Don't get into theology! I've heard it a million times. Was the pre-reformation Catholic government SUPER corrupt, or just a bit? Who was the oppressor in war? I've studied this for years and am having trouble deciding myself.
Historically, who was more corrupt, Prots or Catholics?
Catholics today complain about "Vatican 2" but conveniently ignore that "Vatican 1" and "Council of Trent" laid the groundwork. A true council is not a Roman Catholic club. They were universal meetings of the entire world-wide Christian church and called by the Emperor.
>They were universal meetings of the entire world-wide Christian church and called by the Emperor.
That's easy to do when your Empire is the only Empire on the planet that recognizes Christianity not only as legal but also is aware of its existence at all considering how new it was.
>Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
anything after the council of Jerusalem is political crap.
>political
Jesus is "Prince" as well as "Saviour" (Acts 5:31)
Vatican 1 didn't fuck with the churchs tradition and dogma like Vatican 2, and Trent remedied a lot of corruption. Thats is low IQ or disingenuous.
Checked. At least Vatican 2 stopped the practice of cutting off 14 year old boy balls to make sopranos for the choir.
Considering the fact that pre-reformation catholic church was corrupting the sacraments by selling goats blood and claiming it was the actual unironic blood of christ and started creating forgeries of the bones of saints, you tell me, not even to get into Indulgences.
This sounds like prot conspiracy theories, and indulgences is a theological topic. I consider that the Catholic Church flat out betrayed the Knights Templar and did them especially dirty. I think Freemasons and the Royal society paved the way for the NWO we are seeing today, and it more or less came from Protestants (though it's more like a mutation of Protestant-ism). But I've heard some interesting theories that the Catholic church always ruled with a greedy iron fist, and it's just recently over the last couple of hundred years dug it's claws back into the west through the Jesuits. BUT I've ALSO heard that Freemasons eventually subverted the Jesuits....so I don't know what to believe anymore.
Vatican 2 doesn't seem all bad to me, but the Pope is pushing things in the wrong direction today arguably...to say the least of the least.
>basic church history is "le protestant conspiracy theory"
>Vatican 2 doesn't seem that bad to me
Either this anon isn't Catholic or it never even began for Catholicism.
I've read the book "Jesuit John Courtney Murray Time/Life: How the CIAs doctrinal Warfare program changed the church"
I totally see where anti Vatican 2 people are coming from, but I also consider that some rad trads are just a bit too trigger happy. The division in the RCC is pretty intense right now, and I would not be surprised if any day now we witness full on heresy coming from the Pope. I could end up sedevacntist, sspx, sfp, or just staying novos ordo...or just bailing and becoming orthodox. Obviously I'm not super confident about my position right now, but at least I'm honest.
Same shit. Protestants were all led by Jesuits a few years after the counter reformation. Still are. It’s a geopolitical control mechanism. The theology is adaptable, it’s only a tool.
So what do you think about Freemasons? Are they supposed to be the good guys somehow? Somehow I highly highly doubt that, but I did hear that the Jesuits created the highest degrees of Freemasonry via the Clairmont school (this started what's called high grade masonry).
It does seem like maybe everything goes back to the Church...or that the Jesuits were always some sort of rebellion hiding inside of the Church. It seemed to me like the maybe the Jesuits were a positive thing up until they were suppressed, then when they were reinstated in 1814 they might have been subverted from that point on (by Freemasons and Royal Society)
They are good for some when the time is right and terrible for others when the time is wrong. They didn’t know the bigger picture on the past. Most don’t know it today.
>Protestants were all led by Jesuits a few years after the counter reformation. Still are. It’s a geopolitical control mechanism.
doesn't matter today. anyone can pick up a bible and start some new church
What do you mean by corrupt?
I believe the elites were generally Gnostics, but not everyone. The guidelines set by the Kings and Priests for how the Bible must be translated tells me they were Gnostics. The Roman Empire conquering in the name of Christ isn't Christian. We aren't commanded to conquer and build cathedrals in Christ's name. Defending your country and the women and children is a completely different story. I believe in what Christ said "You will know them by their fruits", and this is how I would judge people, by their actions and words. The world for the most part will almost always be in the hands of evil people, because good people will not stoop to the levels of an evil person to gain power. If there is a Muslim hoard invading your country, even the evil men in power will rally the people and call them to arms to defend their interests and power. I don't believe all these Gnostic factions have always been united. I believe they are franchises and they compete with one another for power. If people knew the truth about God and Christ, then it would be impossible to control them and get them to do insane things. That's where Gnosticism comes in. It is far easier to convince people to do evil things when they believe they are fighting the devil and satan, and on the side of good. If everyone just followed the golden rule "love your neighbor as yourself" then there would ZERO conflict.
Catholic Popes who were burning people alive for reading the Bible in their own language, what are they? They were men who knew what the Bible said, they knew that Christ never commanded us to burn people for reading His words. They were posing as Christians, knowing the truth of what the Bible actually says, but doing the opposite. Now, all the uneducated people who can't read, and are taking orders from these "Christians" have no idea what the Bible says, but follow the orders because they believe that God commanded them to do it.
There is something to the elite being gnostics for sure. It goes all the way back to Plato, who I've heard from interesting sources was kicked out of a very early secret society for writing "The Republic". Platos Republic is clearly a blueprint for a totalitarian brave new world 1984 tier kind of society. The Gnostic Gospels are said to have been written by neoplatonists. Gnosticism, neoplatonism, platonism, these are the things I think the elite have been and to this day still draw heavy influence from. All boiling down to Luciferianism/Satanism.
I love Plato and Socrates. I would be lost without them. They opened my eyes to the Greek mind and really helped me understand history and how to read the Greek Bible.
Absolutely, it's not that they are bad, but specifically the Republic is an outline for the kind of society we live in today. Plotinus I've heard had a disdain for Christians.
I've wrestled with the line of thinking that neoplatonism was woven into Christian theology somehow. At this point I don't see it that way. Ultimately platonists were just very wise and intelligent, and there were a couple of similarities between their theology and Christian theology. I'm more of an Aristotle guy myself, Scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas steered things in a good direction.
Ultimate power corrupts ultimately, that's the tale that history tells from what I can see. I think Protestant theology is wrong though. It's all a bit confusing at this point for me. I think people just fail is what it all boils down to. I'm trying to pinpoint the ultimate elite globalist element. It either started with the Royal Society/Freemasons, and early mercantile rich, or the Jesuits truly were devious from the start and possibly subverted the groups mentioned prior. We are getting to the good stuff ITT
>We are getting to the good stuff ITT
This video perfectly outlines what it wrong with Christianity today.
Catholics, easily. But your comparison is flawed because RCC is monolithic and Protestantism is not. Blaming all Protestants for the crimes of some individual sects is a composition fallacy. That being said, even the aggregate corruption of all Protestant sects comes nowhere near the degradations of the Catholic Church.
Protestant sects are degradations of the Catholic Church.
>Protestant sects are restorations of the Catholic Church.
Ftfy. Unless you mean Lutherans and/or Reformed, then your original statement was correct. But Papists are just as bad as them in terms of theology kek.
the catholics burned people at the stake for trying to translate the Bible into English or even just own their own Bibles. reading the Bible used to be reserved for catholic molestors, I mean priests, and then you had to just listen to them talk about it and take their word for it or become a priest to read the scriptures for yourself. this practice was originally commonplace because when the church was founded people were illiterate, but as literacy became commonplace the catholics panicked and realized people would find out they had just been making shit up like purgatory. so this guy, Wycliffe, wanted to translate the Bible into English and mass produce it, all the while criticizing the catholic church, so the catholicfags burned him at the stake and murdered anyone who possessed the Wycliffe Bible.
The reformers tortured plenty of people to death too
Romanists burned many people for rejecting transubstantiation (illegitimate reason), Protestants only burned a few people for actual treason (legitimate reason). Big difference.
Lookup the persecution of the Anabaptists by the Reformers.
1 guy because the Queen's commutation didn't arrive on time ... everyone thereafter was allowed to go to America
>1 guy
No. Keep reading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/06/19/atonement-for-2-centuries-of-persecution/7d724d0f-5e13-4c2c-b1f1-880f6e10f120/
>In the early 16th century, groups of European Christians started splitting from the Roman Catholic Church in what is now known as the Protestant Reformation. But while Protestants and Catholics were at odds, they had one thing in common: Anabaptism had to be eliminated.
>The Reformed Christians drowned Felix Manz, the first of thousands of Anabaptists martyred over the next two centuries. The Catholics burned at the stake Michael Sattler, author of the first Anabaptist confession of faith. Even Martin Luther, who is credited with ushering in the Reformation, urged the execution of all Anabaptists as heretics.
>Such persecution helped drive the early Anabaptists -- the spiritual ancestors of today's Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites -- into isolation, suspicious of the rest of the world.
>But now, nearly 500 years later, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed churches -- the primary antagonists of Anabaptists in the 16th and 17th centuries -- are seeking to make amends.
They also realized that people would figure out that the whole thing was made up. Like all of it.
Smells like more prot conspiracies, but I'm in a place where I could potentially believe some of this. The RCC was a governing force in the middle ages, and I'm seeing a lot of nonbiased evidence that it was pretty corrupt. I'm Catholic for now, but will likely end up being Orthodox. The Anglican Church / Episcopal probably isn't terrible either. The more I study though the more I think Orthodoxy is the original church that didn't accumulate the baggage the RCC did.
The Coptic church and Assyrian church of the east (not Eastern Orthodox) are the two churches that split in the first schism, before the orthodox Catholic split a few hundred years later.
People will try to get away with anything, for as long as they are able. The Catholic Church dominated Christendom and did super fucked up shit as a matter of course. They sold indulgences so 'sinners' could shorten their time in purgatory, what do you think they justified for themselves? You name it.
They were correct to keep the Bible in Latin, and only allow the 'elite' to tell the plebs what it said. I'm surprised taht the Protestants were even a thing given that they finally could read it for themselves. Even more surprising is that it is now available in multiple translations and languages, and the religion is still a going concern. Fucking retards, the lot of you. Incorrigible retards.
>Read Bible.
>Discover absolutely no basis for defying religious authority at all, no matter how corrupt.
>Christ tells the Judeans to obey the Pharisees. Making the "modern Pharisees" comment a Protestant self-own.
the motivation for the reformation was the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly exploitive doctrines like Purgatory and Plenary Indulgences. Literally a bribe of money to the church for them to pray for your loved one to escape purgatory in less time.
Centralized power is always more corrupt and has the capacity to do greater harm on a larger scale.
Sure, there have been some shitbag protestant leaders, but at least their capacity to do harm was limited by the lack of obedience to a central authority.
The Catholic church has been historically and still is grotesquely corrupt and damaging to humanity, almost as much as Judaism.
>faith is child abuse
The Catholics are just atrocious on many levels but the number 1 problem is they don't worship Jesus.
https://twowitnessesofrevelation.com/
The Catholics who were systemically raping children
God can never be corrupted.
What is more corrupt than a globalist organization of homosexuals that didn't exist until the 11th century yet claims to go back to Christ and whos existence and power is backed by a subversive order of spies who claim to be a religious order (but some of its members are only members secretly like Fauci) and calls themselves the "Society of Jesus" but actually worship a demonic serpent?
Not even Joel Osteen the most phony fake and hypocritical Protestant scam pastor to ever exist has anything on the Catholic Church.
>homosexuals
this movie literally explains why homosexuals exist