Trent follows what the Vatican teaches - ecumenism (Nostra aetate), open borders and socialism (Gaudium et spes), skittles (Fiducia Supplicans), promotion of covid jibby-jabs (Vatican issued commemoration coin), climate change scam and sustainable goals (Fratello Sole) and dual covenant theory/rejecting conversion of jews (The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable).
Trad caths like you are going against the Pope and are in a contradiction. Maybe it's time to jump ship and come to Orthodoxy?
You're disporven by the fact of us disagreeing on what certain Scripture passages mean. Do you even logic?
You're mentally and spiritually unwell. No sane person would come up with this idiocy. Christ is the Church. You're blaspheming God and you're doing it knowingly. Very sad.
I'm sorry you're so lost dude. I'll pray for you to come to your senses.
You're obviously looking for the truth. You won't find it in the interpretations of delusional heretics online who twist the word of God. You'll only find it in the living Body of Christ Himself. If you're open to being challenged come to divine liturgy and talk to a priest. Maybe you'll be even more convinced the Church is wrong but at least you'd know what you're rejecting instead of dealing with hearsay and prejudices.
By going against the Church you're condemning your soul. Even if there is the slightest suspicion you may not know it all and be wrong about it, it's worth investigating. That's all I have to say. God bless you.
Can God communicate to man, yes or no? If so can he enshrine that in scripture in language people can understand? Is the English language, or any language, sufficient to transmit important ideas? If not why are we having this conversation at all?
How come people read the same text and come to completely different beliefs? How do you determine who's interpretation is correct? Why do you assume you specifically hold the correct interpretation? This is a problem of epistemology and hermeneutics, not theology.
If Jesus says call no man father, but my church has a tradition calling priests father, in direct violation of this clear declaration, do you require an interpreter to tell you you cannot do that?
Do you know what word-concept fallacy is? Do you think for example the word "kid" points to the same concept every time it's used or is it context dependent? You didn't answer if you called your biological father father? I'm pretty sure you did and according to your interpretation you violated God's commandment.
You trust the words coming from a human, but don't think the words coming from God can transmit the idea properly. How dangerous is that? Very.
Dude... I'm worried you're too low IQ to argue about this stuff. Every Christian appeals to Scripture. The point of contention is who holds the authority of interpretation. Catholics believe it's ultimately the Pope. The Orthodox - the Church. You believe it's ultimately you and anyone who reads the Bible. Are you not human just like the Pope?
For the last time, NO TEXT INTERPRETS ITSELF. No text is self-evident but is interpreted through a paradigm that comes with many assumptions that are not found in the text. If the Bible was self-interpreting we'd all agree on what the text means. What part of this reasoning is hard for you?
He claimed it was Kremlin and KGB that was behind the marxist push in the West which was a boldfaced lie. In reality USSR was very nationalistic and had long abandoned the internationalist ideas of Lenin and Trotsky of spreading communism globally. It was the western government and intel agencies, CIA, Rockefeller, globalist NGO's, think thanks and Wall Str. that pushed those policies.
Why did he say we need to bring religion back to the forefront?
Globalist technocrats and socialists aren't against religion. They view religion as a tool for social and political control. They are behind the ecumenical movement - the union of all religions into a one world religion of the future. They're also behind theosophy and perennialism. Fabian socialists like H.G. Wells, Lionel Curtis and the Huxleys promoted this idea in their books. There's a very important 80's elite textbook called Changing Images of Man where the role of religion and spirituality is discussed in shaping future Brave new world society.
This is why Rockefeller created the World Council of Churches along with Riverside interfaith "Church" that has statues of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed along with Thomas Jefferson. All Protestant churches (Anglican included) are infiltrated by the CIA and Rockefeller. Same goes for the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodoxy). This is why they promote liberal ideas, open borders globalism and skittles stuff.
Meanwhile the elites promote Islam and Eastern religions too, again as tools for control, subverting traditional civilization and social reform. It's a very long and complex subject.
In other words, he posited a dialectic where the Soviets were the bad guys because it was too conservative and wasn't socially progressive, individualist, pluralist and liberal.
It was to illustrate they aren't fighting for a good cause, they're being lied to.
No, he hammered the point that communism is bad because it's authoritarian and suppresses individual liberty contrasting it to the liberal democracies of the west. He promoted classical liberalism even if he cautioned against surging marxist ideas in western societies. In reality, all forms of liberalism are bad, not just the radical ones on the far left spectrum. His message in essence was: "I've seen first hand where leftism and socialist ideas lead. You've got it good here, just don't let the commies to power". As if the policies of the US after WWII were not dictated by Frankfurt school operatives and the social revolution of the 60's wasn't socialist in nature.
Bezmanov completely laid into the boomer cold war narrative of the free capitalist democratic west vs. the authoritarian communist east. We see the resurgence of this RAND Corp propaganda with "Russia vs the free world".
Bezmanov is a MI6/CIA shill. He was used for propaganda purposes and promoting liberalism, americanism and the western power elite agenda during the Cold War. "Sovietism is bad because people there are oppresed, but western liberal socialism is good because you're free to be a degenerate". He cried about homosexuality being suppressed in USSR as if that's a bad thing. Classic fake and gay Cold era dialectics. I cringe every time I see a fellow conspiratard share this shill's lectures.
All cults are ran by the intel agencies. Case closed.
I know about branch theory. It contradicts the Nicaean creed (one holy catholic and apostolic Church). The Church is Christ's body here on Earth - there can be no divisions or parts within the body. This is a heresy condemned at Chalcedon which is the reason why the Orthodox Church rejects the Catholic's Sacred Heart devotion.
The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today
You're confusing the synodal structure of the apostolic Church (as established in Acts and the Epistles) and oikonomia (canon law under the jurisdiction of the local bishop) with different sects falling away from communion with the Church due to difference in dogma and doctrine. The first major split in the Church was due to Nestorianism and that led to the falling away of the Oriental Church after Chalcedon. The setting of new norms is economic only. The decisions made at the ecumenical councils are infallible and definitive of what the orthodox faith is - deviation from this means you're no longer in the Church (your branch has been cut off).
Here's Jay on branch theory: https://youtu.be/qXx6DHU0HmI?t=377
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 400 year old at most.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
If the Bible tells you that you can be saved as a certainty, and your church "father" tells you he can never know, then run.
No, it means you have wrong presuppositions and wrong interpretation of the text and commit a word-concept fallacy. Calling no man a father refers to the heavenly Father, not biological or father or father in the patriarchal traditional sense. Have you called your dad father? Well I guess you've broken Christ's commandment then. You see how stupid the protestant interpretation is?
The Bible is clear, it talks about "saved" people in the past tense. Not might be saved, or could be saved. Please watch the video.
This is outright lying or willful ignorance of the Scripture. You're quote mining as every protestant in existence, ignoring the passages that don't jive with your presuppositions.
1 Corinthians 1:18 – “To us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Philippians 2:12 – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”
Romans 5:9 – “We shall be saved from wrath through him.”
Romans 13:11 – “Now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.”
1 Peter 1:5 – “…ready to be revealed in the last time.”
You made that "strawman" happen because saying saying "be your own pope" presupposes that's a legitimate role.
It doesn't matter if you accept the pope as legitimate authority. I don't either. The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture. It's either you (protestantism), the Pope (RC) or the Church (Orthodoxy).
The early church, i.e early christians, maintained scriptures. Did specifically the people calling themselves "Orthodox" do so? I mean surely that's what you guys say, but either way the scriptures are written by the original authors.
The Early Church of the apostles you talk about has never ceased to exist (as Christ promised) and it continues to this day. The problem you and all protestants have is that you don't believe the institution of the Church and its councils is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infaliable. But that same Church decided what the list of the books that go into the Bible is. You hold the Bible to be infalliable but if the people who compiled it weren't infalliable then it's possible they were mistaken.
It's never "scripture alone", it's God who saves us, by grace, through faith. But one thing it is not, is by ritual, by tradition. That's superfluous.
It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)
It's very bad. I know hippy dudes who lost their mind to demonic obsession because of such practices. They didn't even take any drugs...
It's very dangerous, even simple physical exercises like mainstream yoga wine moms love to do.
Hinduism and raja yoga in particular is demonic degeneracy. Stimulating kundalini awakens the "snake" within you that reaches to your head and possesses you - utterly satanic shit (also think about the material aspect of sodomy as a pathway for parasites reaching your brain and controlling your behavior - aka "the parasite pill").
Pray for the people who have been deceived by new age bs. There's a reason why the elites promote this Far Eastern religions and spiritual practices in society and it's not because they love you and want the best for you.
Check out his video on Sola Scriptura too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AjgIrk9-o&t=78s
No you didn't and you don't understand what I'm arguing at all. Scripture didn't magically materialize in your hands - it was compiled and kept by the historic Church that you deny. You can't appeal to Scripture while ignoring how the Bible you use came to be in the first place. Watch the last video about Sola scriptura if you care about what the actual argument is. It has nothing to do with the Pope. Such a ridiculous strawman...
I'm glad. Jay is obviously biased but he has been an evangelical, a calvinist and a trad cath before arriving at eastern orthodoxy so he has first-hand knowledge of what the different doctrines are.
All your arguments/questions are answered here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)
https://youtu.be/w_AjgIrk9-o?t=73 (sola scriptura)
They do claim to have assurance given directly by God, and I'm not aware of a Church teaching that assurance is impossible, only that it's so rare that Protestant broad proclamation of assurance is irresponsible. But when the Lord says "Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42) I don't think he was limiting that to the past, but speaking of the big picture.
In the scriptural examples it is God in person who informs people that they are saved. Of course God has foreknowledge and He can make that pronunciation. It is completely unjustified for Protestants to believe they have assurance given directly by God. Did they talk to Him personally? What they have is Scripture which they quote-mine and misinterpret disregarding the living tradition (the Church) which produced and kept it.
[I try to be careful with quotes, and, since Athanasius didn't contend with Shirley MacLaine but we do, I note that he said, "Autos gar enenthropesen, hina hemeis theopoiethomen" (Incarnation 54.3). Nowadays I might translate that "be defied" rather than "become god", in the sense the Bible calls "partake of divine nature". Otherwise Americans get bad ideas about theosis.]
Yes, many people fall for word-concept fallacies and could think the word "god" always refers to God the Father/Trinity. Theosis is deification by participation in the divine energies. We can't participate in the divine essence which is unknowable. We don't become God or one with God's essence (like hindus believe), we become godlike (by becoming saints and restoring our likeness that was lost after the fall).
You make good points and I can't address them all rn. Jay Dyer explains the Orthodox position really well. Look up his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)
I'm Eastern Orthodox.
Those who believe sola fide lately add "but not by a faith that is alone": that is, works always accompany faith.
This is contradictory and renders Sola fide meaningless. Protestants should either double down on Sola fide and that their faith alone is salvific, regardless of anything else, or that it's not just faith alone, because true faith is always proven in deed (which has always been the teaching of the Church). It's an either-or.
Meanwhile, Catholics agree with those Protestants that works are a "requirement" but, in the fine print, admit our works do not contribute to the grace by which we were infused with righteousness as shown in baptism (a real OSAS if there ever was one);
The Orthodox teaching is that grace is uncreated and given through participation in the divine energies (Church life and sacraments) with the ultimate purpose of theosis (deification), which is being united with God. God became man so that man can become god (St. Athanasius).
Protestants inherit the mistakes of the Catholics because they share the same basic presuppositions about grace while disagreeing on how it is given/achieved. This is because Western Christianity lacks the essence-energies distinction as taught by Gregory Palamas which makes participation in God impossible. Protestants reject synergism (cooperation of man with God required for salvation) and believe salvation is only in the hands of God.
Catholics recognize the three tenses of salvation (2 Cor. 1:10) and that they are still "saved" from sin nature (baptized) even when they need again to be "saved" from a recurrent sin (confessed).
In this case the world "saved" points to different concepts. Being in the Church is the path to salvation. But if you're not dressed appropriately (living a virtuous life) you will be kicked out of the wedding. So it's not single things leading to salvation but the whole package. Protestants who claim to be saved lack humility and make judgments that only God can make.
But I don't think it's a result of the system, and if you want to say hyper-Calvinism is more endemic than I think it is then there's pretty good evidence that mortifying legalism is more endemic in Catholicism than appreciated as well.
Justification by faith is legalistic. By definition, it's a legal declaration of righteousness through faith alone, with transformation and good works following as proof. The problem of Sola fide is it treats faith as a formal abstraction and not as a personal relationship with the living God (which is ironic, considering protestant worship looks much more personal and informal on the outside).
It's easy to see how the Reformation has demystificated the faith and tried to make it of this world - abstracted, transactional and legalistic. Faith is not lived but professed. Salvation is not participation in divine energies but legally declared by God. Christ didn't become incarnate to lift up and restore our pre-fall nature, His resurrection being cosmological in scope, opening our path to eternal life, but He was a necessary victim to pay our debt incurred by Adam in order to satisfy God as the plaintiff. It's only logical that this theology leads to secularism, materialism and cold-heartedness in society and this is exactly what has transpired in all Protestant states. It's funny because this is not unlike how the Talmud views God...
Inerrancy is not infallibility
I am aware of the distinction but both the Bible canon and magisterium teaching is declared infallible.
Ex cathedra papal statements are not the only type of infallible teachings. Those are indeed very rare. Councils represent another type of infallible extraordinary definitions. The third type is ordinary and universal magisterium or bishops worldwide definitive doctrinal teachings.
but that didn't add anything to the Protestant doctrine either, because both relied on work done by the catholic orthodox church a thousand years prior.
Exactly. This was why I went after OP. This is where Sola Scriptura fumbles and crashes if one is consistent with the position. RC and Orthodoxy are in the clear because both affirm apostolic succession, the infallibility of ecumenical councils and Church historicity (the Church being a both divine and human institution, the Body of Christ, here on Earth guided by the Spirit).
Separately I stated that the Protestant position of OSAS is not hyper-Calvinism (something which no Reformer ever taught). Check.
No reformer taught OSAS to begin with. It is a later development and I understand not all Protestants believe it. Reformers taught that one can loose their salvation if they apostatize and fall away (or that they never had true faith if that happens). OP believes it though and I was arguing against his flavor of protestantism.
"Muh judeo-christian morals"
Judaism is demented and psychotic.
That's a tu quoque. How does the Catholicism position being wrong help the Protestant position with that problem?
Also, your claim is false. The Catholic Vatican I teaching is that the magisterium (ordinary and extraordinary) can't teach error in any shape or form. The canon itself was declared infallible by the council of Trent.
You won't get away from this mess by being clever.
Let's see an example from John 6:
Since you hold that the meaning of God's words are as self-evident as a stop sign and are abundantly clear and straight forward. Do tell, do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to get eternal life as He commanded?