially a woman being able to say this wow she was really something.

What do you mean by 'new age' free will?

Attached: risitas.jpg (474x352, 17.05K)

American Evangelicals

Modern Christians: we allowed fagans and fedoras to thrive instead of pushing back and convert their hearts. I too am guilty of that.

Not only Luther. There were already protestants preceding Luther in Bohemia but with Luther it started. Nominalism, relativism, adopting enlightenment thoughts. All churches nowadays are inflicted by it but it was the protestant deformation that really put a wedge straight into heart of Europe. Then with the desolving of authority, the secularism emerged, the rule of the mob, liberal democracy and finally wait for it…communism.

spbp

Its when we dont think. It is when the basic bitch talking points drown out any deeper understanding. People dont even know the history of the church. People who have not even read the bible all the way and have attended church for 30 years. When zionism infected the faith, when women took leadership.

America. Next would be the modern heresy of theistic evolution.

My local kindergarten? Which one?

How sanctimonious for somebody so disingenuous!

This and their bastard child Origen.

Unironically Augustine. He is a saint so clearly things could have been worse, but some of his ideas, while not heterodox in themselves (although not always right either, but that's true of any saint), snowballed into horrible heresies later in history. If he simply had written nothing, the Western Christian world would be a completeley different beast today.

...

Zionism.

Underrated post

Religion and religiosity.

The idea of altering God's word. It is behind the "oral traditions," the talmud and progressivism, sacerdotalism, and new age and cultic beliefs. All of which blend together into moral relativism, nihilism and self-destruction. Fortunately God gave us a way back to him by not altering it.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

can you elaborate on how/where this occured for brainlet pls?

again could you elaborate on this w/examples pls?

This thread is proof the correct answer is Zig Forums

The 2 genders

Read the bible

William of ocham and nominalism.

What's the problem with that?
Name an example in human history in which this wasn't the case.

I guess the material wealth God gave to people like David, Solomon and Abraham lead them to hell, right?

Any form of eisegesis.

It could, but didn't.. because they realized they weren't self-sufficient (some humbled themselves later than others, but did learn nonetheless). That's the real danger of wealth. Or anything that gives one a sense of pride or self-sufficiency. It could be beauty as well (but women tend to see the folly of this sooner or later from aging).

Who were the apostolic Fathers like Saint Iraneus,St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian…
I guess that they were time traveling Constantinopole henchmen.
btw Constantine was very found of Arianism because eof his Bishop friend, something the council of Nicea decided against, but real history supports catholics therefore it's wrong.

I'm Orthodox, so there's obviously his pneumatology (the so-called filioque). But also his ideas about free will, divine providence, etc. By fighting against Pelagianism, he went a bit too far in the opposite direction, and again, while Augustine himself isn't a heretic, it wasn't very difficult for Calvin to continue Augustine's thoughts where Augustine had left them, and to develop them into the abomination that is TULIP.

the cultural climate would be the same as today but with a tridentine veneer

Luther

Attached: images.png (229x220, 8.61K)

Leo IX

Attached: 1528421775980.jpg (720x540, 35.98K)

In Leo's defense, if Pat. Michael hadn't sabotaged the joining of Eastern and Western Rome there wouldn't have been a schism in the first place. Though I will agree an excommunication might have been too far.

Maybe one day East and West will unite agianst the Eternal Prot and achieve the Glory Christiandom was ment to have.

Attached: catholicism-rules_o_7042133.jpg (720x495, 38.7K)

Constantine

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (493x420, 252.84K)

The flag for "protestant" here is the SBC, which forbids women clergy and is explicitly anti homo
Use the united methodist symbol or something if you want an argument that sticks

Attached: Views_about_homosexuality.png (778x1006, 23.64K)

Fr. John Romanides
Vladimir Moss

Attached: 841D6FDE-9522-4D34-BE40-0E49BF5A84D8.jpeg (197x270, 13.92K)

So how does Sanderson reconcile God appointing Kings Saul, David, Solomon etc and establishing His state religion in Israel? The way I see it, it's no different than God giving Emperor Constantine the strength to establish Christianity as the state religion of Rome.

Thank God the Catholic doctrine isn't made by the people.
70% of the American Catholic population are excommunicated and they don't even know it.

Cringe

Cringe

But why don't they know it?
Where is the church discipline?

Because the US bishops themselves want to push that shit to live according to the American values.
The typical America right, Rome wrong.
No wonder that most pedo shit comes from America.
I make myself the same question.
Only important people get that when they are being heretics beyond protestantism.
Otherwise they are defended by their national bishops, like it happens thousands of times in America.
Someone let things go to far.
If the discipline was applied correctly more than half of the clergy would be excommunicated alongside 90% of the laity.
Nevertheless I think it should be done.
Quality>quantity.