Catholic Church and cucked teachings

I'm a Christian, and specifically a Protestant (Calvinist).
Something I've noticed on Jow Forums is that only atheists, neopagans or Orthodox actually criticise Catholicism and get pushed to the bump limit, and that actual Protestant threads are either left alone or spammed with "LUL AMERICAN EVANGELICALS LOVE ISRAEL"!
It's either "trad" Catholicism or Christianity itself being strawmanned as "jewish".

Could you please enlighten me about Calvinism? Any good required reading, lecturers etc?
What Bible do you use?
I know that you guys believe in predestination and I'm familiar with it, I just don't understand the point of it or why it's a big deal.

im an athiest and you're all fucken retarded

Thanks for adding nothing to this discussion, classic American post.

Educate yourself simply on the five points of Calvinism and reformed theology. Some other things to note aside from predestination is the belief that all believers are saints and that Jesus isn't present in bread and wine.
The Westminster Confession of Faith explains it pretty well.

Thank you mate. I was wondering why I never saw Calvinist posters.

Also, there's no specific Bible that needs to be used here. Just stay away from modern translations as well as Catholic Bibles like Douay-Rheims.

youtu.be/4JkuaUik1Hg
God be with you, user.

There's one Calvinist that's actively on Jow Forums, Based WASP (who has a YouTube channel, the Reformed Stoic).

So my New International Version study Bible won't suffice then?

Thanks
Question, how cucked are Calvinists these days? I know that South African ones were pretty based. But do they support white genocide generally like the Catholic Church does so fervently?

There's a lot of problems with the NIV, many verses or parts of verses that are covered in the KJV are absent in the NIV.
searchthescriptures.com/newsletters/foundations.htm

That's a problem among church institutions in general. The state church in South Africa was generally okay with the apartheid before the 90s with Mandela when they started becoming multicultural.

>church institutions
Brick and mortar churches aren't even Christian, as a matter of fact. See:

Bump.

Wait so should I go to a Calvinist church then or not?

IT'S TIME OP...God really does need you to be about HIS will and calling for your life purpose

What do you mean specifically by "going to church"?
I'm not saying that having designated buildings of worship isn't Christian. I'm talking about centralised church institutions (like Catholicism, though it doesn't necessarily have to be as big as Catholicism, it can be any state church or even a local cult).

Doesn't that weaken the unity of the faith?
What's the benefit to having no centralised institution? Because it's less susceptible to corruption?

It is less susceptible to corruption and also fornication with other philosophies in that regard.
The centralisation that ALL Christians have are their faith in Christ, which the early Christian theologians (including people tutored by the apostles like Ignatius of Antioch) all believed in:

None of the teachings in your pic suggest there's anything wrong with people living in their own distinct nations.

To resolve the situation that we're in we're going to have to violate those "personal rights" based on race. It clearly contradicts the Church's teachings here.

Not only is it not the one true church - it's actually completely wrong. Saul destroyed Christianity from the inside before it began. There's a Swiss flag on here that can drop some truth on you all.

Also note that it talks about both men and women being made in the same image of God, while Genesis says the opposite.

When? Can't think of a time with more people doing satanic shit in the name of the church.

>Not only is it not the one true church - it's actually completely wrong
This is true.
>Saul destroyed Christianity from the inside before it began
Paul wasn't a liar. He taught the same teachings of Jesus, but had to "condense" it so-to-speak when talking to people like the Galatians, Greeks and the Romans.
>There's a Swiss flag on here that can drop some truth on you all
A SWISS flag saying Paul is a liar. Not surprised.

What's you view on this? Are you KJV-Only, or do you recognise the changes brought about by textual criticism and understanding but think some newer translations have been jewwed?

Yeah. My problem is that the wording of this seems to suggest that complete egalitarianism and that any decisions made based off of race, religion, and gender are all evil. It's ridiculous. I don't understand how any "redpilled" Catholics can justify that.

>paul
He was kicked out of greece 4 times and was exiled to cyprus.
He had to "infuse" his jewish religion with a considerable amount of hellenic religion/platonism in order to make it palatable enough.
Even then it was not enough, until Justinian forced the greeks to finally convert or die.

No, I'm not KJV only. I do recognise the changes brought via translations and different understandings, and also that certain NT variants are in-themselves corruptions (like the Alexandrian version that later became part of the NT Vulgate).

>He had to "infuse" his jewish religion with a considerable amount of hellenic religion/platonism in order to make it palatable enough
Wrong. All the Hellenistic metaphysics in the Gospel of John for example weren't originally interpreted as Hellenistic metaphysics until long after Paul with people like Origen.

Now, being expelled from Greece or Rome wasn't really "smart pagan philosophers kicking out the foreign mind virus" (which isn't even true, since the Greeks accepted foreign cults all the time) but was often just a matter of being ostracised for telling the truth.

Reminder cuckolicks used to do this

Attached: 85F2BA7D-5072-48E6-9F85-D815D1C7CA32.png (750x1334, 272K)

Another thing that ties into modern "trad" Catholic nationalism was the Jesuits historically supporting Catholic nationalism. They were the original kosher nationalists.
Some people might reply with "well, that's just an Italian practice!", but don't forget that it carried on to Greece and France. The Jesuits also used to diddle children. And don't forget this:
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/homo-damian1.asp

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.

How is this not praying to Mary?

Go to one in America. They push for open borders and cry about Mexicans all the time

The Catholics just say that they're just "asking Mary to pray for them", which is of course bullshit.

Why is it bullshit?

Social teaching must be interpreted in light of all teaching. Like nested logic maybe.

So any assertion must be modified with others.

Other statements are made like the church must guard and respect the customs, borders and well being of its people.

Jesus says turn the other cheek and also to sell your cloak and buy a sword.

Context.

They do the same thing here bud. They're the most pro-immigrant and refugee organisation here.

Yeah, they treat the heavenly realm like a celestial soap opera, where Jesus is going to be calmer and more likely to listen if you get His mother to have a word on your behalf rather than go directly. Ludicrous stuff.

And Roman Catholics especially the Irish have been their mouth pieces for decades only to get shit on by the church here.

The catholic church likes to hide the rampant paedophilia that goes on with priests.

Attached: free-candy.jpg (970x374, 61K)

>I'd like to hear some arguments against this and the church.

Argument is that the entirety of catechism is not composed of doctrine, but includes discipline and practice. Combine this with the historical practice of the church and you get a more accurate picture of what that line means and does not mean. The key phrase is "in fundamental personal rights". As has happened historically, you can if you wish make the argument that persons professing certain religions are morally incapable of holding office. Indeed, an exclusively Christian government is in fact permitted by this line. What the phrase is saying, is that there exists and set of inalienable rights given to all men regardless of creed or position that must be respected. For example murder and theft are still murder and theft even if perpetrated against a heretic.

It's clearly not just asking Mary to pray with them, but saying that Mary or the saints deliver earthly prayers to God, which is just wrong from a biblical perspective, as is the Catholic practice of confessing to priests and not directly to God.
They always seem to have an earthly or heavenly mediator as if God didn't hear all of our prayers on earth or like said that praying through saints would apparently improve it.

If the virgin birth or Mary was just an exraneous detail, why is it so important to the prophecy?

Why has it always held important meaning in iconography?

How is a prayer to Mary contrary to that? If angelic beings visit Mary, does she not have a place in heaven?

Yet we're talking about the same Church that genocided millions of whites for either not following Catholicism itself or just being Pagan.

What, are we going to pray to the prophets now because they received revelations of God? Are we going to pray to King David because he received the Psalms and that the line that led to Christ has been established from him?

Stop trying to combine different things. What in Scripture justifies praying to Mary? Why would you when you can pray to God Himself?

I was baptised a Catholic, but I would say these days I am a pagan by virtue of my nature and of my continued growth and understanding of that topic. I look to the history of Catholicism with mixed thoughts, but with an appreciation overall. I would just prefer a more one to one experience with the source from now. Unless a cardinal can lop off the popes head and clear the merchants out of the temple. I will likely remain this way.

Church didn't genocide anybody. The church doesn't and hasn't possessed armies. Save Papal State forces were headed by the Pope, but those were for the Papal States, not the Church itself.

Also Millions is a widely inflated figure if I am to assume you mean capital punishment for heretics. I'd be surprised if it passed 2 thousand in as many years of existence.

>I was baptised a Catholic, but I would say these days I am a pagan by virtue of my nature and of my continued growth and understanding of that topic
You could say that to all Roman Catholics because they fornicated with other religions. Saints like Marina and Brigid, the IHS had Jesuit Zen monks, Jesuit Brahmin in India, etc.
Even the Catholic Jesus was basically a sun deity to certain mysticists in antiquity (being equated to Helios), which explains all the sun symbolism in Catholicism.

Saul was a liar. The Swiss flag on here is very well read and has massive amounts of sources in their original languages to back up his claims. The same guy believes in the teachings of Christ and denies the lies of kikes. try opening your mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
The Albigensian Crusade or the Cathar Crusade (1209–1229; French: Croisade des albigeois, Occitan: Crosada dels albigeses) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in southern France. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars, but also a realignment of the County of Toulouse in Languedoc, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of influence of the Counts of Barcelona.
>INITIATED BY POPE INNOCENT III
>BETWEEN 200 000 AND 1 000 000 DIED
>THAT'S JUST ONE EVENT
>hurdur but the Pope isn't the Church

Can the Church actually DO Anything wrong?
Also the Papal States were owned by the Pope, the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. Can the Church physically even do anything according to you?

This is what the Catholics claim when they say early Christians venerated Mary:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Pillar
No evidence that it dates back to that period.
You're talking about this guy, are you:
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/210317142/#210325471

Firstly, that's a war, not a genocide, secondly it says right in the second sentence that crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French Crown. The Church does not and has not possessed armies.

>Also the Papal States were owned by the Pope, the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I know this, and further as I said, Papal State forces are for the Papal States, not the Church itself.

Mary has a unqiue role in relationship to the trinity and incarnation.

Even to Luther Mary had a venerable place. How it us to modern prots, i cant say. Seems that its completely lost on them.

Just saying, the issue isnt so simple as its made out to be.

Its a complex issue and im not an expert here.

>a war, not a genocide
Raphael Lemkin, who in the 20th century coined the word "genocide",[152] referred to the Albigensian Crusade as "one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history".[3]
It absolutely was a genocide. Catholics have often waged war for religious reasons. Just because there were other driving factors doesn't justify their involvement.
>The Church does not and has not possessed armies.
This is like a semantic difference. The Church might as well have owned an army if the Pope did. It's like saying that I didn't kill someone even though I ordered my followers to do it.
>Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Do you?
Now answer my question. Is it possible for the Church to actually do anything if it doesn't count when its leader does things?

Luther didn't venerate Mary as much as the Catholics did, and admittedly even he was still Romanist in his teachings (especially regarding the Eucharist). Calvin even emphasised not to venerate Mary like the Catholics did.

Maybe you should read two fucking sentences further and see his classification as a genocide is disputed. They lost a fucking war they started.

>This is like a semantic difference

No it's fucking not. The sovereignty of the Papal States is separate from the Office of the Pope. That's like saying if the Pope were president, the United States military would be the Vatican's. They are separate institutions, being headed by the same person doesn't change that.

See also As for the Marian debate has many theologians you could learn more than from me.

But why you might pray to Mary, i think there is avenues of spiritual growth and understanding in venerating Mary.

that is my opinion though, i dont know exactly.

Thanks for the info. I have the Hermetica which I haven't started yet, should be an eye-opener.

There is only one way to Heaven frens.

Attached: c823131e62c223898a1ec73b31c7f0efce0f1ecb2d954850e6e9ad3dad0b2a52.jpg (1920x1066, 957K)

>maybe you should read two sentences further
"Robert E. Lerner argues that Pegg's classification of the Albigensian Crusade as a genocide is inappropriate, on the grounds that it "was proclaimed against unbelievers ... not against a 'genus' or people; those who joined the crusade had no intention of annihilating the population of southern France ... If Pegg wishes to connect the Albigensian Crusade to modern ethnic slaughter, well—words fail me (as they do him)."[154] Laurence Marvin is not as dismissive as Lerner regarding Pegg's contention that the Albigensian Crusade was a genocide; he does, however, take issue with Pegg's argument that the Albigensian Crusade formed an important historical precedent for later genocides including the Holocaust.[155]"
How does that disprove anything I said?
>They lost a war they started
>Initiated by Pope Innocent III
>Wars mean systematically wiping out an entire religious group
ok bro
>No it's fucking not. The sovereignty of the Papal States is separate from the Office of the Pope. That's like saying if the Pope were president, the United States military would be the Vatican's. They are separate institutions, being headed by the same person doesn't change that.
Except that every president would be a Pope and that they're inextricably tied to one another. It might as well be the same thing at that point.

I swear, leafs are consistently the worst posters. Is your name Samuel by any chance? You sound like a specific autistic person I know.

And I'm NOT saying it's a good thing. It's denying you the gates to salvation.

Be that as it may, protestants today:

Zionists and heresies beyond the wildest imagination...fag marriage and sin is all thats left in prot land.

Debating Mary todat is absurd.

Its no coincidence im having this convo with an hk and brit. The anglosphere are lost big time, we live in a collective spiritual desert rules by.money.

Seriously, what.moral highground exists anymore? We debate like its the 19th century when we live in t.s. eliots wasteland apocalypse x100

Read Chesterton perhaps.

>How does that disprove anything I said?
Right here:
>on the grounds that it "was proclaimed against unbelievers ... not against a 'genus' or people
> those who joined the crusade had no intention of annihilating the population of southern France

Now, the crusade was formally initiated by the Pope sure, but the first act of war the murder of a Vatican diplomat under the protection of the French Crown.

>Except that every president would be a Pope and that they're inextricably tied to one another. It might as well be the same thing at that point.

No, it would not be, given that using the State forces for Church purposes would be seen a transgression of office in the same way a CEO embezzling corporate funds to build his family a house would be. The papal States were a country, and like other countries they have right to self-defense, and their armies were used for those purposes, NOT to act as Church enforcer.

>Zionists and heresies beyond the wildest imagination...fag marriage and sin is all thats left in prot land.
You're strawmanning using Hebrew roots Evangelicals and churches that still use Catholic practices and/or celebrate Catholic holidays (Anglicans for example).

How is that relevant at all?
Whatever

>We debate like its the 19th century when we live in t.s. eliots wasteland apocalypse x100

Ouch.

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. "
It's a genocide. An entire religious group got wiped out through violent persecution in which the Church was involved.
>> those who joined the crusade had no intention of annihilating the population of southern France
>"whoops, we didn't intend to annihilate all of you! so it's not a real genocide, teehee :)"
>Now, the crusade was formally initiated by the Pope sure, but the first act of war the murder of a Vatican diplomat under the protection of the French Crown.
>murder one diplomat
>the measured response here is to genocide an entire religious group of people and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents
>so much for the tolerant Church

Yes mate and who decided who the leader would be of these Papal States?
The Church.
So the Church chooses who leads the Papal States but it's also totally fine because they're two separate institutions and really have nothing to do with each other.

Why are you trying to perform these mental gymnastics here? My point is that the Church might as well have owned the Papal States as a region.

I basically agree with the rest of your comment though, regarding what things are like today and how it's odd that we're still debating for and against Catholicism. I'm simply addressing your comment right there.

I don’t have cognitive dissonance over my ethnonationalist beliefs because I believe multiculturalism is inhumane and cruel.

ok, so how are you going to resolve the situation in line with the Church's teachings?

Bump.

Luther was a Catholic priest. He understood catholic doctrine better than the other reformers.

>the measured response here is to genocide an entire religious group of people and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents

They continued the war until Cathar aggression ceased. The body count is on the Cathars, not the French Crown. This is why the lack of intent matters, as what the French sought was victory, not annihilation, but he heretics would not relent and instead choose to throw away lives continuing a lost war. No sympathy from me for such stupid actions.

>My point is that the Church might as well have owned the Papal States as a region.

And my point is that would be seen as an unacceptable transgression. And historically, I am correct, given that it wasn't used for Church interests. The distinction is not merely legal. The other option is more absurd, which is the a country would not be allowed to have a an army to defend itself.

You understand what is the meaning of "fundamental personal rights" in the catholic church, right?
Protip: It doesn't mean UN human rights

Attached: kuruminha_by_jade583-dc5qfbe.png (800x900, 558K)

>he heretics
*the heretics

>the a country
that* a country

Why pray to Mary when you can just cut out the middle man and go directly to God?

>They continued the war until Cathar aggression ceased.
Was this the war where the Bishop leading it said "Kill then all, let god sort them out"

Sounds like a genocidal war of ethnic cleansing to me.

>venerating equals worship
Do you even know your own language? Also the veneration of saints and Virgin Mary comes from rational representation, which Christ when incarnating in the flesh as both man and deity exempted it from Sin, as himself, by being a man, was capable of rational representation, and since he came to Earth to save us from Sin. It's ok to use images and human beings as rational representation of the divine, but not as the divine themselves. This is preposterous to Protestants, as the humanity of Christ was decided in an Ecumenical Council and isn't really explicit in the Bible, thus ultimately being disregarded by some protestants

>Worshipping a woman
>Paying literal money for your sins
>Listening to what the (((Pope))) says
nah

Exactly. 1 Timothy 2:5

That's apocryphal.

Given the current state of Western civilization, you can't blame us for asking Mary and the saints to pray for us.
It's not like we don't pray the Lord directly.

Hence the dark ages

So what about your pic? FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS... aka the right not to be murdered senselessly, censored, or impinged from pursuing happiness. Is there something wrong with that, or something incompatible with white nationalism in that phrase?

It is not a person's "fundamental personal right" to immigrate to a country, nor is it a woman's "fundamental personal right" to vote. Tell me how that statement in your pic is even slightly cucked? You want it to be recognized by governments that nonwhites have no personal rights and can be tortured/enslaved?

The exact same argument Catholics use every single time.
>"(t)he distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity"
"Venerate" is simply a synonym for "worship" or "devotion".

By acknowledging that every institution has to pay lip service to tolerance and diversity. Even Orthodox patriarchs have to endorse multicult propaganda.