What are the problems with Catholicism?

I'll ask St Mary to bless your unctuous soul

Same. It's especially bad among non-denominationals, who have been corrupted by secularism.

I love how Prots accuse apostolics of idolatry when the Prots themselves idolize the Bible we gave them.

Attached: BoMEhM4CUAATXa_.jpg (600x600, 79.84K)

I still haven't made my conclusion yet, its clear modern Catholicism with the new mass and Pope Sodomite IV has little to do Christianity as they are not Catholic by definition of their own church
I feel alot of the things that put people off Catholics is that they simply refuse to communicate properly, examples include:
etc. etc
In addition to this doctrines such as "papal infallibility" and the "veneration" of saints are horribly worded to say the least, and imply something other than what they mean
One should judge a tree by its fruit and people by their works, the catholic church is a mixed bag to say the least

This also, according to Catholic doctrine God made an exception for Mary and she did not have Original sin, why is it ruled out that our God with unending love wouldn't make an exception for babies murdered in the womb?

… You know Christ said a very interesting parable. It was about this Pharisee and a publican (tax collector). This Pharisee went into the middle of the temple and thanked God that he wasn't like that dirty tax collector, that God had made him so good and perfect.

Meanwhile the Publican beat his breast and sought mercy from God, sticking to the back of the temple, acknowledging his own failings and sinfulness.

Tell me, who went away justified in the end?

There are no problems, it's the one true faith. The only criticisms of Catholicism by Prots are those aimed at strawmen like and . The only legitimate theological conflicts I've ever heard have been from Eastern Orthodox, and even those are relatively petty differences that persist for the sake of keeping the schism alive.

They may still be saved if they acted in accordance with the natural law and had *invincible* ignorance of the Catholic faith. I don't understand why this is such a tough doctrine, is it truly just to cast those virtuous peoples who had no access whatsoever to true divine revelation into hell? Similar with the unborn, who were additionally incapable of committing sin and incapable of knowing God. It is presumed that these are left to the infinite mercy of God, who is reasonably relied upon to offer them salvation. Today, however, invincible ignorance is near impossible to claim as the universal Church has made itself nigh universal.

nothing. there are God fearing catholics just like there are God fearing protestants. the biggest issue is ecclesiology, and the corruption it can conceal, and usually thats seperate from the laity.

t. baptist

Unironically this.

Huh?

I think OP only wants Calvinists/KJV-onlyists/OSAS Bappies. But thats my theory.

If you think the living human experience that is religion can be limited to a book that was written by a religious community for its own purposes, you are the one making up a religion, not us.

No. The mods ban you because you're always trying to start flame wars and derail threads at the slightest mention of Our Lady.

Sage this abhorrent thread

I think majority of Catholic clergy and in fact most Catholics I speak to online at least are very cruel people. That's just my experience.

Imagine believing Mary is co-redemtrix and thinking you're going to heaven.

I'll ask Christ, my God, to bless you.

Catholic is a Greek word meaning "globalist".

Not an American but showing respect to the dead isn't the same as asking them to help you and to pray on your behalf. I have not issue with the veneration of the saints until a certain extent when it just becomes idolatry.

Implying all the church fathers were even Cathodox. And if we were just copying you guys then we would have the same canon. But we don't so stop spreading this meme of "WE WUZ BIBLE MAKERS".
Even the apostolic fathers didn't believe this but rather saw the canon as something the church recieved, not create.

Ok, you want a non straw man argument how about this. 1 you believe that there is one mediator (and another co-mediator). You believe that we must work for our salvation, and don't say you believe that you are justified by faith since you believe in baptismal regeneration. 3 you re sacrifice Christ at every mass but use sophisty to hide it. You follow man made tradition instead of God's word. In fact when talking to Catholics they've tended to use the exact same arguments the Pharisees used against Christ. And you think that priests can absolve sins.

That's just a few.

The only problem I have with Catholics is Original sin. Other than that they are definitely bro-tier.
t. Ortho

One and only, tiggah.

Protestantism began in the 1500s, your "connection" to the early Church is entirely a figment of your imagination.

imagine getting this hostile in defense of your ruler because someone challenged you to think for yourself

Attached: quintessentially catholic.jpeg (474x314, 21.33K)

No hostility, just stating a rudimentary historical fact.

Attached: de1151f6a0686f262ca450f2b367fc7e3aebf1b28410e815e547b74d45ed077f.jpg (640x640, 100.62K)

the claim was "apostolic fathers did not hold your view" and your reaction was to mock the assertion with n;ggerspeak, effectively saying "no u"

That's where you're wrong. You're making bold statements and I bet you haven't even read patristic texts but rather just repeating common papist rhetoric.

This is from Clement of Rome in his epistle to the church in Corinth:

Clement of Rome epistle to church in Corinth chapter 32

Also, that pic is stupid for the single fact that we don't say that 1500 years of church history should be ignored. If we truly ignored all of church history then we would be jehovas witnesses or Mormons. They're the ones that actually claim that there was a great apostasy. And also the Cathodox church went into error as the centuries went by, by adopting man made traditions hence why the church had to be "reformed" not innovated or changed.

Odd.
>Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. "For God," saith [the Scripture], "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, "He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking." Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him. -Chapter 30
>The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith, "Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory." And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] saith, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him."-Chapter 34
The early church did not subscribe to the protestant dichotomy between sola fide and works salvation. Such a dichotomy was only even considered by tge Church at Trent, as prior the necessity of works alongside faith was always implied when not explicitly stated.

halt immediately
Sola fide is exclusively a soteriological claim. It does not challenge the necessity of works for the Christian life. There is nothing in your quotation that challenges sola fide.

"works salvation" vs "sola fide" is not a protestant novelty, it's the only honest reading of Ephesians 2. The early church straight back to the apostle Paul saw it exactly this way, as evidence in the previous quotation

Such an quotation would only suppourt sola fide on it's own, not in the context of the whole epistle.
If works are necessary then works are necessary, at least in the capacity that they are possible. If they are necessary, then to not do them is to go against the will of God. James is crystal clear on what the consequences of such a dead faith are, and he specifically treats of the necessity of works in terms of justification. Primacy is always to be given to faith in justification, as works are dead without it, and Trent says the same.
If you think Clement dosen't explicitly refute sola fide, then you aren't reading Clement.
>How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, self-control in holiness! And all these fall under the cognizance of our understandings [now]; what then shall those things be which are prepared for such as wait for Him? The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith rewards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them. For the Scripture saith, "But to the sinner God said, Wherefore dost thou declare my statutes, and take my covenant into thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? When thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst with him, and didst make thy portion with adulterers. Thy mouth has abounded with wickedness, and thy tongue contrived deceit. Thou sittest, and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things thou hast done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest, wicked one, that I should be like to thyself. But I will reprove thee, and set thyself before thee. Consider now these things, ye that forget God, lest He tear you in pieces, like a lion, and there be none to deliver. The sacrifice of praise will glorify Me, and a way is there by which I will show him the salvation of God."

Are you deliberately ignoring the point?
Read again:

So how is that sola fide if fide is not sola? Justification is how one merits salvation, so you essentially just said that works is a soteriological matter. I think you need to clarity your theology a bit more.

Do I need to remind you that there are five solae?
Read here for the justification presentation: carm.org/are-we-justified-faith-romans-or-works-james

You are justified if you have the faith that manifests in works, but not by virtue of those works.

That truly pleasing works are a byproduct of faith should does not reduce them merely to a part of faith, nor does it subtract from the merit they add to a faithful man. Each man, as Christ said, is rewarded for his works. Those who work good receive good for it, and those who work evil, particularly those who do works to merit reward and not for God, receive evil as well, if they are not penitent. Matthew 25 says the same, as does Trent.

blackpilled, in a sense. Most people aren't going to heaven.

Are these truly the best objections one can have? They're all strawmen you can find out the reasons why with Google.

I don't think you fully understand the passage you've just quoted. The translation appears so be quite old, so it's understandable that someone today could misunderstand the passage. I recommend you read Michael W. Holmes' translation of 1 Clement 35.
Here Clement is talking about the gifts which we can understand now.
And here he is talking about a separate set of gifts that we cannot understand. He is saying that our works determine what unknown gifts we shall receive, but justification is not one of these gifts that is based on our works. This is why he says right after this passage that we are all soldiers in Christ and that not all soldiers are centurions or captains and that the great cannot exist without the small.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say Clement is saying that justification requires works in chapter 35. That does not mean he is not teaching justification by faith alone in chapter 32, which he very explicitly is, here and in other passages, even in the full context of the epistle. It would only mean that he is inconsistent and therefore not a reliable source for interpreting the Gospel. Just for clarification, I am not saying he is inconsistent, but if we follow your interpretation then he would have to be.

If they were so easy to refute then you'd give reasons why they're wrong instead of just saying they're easy to refute. And I doubt you've even taken the time to study the matter. I have and I've discussed it with other Catholics and I'd tell you that there is no answer to these.

You've shown a lack of critical thinking. Even John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in the necessity of works. Clement here is in fact quoting Ephesians 2:8-9. We know this because he uses the term "dia pisteōs" which translates to through the faith and is used by the writer to the church in Ephesus. Also, he wasn't a bishop. If you read the shepherd of Herman's you'll see that he was a transmitter of letters.
Vision 3 of shepherd of Hermas. You should also bear in mind that a lot of early succession of bishop lists have contradictory accounts of early bishops of Rome because they did not have monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century. So about 150ad. That's why the bishop lists from before that time have different bishops at the seat.

It is only inconsistent if we don't distinguish, as the Church does (as I have shown), between the beginning of justification, which is by faith and cannot be merited, and it's continuation, which requires works, and which Clement is incontrovertibly explicit about in chapter 34, where he states that those who do not do works cannot even look God in the face.

A single line concerning one of the functions of Clement's ministry, not his office, is not enough to erase the universal consensus among tradition of his office as the Bishop of Rome, even if not his place in the line of succession. That's just bad historiography.
Sauce?

Regarding Clement, he was told to send letters out and wasn't someone of authority. You say unanimous consensuses but the early church in fact contradicted with each other when talking about the succession of Roman bishops during the period prior to 150 ad.

And for source here's John Calvin

Antidote to the council of Trent

And here's Martin Luther

didn't luther say "a man could commit murder and fornication 1000 times every day, and still be saved if he had faith" or something like that? If that is true, then I fail to see how he could have thought you 'needed' works.

Let me take a crack at it.

Revelation 6:8 KJV
The saints are clearly praying, so they must be aware of what's happening on Earth. What else would they be praying for? Therefore they are aware of our requests for intercession, therefore we should ask them to pray for us. It's really no different from asking your friends and family to pray for you.

On works and faith, see James 2. Here's an excerpt from the KJV:
On baptismal regeneration, 1 Peter 3:21 KJV
See this article on catholic.com: catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-true-sacrifice I'm not about to copy/paste the entire exchange.
The Catholic Church has preserved and followed God's word for centuries. On the subject of "man made traditions," 2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
There's clearly more to Christianity than a collection of books. God gave us a Church to join and obey, founded on the seat of Peter which has been successively filled since the time of the apostles.
John 20:21-23 KJV

The whole idea of faith alone is that faith itself is all that's needed to reap the benefits of Christ's sacrifice, making you blameless and therefor justified. Not faith and baptism. Not faith and doing some charity, no - faith alone is the tool that causes justification. Faith and works justifying is not faith alone, but instead is precisely the Catholic position.

In Catholicism, Christ's sacrifice applies at baptism, removing all sins (including original sin) prior, and that's it - it doesn't get stored into your account allowing you to sin until Christ's sacrifice is all used up, which of course would never happen meaning you could fornicate and murder 1000 times a day and never use it up and still from a legal point of view be perfectly blameless in spite of your obvious actual impurity. No, you yourself - not legally what is about you - it actually, substantially made pure because of your baptism. However you are still fully capable of sin like normal and if you do, then you will just have to pay the wages of said sin as you normally would. It's entirely possible and feasible for you to be without sin - in fact I heard of one who was possessed by a demon who went a whole year and a half without committing even venial sin as part of the exorcism. This is why the avoidance of grave sin (ie. works) is necessary to be saved, under Catholicism the sin system was never invalidated by Christ's sacrifice - rather he got us a fresh start away from original sin - but it still operates like before.

As I said, the contradiction was in order, whereas there was consent in regards to the actual office. You aren't going to convince anyone that a bishop wasn't a bishop just because he had the duty to evangelize with his epistles, as he did with the document in question. None of the his contemporaries saw this contradiction, ao why do you?

This is just redefining faith to include works. if this were true, there would be no difference between Catholics in protestants. I think we all can appreciate the fact that a man who does no works would have no faith, but this is ridiculous, why are you squirming about? Your doctrine is that faith alone saves, if there was a man who did no works but truly did have the faith, he would be saved - that's it - that's all you have to say. It might be unrealistic, as there are no such men, but it is what would happen if there were such a man.

What about dismas? Anyone who became saved on their deathbed

Jesus hadn't died yet, so the new testament promises were not enforced yet - they were still operating under old testament rules.

think about it - how is the good thief supposed to be baptized when Jesus hasn't even died yet?

What? In the old and new testaments, your faith is what counts you righteous. What's your position in covenant theology?

He isn't because baptism is a work, and is necessarily unrelated to salvation

You said "what about dismas", because Catholics have a tough time answering how a man who has not been baptized could have been saved (which is impossible by catholic standards). My answer, was that Jesus hadn't even died yet - a christian baptism before Christianity even existed is quite silly. Baptism applies Christ's sacrifice, but he hadn't been sacrificed yet - and this is true for both protestant and Catholics - so what would even apply? Therefor logically speaking, , they must have still been operating under old testament rules in which it is perfectly possible for the thief to be saved - and he wouldn't have needed to be baptized.

and i'm not sure what you mean by your first point. To my knowledge the thief was likely a jew no? So I see no reason why there would be an issue of faith.

in other words, the good thief poses no problem for Catholicism.

*sry christ's sacrifice justifying us is true for both protestants and catholics, not baptism

My first point is in reference to salvation in the OT. It seems you hold to a doctrine that personal salvation BC was contingent on obedience to the law, but that's a mistake. Romans 4:3 (quoting Genesis 15:6) "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."

well, either way it doesn't matter - by asking Christ to remember him, his faith was shown through this work and it was accounted to him as righteousness under old testament standards, not new testament standards.

Why hate Mexicans? Genuinely curious as I thought they were devout Catholics.

Mesoamerican Christianity is like Christianity in Haiti - Batshit crazy.

No doubt that there are Catholic faithfuls in Mexico, but I think alot of the animosity for our Mexican neighbors comes from the communist crowd that seeks gibs and disrespects the sovereignty of other nations (you know, typical communist garbage).

Attached: _84198644_84198643.jpg (660x371, 32.81K)

Yes we are, this is a open forum.

Lmao Jesus and his followers were already baptising people

Well thank the Lord Francis isn't sympathetic to any of that crazy stuff

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (474x428, 307.4K)

Seems like they are too pussified to act on faith and not by sight. If you need to erect an idol in order for you to "feel more empowered to worship God"…. then you're not doing it right.

Catholicism per se is a human development of 2000 years. Of course It has problems. It had them since the year 34 aD. One of the main problems I perceive is that It calls itself catholic. Well. No. I refuse that label. You are either a follower of Christ or not. There's only one 'Good News' only one Gospel only one Christ. Who defines who is right? Well, if you believe in the Holy Spirit and in the apostolic sucession then you only have two options and it's either catholic or orthodox. But at the end refuse to put yourself any label before Christ. I refuse to call myself catholic.

I must add that some catholics give traditions and forms too much importance without acknowledging the real importance of these things. This is a risk and makes me uncomfortable. But this only makes me understand that the gate is really really narrow. They are carnals. Creating new interpretations of the gospel just to remove the magnificient human culture built on Christ is a tremendous mistake. Because those errors are and always will be present. With the added risk that now anyone can bend the gospel at their own interest.