Except you're wrong. All those questions with zero Scripture to corroborate your bad opinion.
I assumed you knew where they're from since you're such a Bible enjoyer.
It's almost like you are leaning on your own understanding
Hilarious projection. I follow the Church Father's interpretation of Scripture which is the apostolic tradition of the Church. Personal opinions are meaningless.
I'm not interested in your opinion about the Word of God. I'm only interested in the Word of God.
Does the Word of God interpret itself or does it require interpretation? How do you determine which interpretation is correct if everyone reading it has equal authority on interpretation?
You can have a vengeful heart if you so choose though but.. first consider the levity of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Right now, you're the unforgiving servant.
You're not holier than St. John Chrysostom, but go on and piety signal all you like. This weak pussified subverted Christianity is why you deserve to be enslaved by your enemies.
Do you understand that quote mining is not proving anything? Scripture outside of the tradition which holds its correct interpretation leads to heresy and delusion (which St. John speaks about in the video, because jews have the OT and yet they misinterpret it and use it for evil).
I also noticed you didn't answer my questions - is the God of the OT Jesus Christ? Have you read Psalms? Who is David talking about in Psalm 110 "The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Psalm 58: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Why does King David say this in Psalm 139: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? … I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.” Do you consider yourself above David?
What protestants like you don't understand that everything in Scripture is within context and no command is universally applied in the same way. Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo. Even killing isn't sinful in the proper context just like loving someone could mean punishing him and causing him suffering. Protestants tend to have a very modernized, reductionist and naive worldview based on word-concept fallacies and generalizations and that's why it's a good idea to look at what the early Church Fathers taught because only the Church has the fullness of the faith.
I'm rabbi for telling you you shouldn't love jews? Makes total sense.
Why did Jesus command His followers to buy a sword? Why did He call the pharisees vipers and sons of the Satan? Why did He whip the moneychangers in the Temple? Because He loved them so much?
Is Christ the God of the OT who gave the Mosaic law?
Face it - you don't follow the Christianity of the early Church established by Christ. You follow the judaized subverted fake and gay Christianity that came 15c after Christ where each individual is their own Pope with zero regard for tradition. Your translation of the OT is based on the Masoretic texts (jewish Torah) and not on the Septuagint which was used in the NT. Do you care to guess why is that?
Dude, St. John Chrysostom was not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but also one of the Church Fathers who affirmed the 27 books of the NT and helped fleshing out the canon of Scripture. I think he knows what he's talking about.
You may love your enemies, but If you love and tolerate the enemies of Christ, you're an antichristian and you're one of them basically. If what you said was true, Christians wouldn't be allowed to fight in wars, killing their enemies. Yet many Christian saints were warriors because they fought the invading muslims. According to your interpretation, they must be destroyed then, right? Not to mention the examples of the OT where God commanded Israel to wage war and slaughter their enemies. Protestants can never get this correct with their quote mining arriving to heretical positions like pacifism, marcionism and origenism. That's why there's an apostolic Church which holds the authority on interpretation of Scripture.
22/12 edit: You never answered if you love your greatest enemy, who is Satan and his principalities?
You: "bUt yOu sHoUlD LovE yOUr eNeMieS huRR durRR!1!! Scripture says so, so I'll read it out of context and I'll tolerate and extend grace to the absolute demons who blaspheme, destroy my country and civilization and want to kill and enslave me and my family".
The problem is not about loving your enemy, but about what such a love entails and the literal naive understanding people like you have about what Christ means by those words. You're equivocating on the word love. It doesn't entail what the modern liberal thinks it does (surprise surprise, 'love is love' is not love). The love of your enemy doesn't prevent you from waging war against him and destroying him or delivering his soul to judgement.
When Chrystosom talks about hating the enemy, he doesn't contradict Christ. He only does if you don't understand words have different nuances depending on context. Chrystosom knows very well Christians can't really hate the way non-Christians understand hatred because we know everyone is an icon of Christ. Again, do you really believe you have more wisdom and spiritual insight the early Church fathers who were guided by the Spirit and who were crucial for spreading Christianity and made it possible for it to come to our day and age?
"It's an imaginary foreign invasion as we see that Hungary has one of the lowest immigration rates of the whole EU"
I wonder why the fuck that is? Could it be because of Hungary's policy?
How retarded are normies for listening to this MSM Soros backed garbage really?
America was never Christian but it will be in the future. As people get wiser about what's going on, Orthodoxy is spreading faster and wider. The western man, living under the judaized freemasonic NWO, is realizing he's been duped and is thirsty for authentic Christianity. And as our Lord said those who seek Him shall find Him. We live in historic hard times and we're blessed for it.
He is calling Candace "crazy with her crazy conspiracy theories". This is exactly the language The View uses to attack people vocal against public gaslighting.
So if I call someone crazy for believing something I'm automatically an Israel shill and The View kind of guy? I haven't heard what Andrew's take is and how he argumented himself but people can disagree and go after one another without being paid shills. I agree with Candace's take on Bridgette Macron but I wouldn't call anyone who called her crazy then an asset doing damage control.
Saint veneration is Scriptural though.
How many "saints" were deemed so by the Catholic Church, which also calls old pedophiles "holy" and "father".
That's why you shouldn't listen to them but to the true apostolic historic Church that Christ established which is the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Andrew is not a fan of Israel. He literally debates zionists. Nick is a RC and his Church supports Israel and condemns antisemitism so I agree about him. Wait, so is Candace... The cognitive dissonance with those guys must be insane, or maybe they're just facelords playing their part.
Only absolute retards deny the historic existence of Jesus Christ. They wish He never existed because deep down they know the truth.
The crusades are fake and gay though. And what was the point even? In the end the gay RCC promotes open borders and teaches that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Go check and you'll see Catholic foundations are the biggest sponsors for immigration - they outmatch even the jews!
I love democracy!
Lol, imagine sending your children to die for the NWO.
Upshot: Trying to justify that Dec 25 was in no way pagan fails; it was syncretist from the start (I believe it was Ambrose that admitted this).
I agree about the calendar thing. But still it doesn't follow it's syncretist. As mentioned in the video Christians did adopt the symbolism of the Sun dying and being born again but this has nothing to do with the initial reason for celebrating Christmas. The Church co-opted and baptized pagan rituals and this helped with the adoption of Christianity among the pagans. In the case with Christmas, the nativity was a purely Christian feast and it had to compete with the pagan celebrations of Sun worship.
That's what proves they were working from the equinoxes and not the actual date of Passover (2 weeks after the calculated new moon of the equinox, e.g. 1 Apr 33 AD Julian or 3 Apr Gregorian). Since they worked from the equinox, they got the solstice, open and shut. (They also assumed Christ's conception was the same day as his birth, which was symbolic but also not justified, especially because shepherds didn't watch their flocks by night in winter.)
No, Hippolytus used the jewish Temple calendar from Luke 1:5 and determined John the Baptist was conceived late September and Jesus was conceived 6 months later getting 24th Match + 9 months = Christmas.
The reason people are afraid to say Merry Christmas is the opposite of Protestantism, namely rabbinical Judaism and Islam. If you merely meant Orthodox and Catholics are not afraid to say Merry Christmas, that would have a bit of correlation considering the whole world, but the fight against Christ being celebrated proceeds apace in Catholic and Orthodox countries too in its own way, so I don't know that Protestant policy is the only reason for its advances.
It doesn't matter because the reason why the West is in this state is ultimately secularism, materialism and liberalism which was brought about by the Reformation.
That's your evidence? I might just as well say that Tolkien's extremely colorful Catholic retellings of Father Christmas's adventures (and Dickens's Anglican carol, and Lewis's Anglican Father Christmas in Narnia) were just as responsible. Lewis even wrote an essay on how there were two different celebrations of the same date already, a pagan and a Christian, and he put forward his Father Christmas to direct people back to the Christian side, but it's been amalgamated into the pagan side too. So, yeah, it's syncretist and it's not the Protestants' fault.
The evidence is that during the middle ages the figure known as Santa Claus was St. Nicholas who was a real person. Eventually his attributes and characteristics were modified which led to the Coca-Cola token fairy tale figure living in the North Pole. The reason why this happened is because Protestants weren't keen on veneration of the saints but also because of rising secularism that inevitably accompanies Protestant nations.
I get it, you are correct that Rome has primacy but that doesn't translate to hierarchical authority of the Roman bishop over the Church. Almost all heresy is the result of word concept fallacies and papal supremacy, hinging on "Rome's primacy" is a great example. The RC deliberately misinterpreted and twisted the meaning of that legitimate Early Church idea.
Also, since the Orthodox still pretty well agree with Roman primacy if Rome isn't schismatic, without agreeing with Roman superiority, the crux is the claims of superiority, not of the pope having a unique ultimate authority alone. That quibble is only important because the path to unity and resolving the conflict would involve the Orthodox and the Catholics both admitting that the pope didn't actually mean to claim a superiority he didn't have; and in my (perhaps scholastic) understanding of the pope's pronouncements, he didn't.
No such thing as Rome's primacy. There never was such a thing in the first millennium. It was always "first among equals" honorary title and didn't pertain to ecclesiological superiority so that's a word concept fallacy. You should know that the Vatican has admit the Early Church didn't operate under Rome's primacy but had a synodal autocephalous structure in the Chieti document. Papalism is a later development like much of RC dogma.
I told you what Vatican I says. When he meets the conditions, his speech is infallible. But he's never infallibly stated that he's met the conditions. There are zero official (ex cathedra) teachings.
That's false. Any official pronunciation made by the Vatican is ex cathedra by definition. Anything starting with "We declare, pronounce, and define" is considered infallible doctrinal teaching. Examples of ex cathedra statements are Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
Catholics have always been free to speak against the magisterium up until the hierarchy actually cracks down, and that's true during the first millennium too. The pope could never rein in everybody so instead he (does the same thing as the fake media and the science cabal and) gets everyone to think that only his group is authoritative without ever saying so or proving it.
That line of defense worked before Vatican I. But it asserts that Catholics must submit to all teachings dealing with faith and morals so no more of that bs.
The crux of the matter is no single person or a group of Catholics can go against the Pope and dispute his teachings, even if they are not ex cathedra. Such an action defies the essence of the papacy which places ultimate authority in one guy in Rome, i.e. it's centralized. The system stands and falls with this guy.
Whatever, if you were after the truth you'd be interested in the arguments destroying your position. But I'm convinced people choose to be ignorant willingly and not because they lack information. It's not an intellectual but a moral problem. Have fun with your skittles stabbie pushing immigration promoting pdf socialist papacy and close your eyes for reality.
I don't know who you mean as a gay Jewish drafter of Nostra Aetate, perhaps you're merely metaphorically referring to Jesuit Augustin Bea.
I mean Fr. Gregory Baum and I'm absolutely literal.
RCC is full of gays and pdfs running sex trafficking operations so no surprise there.
Fair enough. I never use scored.co
Yes, and no pope every said any teaching was infallible, they only said some teachings would be infallible if conditions are met but they never told us infallibly that all those conditions have ever been met. Simon didn't say. Not a troll.
Refer to my comment where I quote Vatican I. Official Vatican teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Catholics have been told but they play dumb because they want to larp as protestants going against the Pope's teaching when it doesn't suit them.
Again, even if they were non-infalliable, they require religious and intellectual submission by all Catholics and it's absolutely inadmissible to denounce them publicly. This is an affront to the magisterium.
No arguments or counters, just low effort trolling. You're not winning here.
Deboonking your stupid cult makes me a jew now? I'm sorry I exposed RC as the judaizers they are using Vatican's own documents. Meanwhile my Church has always followed the Church Fathers who were critical of the jews and are considered antisemitic today. Even recent Saints continue that tradition and talk openly about the jews.
I'm not surprised you listen to the nutcase Bro Nathaniel.
Just watch the video. The winter solstice doesn't even coincide with Christmas in the Julian calendar. The nativity of Christ was determined by calculating the date of the Annunciation and adding 9 months. This happened in early 3th c. Sol Invictus was instituted by Aurelian to counter Christianity decades after Christians celebrated Christmas.
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
Nobody's asking your opinion and what any person, be it Catholic or Protestant thinks, is irrelevant here. I'm doing internal critique of the RC position. Catholics can't reject infallible teachings of the Holy Roman See. Vatican II's Nostra Aetate is such a teaching. Case closed.
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
What? Do you understand how apostolic and papal succession works? RC believe each pope to be equal in authority and jurisdiction to Peter. Stop trolling me please.
It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.