How do Protestants cope with their Church being less than a millenium old?

Church exclusively refers to the local congregation.

Not true. There were discussions about the Anglicans rejoining the Church, but it was actually the First World War and the Russian Revolution that ended those meetings. The Anglicans didn't ordain fags until much later in the 20th century.

Not a prot but >thinking the age of a church matters at all to God

When protestants claim to be the historical christian church, it's a relevant point. Especially given that we have documents discussing apostolic tradition going all the way back to 100 AD.

This. The protestants hold the Bible, instead of the traditions of man, as the final authority, which is what the Bible even tells us to do in 1 Timothy 3:16-17. The catholic church got away from that by making doctrines such as papal infallibility, which aren't scriptural.

2 Thes 15
>traditions

Also
>word of mouth
Which implies that they might not be written in the Bible.

And this is why I became catholic through reading scripture. And tradition they have that doesn't necessarily have a written biblical basis can be sourced to verses like this. And we have sources like the Didache going all the way back to 100 AD documenting a ton of these traditions.

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 3:6
>living in idleness
>not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
IE Don't follow those who aren't following the following traditions handed down by the apostles both in written scripture and word of mouth.
AKA: EVERY PROTESTANT SECT UNDER THE SUN.

Another good one, matthew 12:22-32:

Protestants who are anti-catholic will not be forgiven.

It's always been funny to me as someone who came to the Catholic Church through reading scripture (KJV no less) how this stuff seemingly flies over protestants heads, given how much they all claim to read the Bible. Things like this, the Primacy of Peter, the necessity of works and faith, the Eucharist, Mary being honored as Mother of God and as the Queen of Heaven in Luke and Revelations, the necessity Baptism, The ability to go astray, etc., all seemed blatantly obvious to me. It's hard for me to imagine any other conclusions, and yet here we are. and the explanations I have heard don't make sense to me and/or seem like really round about excuses rather than actual explanations

They took Jesus' rebuke of the Elders (Matthew 15, Mark 7) in the wrong direction, and assumed all traditions must be evil and come from men. This despite Paul telling us the opposite, and acknowledging that the Apostles had their own traditions separate from the one in the Talmud and Torah.

Yeah it blows my mind. I mean like a third of the gospel is pretty much just Jesus and Peter's bromance, and another third us "be united." Plus you consider how aesthetic Catholicism is and I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to be Catholic. I just assume it's spite and/or pride.

Why don't you quote the entire passage there?
Here, let me save you the trouble:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
You see here, then, that Paul is referring to his preaching the Gospel to the Thessalonians, and considering that Revelation from God was in the process of being written, Apostolic teaching at this time was still binding by word of mouth until it was written under the auspices of the Holy Spirit.
Not only that, but the concept of Divine Election/Predestination is clearly taught in this passage.
You can't tell me that every single thing Rome teaches as de fide today (Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, etc.) were believed and taught by Paul to the Thessalonians at this time.
They were clearly developed over time and were added on by the decrees of popes up and down the ages.

And how do we test this tradition? By what standard do we test this supposed oral tradition?
After all, not even the so-called Apostolics are in concordance with one another.
Funny, I abandoned rome through the exact same process.
Are you aware that the first appeal to "apostolic tradition" was to defend the idea that the Lord Jesus died at the age of 50?
I'll be addressing your other posts in a bit.

Now, let's take a look at these two passages to reveal their full context:

In the preceding chapter, Paul warns the Corinthians from previous examples (namely the Israelites in the wilderness) not to fall into idolatry or immorality.
He exhorts them to be steadfast in the Lord from the Gospel he preached, which is the tradition he has passed on to them.
The idleness Paul here is speaking of is exactly that: idleness. Not working. Expecting to received charity without effort.
The tradition he here speaks of is the example he left them, namely that when he was among them he worked to earn his bread despite not having an obligation to.
He tells them that "if any one will not work, let him not eat", instructing them that the normative principle for believers is to work for their living instead of being louts.
How amazing it is, then, that the Papist will read into this passage of Holy Write the numerous fantasies they've invented.

As for this passage, I do not say that Roman Catholics drive out demons by the power of Satan.
It may be that God, in His mercy, uses the prelates of Rome to deliver someone from demonic oppression.
Nonetheless, I believe that Rome has obfuscated the Gospel, adding on too many things they require to believe if you have any desire to be saved.
And what of Eastern Orthodox who are anti-catholic?
And Oriental Orthodox?
And Syriac Christians?
They all remonstrate with Rome for different reasons, yet you're not as quick to condemn them to Gehenna, though your former popes did.

If you perhaps allowed the Scriptures to speak for themselves instead of shoe-horning the doctrines of Rome into it, you might not be as convinced.
Ironically enough, many of the fathers disagreed with your doctrines. Even more so, Rome gives definite dates after which you must believe something if you want to be saved.
The bodily assumption of Mary was defined as dogma in the 1950s.
Before that, you could have denied it and been a faithful Roman Catholic. Afterwards? You MUST believe it to by saved according to Rome.
And what new dogmas will come in 50 years? 100 years? 500 years?
How many new dogmas must Rome add to the Gospel before you say "no, this is wrong, this isn't the faith".

Become a jew then.

Peter certainly had a special role to play among the Apostles, but Papists seem to think that every mention of Peter MUST be referring to the Pope.
Let me ask, if all it takes to be the Pope is to be the successor of Peter, is the Bishop of Rome the only one?
For even the bishops of Antioch claimed Apostolic foundation from Peter.
One of the Fathers (Cyprian, if I recall correctly) taught that all bishops sat on the throne of Peter and hold his position.
There is not unity in Roman Catholicism. Liberals, abortionists, universalists, sodomy enablers, and other sordids types haunt your ranks.
And if even the Apostles had to deal with unruly types who wouldn't hold to the Gospel, how much less can we expect to be free from dissenters and heretics?
Ah yes, the "smells and bells" approach.
If your faith hinges on how "nice" a service looks, perhaps you're not looking for salvation, but a nice place to go every Sunday.
Would you have been scandalized in the Apostolic age, when Christians gathered in houses and shared the bread and wine by hand? No incense, no flowing gilded robes, no ornate buildings, no pomp?

The Talmud wasn't written til the Middle Ages though.

Not all Jews hold to the Talmud.
There are some (Karaites) who hold the Tanakh to be the sole, infallible rule of faith.
Ironically, Karaites are to Protestants what Rabbinic Jews are to Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox

You're pretty based, hope the mods don't ban you for speaking truth.

Attached: newmeme.png (1200x1304, 796.08K)

…What about the possibility that he brought them the gospel and traditions?… That's not invalidated by the rest of the passage. Also, why them wasn't Paul's gospel ever written down? Or every Apostle's gospel for that matter? There are redundant stories among them, and some exclusive to each, so it's not like that had anything to do with it… You're basically openly acknowledging that there are things the apostles could have taught that aren't written in the bible.\
Catholics believe in predestination, just not the same predestination that you do. Obviously god has writen out and knows the course of all events, no catholic will deny that. as such who will and who won't believe in the word of God is redetermined and known by god… but that doesn't mean men don't have free will. Predestination is divine foresight in the Church.
No, but the church is founded on the principles taught by the apostles and is guided by the holy spirit. Ergo, so long as later traditions don't violate the gospels, the NT epistles, or the traditions that were handed on to us they are valid. To think otherwise would be to say that god abandoned his church in its infancy.
We have examples in the desert fathers of this belief, it's not new.
Mary was made pure in line with the ark of the covenant and the tabernacles of old. After all what is pure cannot be born of what is impure. God would not take his flesh from imperfection.
Bind and loose… we've had this discussion a thousand time at this point.
While Peter needed council from the other Apostles, he still had authoritative final say in the end.
Goes back to peter being the first apostle, the first to confess Jesus as the Messiah, the one asked to shepherd the flock, the first to preach after Pentecost, etc. etc. again, we've had this discussion before.
"But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time."
Well, the Assumption might not have happened yet… but the rest, easily could have. and were
By the fact that it's endured for 2000 years despite frequent opposition from worldly forces.
It's sad that you were led astray by ignorance… the door is always open though

Nothing in his phrasing implies that the Gospel is the only tradition he passed onto them… hence why I used the example in the first place.
Yes… he's describing the tradition of needing to work… but again, nothing in his phrasing suggests that that was the only tradition the Apostles taught them. Also of note, there is no mention of this tenant in the Gospels that Paul is supposedly referring to in all of these letters.

I don't agree with what that user said, but I don't think he explicitly gave them a pass…
I did. Ironically I didn't know individual interpretation was a no no, and yet I came to the same conclusions without having heard Catholic doctrine in the first place… An act which I thank the race of God for.
It was a belief before that though… You can read church documents yourself to find it. It wasn't made official dogma until the 1950s, but it was a part of tradition for over a millennium.
If you had a proper interpretation of scriptures, it would be rather obvious based or Revelations, the Song of songs, and Proverbs ignoring the books you all decided to cut out
They'd have to add one that I feel contradicts scripture… Again, you all literally cannot fathom that I exist.

Peter is referring to the Latin Church as a whole, with the Pope as the head of the Latin church in the seat of Peter. I think this is like the 10th time I've explained this by this point.
Because he died in Rome and it was the last place where he preached his gospel. Again, obvious points are obvious, and yet woosh.
All bishops do hold the seat of Peter, and even local priests fulfill his role… because again, the whole Latin church is the seat of Peter, with the Pope as the primate of the seat of peter.
Because there are no good men in the catholic church, nor are there any wicked men in the protestant or orthodox churches… That's the implication. And according too you, you yourself were born from our ranks, so…
"Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!",
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saint"
"and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God."
What do you think they pick the Eucharist up with?… and in a post V2 world it is literally by hand that we share the Eucharist. So by your logic, we are now closer to the ancient church.
We don't need these sorts of ornate things, but they are in place for the sake of honoring god. There is such a thing as a low mass though, my good sir.

You tried, I'll give you that much. Not gonna convert any time soon though.

Attached: st,small,215x235-pad,210x230,f8f8f8.lite-1u1.jpg (210x230, 7.97K)

Double trips confirm my response

(witnessed)
Friendly reminder for all faithful christians:
Pray your Rosary

Attached: memebetter.com-20190301165928.jpg (800x600, 107.42K)

Saying that Catholics drive out demons by the power of Satan isn't the only way you can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, it's just an example. If you deny any of the works of the Holy Spirit, such as baptism, you are also blaspheming.

Ah yes, the "beauty is bad, be an ugly ascetic or you're vain" approach.
Mark 14 3-9

...

Based and redpilled

Attached: 2019_02_07_023642.png (828x598, 545.16K)

You guys know that vestments aren't worn by priests 24/7 right? They only wear them during service, and then just where either a cassock or black shirt and pants all other times. They "ornamentals" aren't for showing off or personal vanity. They are for honoring God, especially since Christ is made present in the Eucharist.

Last I checked the idea of dressing up for church wasn't a Catholic exclusive thing. The difference is we have the actual presence of Christ in mass, while y'all just get together and make conjecture about the parts of scripture you like.

Also, for anyone curious, the account in the desert fathers about Transubstantiation involves a monk questioning the real presence in the Eucharist to his elders, and then being shown a vision of Christ's body on the cross being sliced and broken and his blood drained and having it handed to him. After being initially disgusted, the flesh and blood take the form of bread and wine, with his elders telling him that while Christ is present in the Eucharist he would never force his followers to commit cannibalism, and so he takes the form of bread and wine. And this was recorded around 300 AD, with such a simple and obvious answer… Now we have entire books on the subject and protestants still refuse to believe it.

OP:
Also OP:

Attached: 1551165124190.jpg (396x360, 15.9K)

Incorrect, the Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The First Baptist Church of Anywereville USA was founded by Pastor Bob in 1952 because he thinks he understands the KJV (1611) better than Pastor Jim down the road.

The Mary thing makes me very uncomfortable queen of heaven, but the protestants acceptance of everything worldly makes me even as uncomfortable, so I don't go to church at all. I have the word of God and my faith, I need nothing else.

That's because you don't know what salvation is, and what Christ actually did. God came into this world through his own creation, Mary a created human bore the infinite logos in her womb within space and time. God's kingdom is a family, and we were created in the image of God and are called into eternity with him.

Well, according to protestants I've spoken to, their view is that the Woman crowned with 12 stars is the church… which makes no sense, because why would the church give birth to Christ?

Mary is the Queen of Heaven, The Seat of Wisdom, the New Eve, The Ark of the New Covenant, and the Living example for the church.

She is called the Queen of Heaven for her depiction in the Book of Revelations as a woman crowned with 12 stars. And this is fitting for she has found favor with God, as was her destiny from time immemorial. " The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old."

She is called the Seat of wisdom because the Book of Proverbs as well as the Book of Wisdom and the Book of Sirach describe wisdom as a woman, and in their own words "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." Did Marry not fear the Lord? Was she not obedient to his command? And was she not the first to have knowledge of the Holy One, incarnate within her? Christ said “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” and this quote is used as though it rebukes the Catholic stance on Mary. and to that I say, did Mary not hear the word of God and keep it? Was she not obedient to the will of the Lord in all ways, to the point of giving her own son up to be sacrificed? "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

She is called the new eve because she is the antithesis of the first Eve. The first Eve transgressed Gods command and gave into the serpent. Mary showed perfect obedience to the Lord and submitted fully to his will. “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” in this way by her affirmation the sins of man could be undone, and humanity could be made whole again. And as Eve was taken from Adam, Christ was taken from Mary.

She is called the Ark of the New Covenant because she bore Christ within herself. "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" She was the pure and unblemished ark which brought to man the word of God, not engraved on stone or in the visions of prophets, but incarnate in the flesh, predestined by the Lord to be without sin, so that it might be both human and divine, for the lord would never live within an ark stained by sin, let alone draw his flesh from it.

Lastly, in all of this Mary is shown to be the living example of the church. Her obedience, her purity, her submission, her wisdom are all examples for the church to follow. And Mary is the bride of the Holy Spirit, just as the Church is the bride of Christ.

Hopefully this clears the air a bit user. Mind you, this is a very surface level explanation. The Saints and Doctors of the church have gone into far greater and more eloquent detail than I have here.

This isn't even mentioning the Song of Songs…

Attached: d9e.jpg (1700x2110, 730.56K)

From a non Catholic point of view, this is not helping which is what I assume you're trying to do.

This however is helpful, my issue is specifically with the word Queen, its implies equal position with the King. If it means she was the perfect human woman, made by God with the intention to carry our Messiah, then that I can accept.
This makes a lot of sense,a +1 for each -1 to make things right. I'll pray on it, thanks user.

Yeah, it's understandably a bit difficult for people outside of the church, especially if you're coming from a protestant perspective. For me, I initially just read Luke and Revelations and assumed that was all there was to Mary's position in the church, which made enough sense to me at the time. It wasn't until I actually started studying Catholic Theology that I understood the higher level of intricacy.

I'd recommend "the Glories of Mary" by St. Alphonsus Liguori for a relatively brief rundown. It's basically the shortest and most concise book on the topic of Mary's role in the church I can recommend… and even then my copy is 176 pages, albeit with fairly large text. It cites scripture along with accounts of apparitions and the like though.

Found a pdf and I'll read it, again thanks.
For anyone whos interested
themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

Before Christ's death, the church was the people of Israel. Jesus was born among the people of Israel.

Even so, a religion defined by rejection of Christ must necessarily be younger than the religion founded by Christ. The legitimate continuation of the proto-Christian religion of the Old Testament is Christianity, period.

But Mary is among the people of Israel… so even with that logic it could still be her.

It's also of note:
With that in mind these perspectives are effectively synonymous. If Christ is born of Mary, he is also born of the church and of the people of Israel.

This is a modern Western interpretation. In the vast majority of kingdoms throughout history, the king was always superior to the queen. It's the same way in the Kingdom of Heaven, except amplified by infinity. Mary's greatness comes from her total submission to the will of God, and this is the greatest greatness that any mortal human being could ever hope to attain. Mary therefore cannot be equal to God because any greatness that she holds is entirely derivative of and submissive to the greatness of God. The same goes for any saint, holy man, prophet, preacher, theologian, or anyone else you might see get praise in Christian communities.

You've got to understand that human beings have more in common with earthworms than they do with God. You've got to understand that mighty archangels have more in common with earthworms than they do with God. God has no more need for the greatest of His creations than He has for the smallest of His creations. With this understanding in mind, there is no amount of praise you can heap onto Mary that equates her with God, because even though she is the greatest mortal human being who ever lived, God is still infinitely greater.

And saying that God is infinitely greater than Mary does not denigrate her, but compliments her. For if her greatness is even a small shadow of the infinite greatness of God, then surely she has the greatest greatness any mortal human being could ever hope to attain.

This

Also, what a lot of my misguided prot friends fail to realize is that Mary is Jesus' mother. Commandment related is what Jesus follows when He listens to His mother Mary, which brings Honor to God the Father. Jesus performs His first miracle because His mother asked Him to (water into wine). If Jesus has adopted us gentiles into His family than it follows that Mary is our adopted, and spiritual, Mother. We can come to her and she can give our prayers to her Son. So, prots, love your spiritual mother and pray to her. There is no shame in it.

Attached: c403569d31337e3365f759b7975ff2ae.jpg (666x233 129.32 KB, 28.4K)

Here is the bizarre interpretation that this verse was given as a proof text for (and the only reference to) secret teachings that were specifically not allowed to be written down but only ever to be taught orally.

The fact people could come to such an idea, that this is what was meant, is quite fascinating. And wrong, of course.

This is a reference to scripture, not to manmade traditions, though. This has already been established, there is not a gnostic "oral-only" doctrine that wasn't allowed to be written down. Nobody ever referenced the existence of such things in scripture. In fact in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we see how all Scripture is able to make the man of God be perfect, with the meaning of complete. There's no reference to non-scripture there.

Matthew 16:18 is still true though. You can't just start a cult out of nowhere just because you decided now was a good time and started throwing your own weight around. That's what caths did when they started pedo-baptism.

I can buy all of that. I just don't *need* to come to her to come to Christ. We're allowed to petition Him directly.

Protestants should be burned at the stake. I hope the mods ban them all from this board.

Are you having a giggle or do you really feel this way?

I really feel this way. Protestants are heretics, they shouldn't even be considered Christians tbh since their doctrines and practices differ so much from the religion Jesus founded. I have a burning hatred for their movement. I am glad the mods are on our side and are cracking down on them though so that's good.

Why would we go to one of the managers of a company when we have a direct access line and direct accountability with the CEO and owner, 24/7/365?

So either it was written down and lost which is contrary to your teachings as it would mean that divinely inspired scripture could be lost, or it was only ever taught orally which is also counter to your beliefs.

Which is exactly why he goes on to describe in the following passage something that wasn't included in the gospels. Where does Jesus talk about head coverings again?

These traditions aren't man made, but divinely inspired. Hence we have records of them from 100 AD until now. Again, when Protestants claim to be the historic church, the age of your doctrines matter. How far back do we need to go? Did the church just go astray the minute revelations was finished?

Stop it. If we can't correct them, how could they ever be saved? It is good that they are here so that they might learn the true faith.

(checked)
I know your feel, but you have to let go of that hate, friend. It will only hurt you and push prots away further from salvation.

You can do both. But if we want to do corporate analogies:
Holy Mary is God's trusted secretary that will get your prayers to the Big Boss faster than if you were to try to contact Him directly.
and if you are a Prot your messages get sent to low priority

Attached: bvm00086.jpg (275x352, 31.53K)

Why would the boss need a secretary to get messages to him faster if he's omnipotent and omniscient? You can't make an analogy that rests on the limits of human ability to describe the all powerful nature of our Lord.

What do you think of my response? Just wanna know since I'm more focused on scripture and doctrine.

If you're talking about your response here then my thoughts are below.

I understand where you're coming from with the first point about scripture VS tradition, but I still have a bit of a stumbling block there. We both agree scripture is sufficient for making a Christian, but you believe that there's other traditions not written in scripture that is necessary for salvation. You believe someone must be baptized, which is why you baptize babies. You believe people must take the eucharist, that people must confess their sins to a priest or they are not forgiven, and a few other things. The Bible says "call no man father", yet you call all of your clergy father. And I know the catholic response to that, you'll ask me if it's a sin to call my biological father, "father", but we'd both agree that's stupid logic. The Bible is saying to call no man father in a spiritual sense, for you only have one Father which is in heaven.

As for the head coverings remark, we don't believe that only what's in the gospel is necessary for salvation but that what is contained in scripture is necessary for salvation. I forget where at but I'm pretty sure there's a verse about head covering in the scripture.

Then you go on to say that you and the other user both agree that scripture is sufficient, which is why you give scriptural arguments to support your position. But see my first point about calling no man father and the rest, I won't write it out again.

As for the Mary part, I'm kinda mixed. I don't hate Mary at all, I think she's great, but I don't know how I feel about praying to her (obviously, with my last post). I don't think you need to pray to her for God to hear you, He is omnipotent and omniscient after all. Also, the bodily assumption of Mary as a catholic doctrine (which wasn't dogma until the 1950s) would, from my understanding, place her as a divine person on par with Jesus, since Jesus was the only person to be assumed bodily into heaven (but He is God so that makes sense to me). She's important, yes, and the most perfect woman that's ever existed other than Eve herself, but to say she is divine on the level of Jesus to be assumed into heaven doesn't seem right to me.

The rest of the chapter describes symbolic events that did not happen to Mary but did happen to the Church, so I'm afraid not.

Everything that is taught word of mouth is also recorded in scripture and the point isn't to say there is one doctrine meant to be written and one to be spoken only. The point, always, is to say that the same doctrine is equally valid whether spoken or written. So if I or anyone read 1 Corinthians 11 aloud it would be the same validity as if it were read directly.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. So in 1 Corinthians 11 is where it's recorded for us. The same goes for all doctrine of Christ, just insert the correct Biblical reference.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. We all have the record that God gave of his Son. This is the one thing God exalted above all his name according to Psalm 138:2 and that on which the church was entrusted in Acts 20:32. That's what you must have to have life according to John 6:63 (not bread).

These are the true sayings of God. Not only that but they are eternally incorruptible, see 1 Peter 1:23-25 and Psalm 119:160. Also Proverbs 30:5-6, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35. The scripture cannot be broken according to John 10:35. The word shall not return void but shall accomplish its task according to Isaiah 55:11.

Not according to Matthew 16:18. But the spirit of antichrist was already present during the composition of the New Testament according to 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:3. They were already dealing with both Judaizers and gnostics who made up "oral traditions" after the manner of the Pharisees who were exposed in Mark 7:7-13 and are also prophesied against in places like 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and Galatians 6:13 and you had people making false accusations on the spot as we find in Acts 21:38 and Titus 1:10-11. Paul warned about them coming as soon as he would leave in Acts 20:29-31 right before entrusting them to God and his word in Acts 20:32. So its not like the state church of babylon was a total surprise when it arose. But fortunately despite all their efforts nobody was ever able to remove, change or replace the true word of God (that I'm referring to right now) and it remains as the best evidence to this day.

The question is always whether you were in it for God's word or not and whether you really do take it seriously, or you just write it off as something of lesser importance to manmade tradition, that can be ignored in favor of manmade traditions and new stuff that men come up with to keep you occupied. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats come to mind, as does idolatry, later innovations to baptism, idolatry, and works gospel.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. — Colossians 2:8

The whole doctrine is contrary to the Gospel.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. — Galatians 3:22

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: — Romans 4:13-14

Yes there's that too. It really never ends the amount of complete 180 reversals they do of scripture. Turning it into a works gospel has absolutely got to be up there, as Galatians 1:8-9 makes clear. It can't be by grace and works if you believed Romans 11:6. At this point we could go to Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 5:24, it really never ends.

You started with the corporate analogies.
God has no limits yes, but considering everyone and their mother sends prayers to Him, He will take His time decerning wether or not He should even bother to answer it. Considering Prots openly rebelled agianst His Son's Church why should He even bother with them? He gives the requests sent to Mary higher priority because He knows only Catholic faithful will pray to her, thus those prayers can be trusted more and are given higher priority.
Though if I wanted to stop sugar coating it, Prots deny Mary as the Mother of God, thus denying Jesus His humanity. Why would God even answer the prayers of those that disrespect Jesus' Mother?

Attached: motherofgod-793x1250.jpg (793x1250, 151.08K)

>appeal to tradition fallacy
Roman pagans made the same objections.

Christ himself was baptized and he and his apostles baptized the followers of the faith.
>And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. ” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Pretty explicit… and this is only Luke's version.
Bind & loose… I feel like we have this discussion on a daily basis… It's not the priest who forgives your sins but god working through the sacraments, and the priest offers spiritual guidance and penance endowed by the holy spirit.
We call God the Father in Heaven… We call priests father because they are our spiritual guides in the same manner as a Father or elder is to his children. We do not however elevate them above The Lord by any means.
But the point I was making is that the claim I've received from Protestants is that when Paul refers to traditions he is speaking of the Gospel he preached in various regions. There's a mention of prophets and patriarchs covering their heads and faces before God, but Paul is teaching the exact opposite in that passage. And in many of his mentions of these traditions, he speaks as though they are things he has already told them and is referring back too. So like I said, either they weren't written down or were lost, either of which would contradict Sola Scriptura.
I affirmed that scripture is absolutely necessary for the faith. But Paul says it is "profitable" and necessary for "training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Which is true, as without scripture your understanding and faith would be incomplete… that doesn't mean it's the only thing necessary for the faith though, only that without it the man of god is not complete. Saying that a man of god without scripture is not complete implies that there can be an a man of god without scripture who is not fully equipped. What would this man have were his learning in scripture absent?

Additionally, earlier in the same passage Paul states that
Here Paul states that the writings Whichever they may be if they even exist anymore Are able to instruct one in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Yet he also emphasizes his own role in instructing Timothy. Why, if scripture is enough on it's own, would Timothy need further instruction?

It is a request for intercession, just like the prayer thread is here. The only difference is that the person we're asking is already in heaven, and is filled with far greater grace than any of us could ever hope to obtain.
Which is why we aren't constantly asking for her to intercede for us. In fact, the celebration of the mass doesn't involve any evocation of Marian intercession unless it's one of her feast days.
I can assure you the belief itself is ancient. The book I recommended mentions it and it's from the 1700s. Again, like Transubstantiation, it's not a new thing.
Is Enoch on par with Jesus? Because he was taken up to heaven and he had the stain of Adam still on him.

Could you guys make up your mind whether you are praying to her or "venerating" her, its really difficult to try to wrap my head around this not being idolatry when Catholics sometimes claim "we pray to her but it isn't worship praying, its like having a conversation between people asking them to pray for them" and then sometimes claim "we don't pray to her we venerate her".

And you know this how? Were you there? Did you receive some divine revelation of the past? Are you telling me that Peter, Paul, Andrew and all of the other apostles outside of Matthew, Mark, and John never preached their own gospels? Because we don't have them written down anywhere. Which one of the 4 did they preach? For that matter, why do the Gospels differ in the first place if each apostle was meant to bring the same uniform message of Christ? Someone who was educated by Mark and Mark alone wouldn't know about the wedding feat according to his gospel. Likewise, Someone instructed by Matthew wouldn't know about the annunciation or Visitation.
Correct, that's why we have examples written doctrine concerning tradition dating back to 100 AD.
The next point I take no issue with, because it has nothing to do with my argument.
Yes. but according to protestants Paul is referring to the Gospel he preached there. Since he's talking about head coverings in relation to that, that implies that something in his teachings pertained to it in the first place. So, either Matthew, Mark, Luke and John forgot to record Christ's teaching on the matter or it was lost to time, or Paul never recorded it in writing until 1 Corinthians 11, which would mean he taught them orally at a different time that wasn't recorded… Which opens up the possibility that the Apostles teachings weren't all recorded explicitly in scripture. The Process by which the biblical cannon was compiled was related to whether each text was legitimate after all, not that it was the only teachings of the faith.
John 6:54-56
Having already repeated the Last Supper
>The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; thou holdest my lot.

I have never said otherwise
"That word is the good news which was preached to you." Not transcribed for you.
I agree. We have been around for quite a while after all.
Cool reference to the Babylonian Talmud and the removal of certain books of scripture. Has no relation to the divine traditions handed down to us by the apostles, informed by the holy spirit and the scriptures though.
Note Mouth and not writing.
I have no issue.
Again, this is an address to the Pharisees who corrupted scripture through the Talmud and removal of certain books.
Which is why we haven't abandoned scripture or the Traditions handed down to us… because both were given to us by The holy Spirit speaking through the Apostles.

I'm aware, I was being facetious, because the historic evidence for apostolic traditions goes back to the infancy of Christianity, and has continued to this day while various pseudo-christian cults have died out time and time again.
Out traditions aren't of men. I literally spent my whole first reply identifying biblical precedents for them. Also, the tradition he's talking about that the Pharisees follow is not a tradition we have.
Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 as I cited to the other user before you. The restriction on food is refering to the old testament teachings that were creeping into the church out of ignorance. Outside of Lenten fasting. Christ encouraged fasting Matthew 6:16
We don't practice circumcision. Protestants are the ones who brought that back into European society thinking it was a status symbol.
I think you confusing the catholic church with the protestant wolves who idolize the Jews and their own thought over the church of God., which has remained since it's foundation in Rome established by the Apostles 2000 years ago while your cults have come and gone for centuries. Should have know you were gonna be a dick about it*
I agree. We, our scripture, and our teachings are still here after all.
I'm going to ignore you're following"point" because it should be obvious to any observer that I care about the scriptures. You'd have to be blind to say otherwise.
I already addressed your "points" on Marriage and Fasting
If you actually read our doctrine, you'd know we don't give sacred images any sort of power. They exist merely to honor god and the saints and to serve as a visual reminder to the the faithful. They have no power.
I already showed the other user that Baptism is required for salvation.
Psalm 90:17, Proverbs 14:23. Proverbs 18:9, Matthew 25:31-46, John 6:27, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 4:12, 1 Corinthians 15:58, Colossians 3:23, Hebrews 6:10, 1 Timothy 4:10. I can only hope and pray that at least one of those clears that up for you user. For the sake of your soul.
It's a God thing our philosophy is after Christ. You would know that if you read any of it.

Read my posts. I'm tired of redundancy and ignorance at this point.

(Ima check myself)
I like to think God is on my side with this.

The dragons' attack = Herod and the Massacre of the Innocents as well as what happened to the church. Because Mary is a living allegory for the church.

Prayer is just a request. When we ask Mary to pray for us she does. It's exactly like asking us here at Zig Forums to pray for you or you asking your parents to pray for you. If you think asking others to pray for you is idolatry than don't ever ask anyone to pray for you ever again.

My question to yee prots is why do you deny Mary the title Mother of God?

Attached: download (16).jpg (199x253, 9.27K)

Please do not accuse me of something I have not done, Mary is the Mother of God obviously because Jesus Christ is God, the title is easy to misinterpret though.
Ok ill put it this way - there is evidence for the Eucharist in the very early church, and Jesus literally says "for my flesh is real food", its obvious that the Eucharist is literal.
But where is the evidence for this practice in the early church or even the Bible?(The prayers of the saints in revelation doesn't say anything about requests). I truly would appreciate you providing an example, Catholics seem to have most things correct but this falls flat.
Yes, I like her too, shes the ideal woman and fulfils plenty of the OT, but seeing that the practice wasn't there from the start makes me suspicious.
Of course I am hoping to be proven wrong here.

The dragon attacked the woman after her son had already ascended to heaven. Then no.

In addition to the fact that the dragon does not attack the woman directly, it uses as a weapon "water like that of a river". A few chapters later we realize that water symbolizes peoples of all nations.

The Didache has a passing reference to intercessory prayer in chapter four:

thou shalt seek out day by day the favour of the saints, that thou mayest rest in their words

I know what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says.
In the sense that God divinely revealed his word to mankind.
Are you telling us they actually said something different. In fact are you even implying right now that there is more than one gospel?

Lets assume you aren't saying these things. In that case they all agree.

I guarantee you that God was able to get his entire word to us. It doesn't even matter who you're hearing it from whether by word or by epistle even. It's supposed to be, if you've been paying attention, the inspired words that came down to us not by the will of men. So then if Paul is telling us, in 1 Corinthians 15:10, that it was not him but entirely the grace of God that was with him, how would you then logically credit these things to specific people like that. That is if you actually believe what it says. You couldn't do so, logically. God spoke through specific men (2 Peter 1:21) in this incredible act. So why would you think there were variances in it doctrinally from man to man. It just doesn't make any sense.

God wanted multiple witnesses on the record and manages to show us a lot of things by giving us minute parallels and differences with which to compare scripture with scripture. It was all known in advance exactly what each one was given to reveal, it was all meant to give a complete account. No accidents, no misrecordings, no corruptions, no missing things that have to be re-figured out, that's never how it worked with God. With man yes, but with 1 Peter 1:23-25 it explicitly states that it is the incorruptible seed, not the corruptible which is everything else including all manmade works and writings. These are corruptible and have been corrupted because they don't matter, only God's word matters.

I should also add that John 14:26 and John 16:13-14 testify that the Holy Spirit helps bring the saved person remembrance of these things which Jesus spoke, and taught, by his apostles and prophets. It only applies to scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 also only applies to scripture. Everything else is not only corruptible which I mentioned but also further it is all subject to private interpretation, whereas Scripture is not subject to this (as we see from 2 Peter 1:20), as it is being taught by the Holy Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-13, 1 John 2:27.

So you see how the Bible differs from every other record in how it will not be corrupted (as 1 Peter 1:23-25 says it is unique in this) and how it is taught by the Holy Spirit unto the man of God. He brings all things that Jesus said to remembrance.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. — John 16:13-14

Go on to read verse 63, Which is the explanation. And maybe add verse 68 to that as well, because you'll find someone else is on my side there.

I'm moved to answer. They're one in the same, that's what Thessalonians 2:15 was all about.

Isaiah 30:8
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

After we just went over Thessalonians 2:15? Why is he that readeth blessed? Do we need a review?

According to Galatians 1:9 if any man comes preaching some different gospel than what we have received, they are to be accursed. According to 2 Timothy 3:14, I am to know of whom I have learned these things. Whether it is of God or not. That counts every last word written in the word of God, and it counts no corruptible manmade traditions, including all other writings, that fade away and get warped over and changed with time. Scripture had nothing good to say of these. Paul warned of these. In Acts 20:28-31. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3. It's the babylonian state church.

Are you sincerely confusing abstaining privately versus commanding other people to abstain specifically? 1 Timothy 4:1-3 speaks of one person commanding another to do these things. May the Lord rebuke them.
Well at least you're honest enough not to claim it was inspired by God. I'll take that step right away then and place myself firmly behind the Bible which is the word of God and my shield. I don't have any teachings of my own, all the teaching and all the work comes from the Lord, omnipotent.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. — Matthew 19:26

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. — 1 Corinthians 15:10

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. — Philippians 2:13

I quoted the Bible which shows that all have been concluded under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. That's a highly disrespectful thing for you to say this. But still more disrespectful is to say that someone wasn't concluded under sin because this denies the validity of the whole word of God and it will not be overlooked. Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Baptist churches are the resurrection of the original independent churches

Not a resurrection, but a faithful application. Organized churches of born-again believers have always existed, even when their autonomy (independence) was compromised, and the largely Anglo Baptist tradition is one example of Biblical Christianity.

Sola Scriptura seems rational on the surface, but it has problems.
The main problem is, why is the Bible the word of God? Why is it the ultimate authority? Why are the writings of these mere men: The four Evangelists, Paul of Tarsus, Simon Peter, James and Jude; why are they not only a "very accurate" interpretation of Christian belief, but an infallible and ultimate final authority?

Well, the Catholic Church has an answer to that. The Catholic Church is an infallible authority, and it obtained this authority from Christ himself. So the Church can declare that these particular writings from these particular men are "God-breathed". These men were part of the Church. The Bishops that compiled the Bible and declared it the word of God are part of the Church.
It seems like the Protestant answer is that the Bible is God-breathed just because it is.

The second problem is intent. None of the aforementioned men clearly intended their writings to be a Catechism. Let alone the only Catechism to ever be followed. The Evangelists were just reporting on the life of Jesus so their readers would come to believe. Paul of Tarsus was writing letters to address specific problems in the individual Churches around the world. None of the writers could have predicted that their documents would be compiled into a single book, and then, taken together, as an ultimate authority.

The third problem is, from how Christ acted and from what he said, he never intended for his Church to be based on a book. He never commanded his followers to write anything down, and people only got around to writing down his life and teachings decades after the fact, when the Church was growing and recording his life became a necessity.

That still doesn't say that you should pray to them, it could easily be understood as the saints are watching down on us, and they pray to God based on the things they see. It doesn't say "pray to the saints", but "seek out day by day the favour of the saints", as in you should act righteously so they'll be more inclined to pray for you.

None of these are challenges to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is first predicated on the fact that the Bible is God's word.

Stop blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

wat

>How do Protestants cope with their Church being less than a millenium old?
>implying 1Cor12:13 – For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – doesn't apply to true believing protestants

Your man-made rules have no impact on me. I believe God before I believe what some Roman Emperor decides God said or meant.
Your traditions are the calcified shells of beliefs the early Christians had, engaging in mimicry no longer properly understood. Protestantism is far from perfect – I'll happily admit that – but it was an attempt to reground the faith of men in Christ's actual teachings.
Meh, it's a work in progress.
We are all sinners badly in need of Christ. No institution is gonna save me.

Still, I'm not going to suggest there is no usefulness in cathodoxy. I would prefer it lead more people to true faith in Christ, but that's God's business, not mine.

Attached: implying-splosion.gif (300x168, 1.62M)

The Church began on Pentecost.
The Church is not an "institution". It is organized but even this organization is the result of convenient needs, not an essential part of the Church.
Orthodox and Catholics do not believe that everyone who died before Christ went to Hell… At least fight against an enemy that actually exists, man.

Slight correction - we do believe that everyone before Christ went to Hell. But, being dead, Christ descended down into Hell and rescued the righteous who were expecting Him.

They don't, they come up with a "universal" and "visible, invisible" idea of the Church to justify their complete non-existence (aside from varying amounts of heretical and schismatic sects) throughout history.

Funnily it's exactly the opposite.
a "universal" ekklesia is foreign to scripture. There are separate assemblies based on geography.

all united by the apostles and their successors, and to this Early Church, they considered themselves all One, united by the apostolic successors

any questions?

Yeah my question is why is repurposing words to a completely new meaning acceptable when it lets you contradict scripture, but not when you perceive protestants do it to contradict your historical narrative?

What contradiction? The Church consists of multiple geographical churches established by the Apostles, and kept in communion with each other by the Apostles and their successors going out of their to tend to each community and their Priests (elders).

It's literally in the scriptures, and the Protestant historical revisionism wasn't even a real idea for about 1,500 years! Well, except for the Gnostics and the Arians, and other sects, I suppose.

This isn't narrative, this is truth. If you choose to close your eyes to it, you will only fall.

I'm having a hard time following your thoughts. What I'm pointing out is that "church" in scripture is never used in the universal sense we sometimes give it today. The implication you're making is that the romish ecclesiology is demanded by the NT, but it is a stranger.

?

??
What is "it" that's in the scriptures?
what is a "real idea" that protestant revisionism wasn't…?

sure. each church was led by an elder. the word for elder in the greek, later gave birth to the word "priest", because Christianity has existed for over 2,000 years, and some linguistic change is inevitable

each elder was greeted by the Apostles, whom went around each church to promote the tradition, preach the faith, correct errors, and grow the church. this responsibility was given on to other apostolic succesors, named bishops

catching on now?

geographical churches united by communion with each other

that the early church was some sort of nebulous church of believers untied by any communion or commonality of apostolic tradition or successors

next question!

Okay, but, like, what about monothelitism? Is Sergius I in Hell because it's now heresy? Or is that some theologoumena?