Catholic all the while

@JesusSaves1500 @SeanNea71990714 @ReformedToRome @sola_chad Paul was thankful that he baptized very few in Corinth because the church there was splitting into factions based upon who had baptized them and he could avoid most of that drama. He assumes every Christian has been baptized, and thus saved, so your clam misses the mark.

Well, someone could say that if they never read a Bible or stepped into a church I guess lol. As far as baptism being "required" how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Also, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mention of baptism? We believe every Christians "should" be baptized as a sign of faith. But it doesn't save you. Scripture doesn't contradict Scripture.

Mel Gibson explains the first canonized saint: the Thief on the Cross. No baptism, no works. That man was saved by faith alone.

@OrthodoxNev @Prot_Mallard It’s an obedience to The Word of God thing. All throughout scripture we are told to treat others with meekness, patience, charity.

@Prot_Mallard Is it an evangelical thing to put so much emphasis on tone? For me truth matters most, regardless of how "mean" it appears to me. Feelings do not determine what is right or wrong.

The level of irony here is off the charts. “What if we acted condescendingly towards, and looked down our noses, at you and called you things like uneducated and weird?” Yeah, Orthobro, ya’ll already do that. And worse. Almost daily.

The BMI of Baptist pastors needs to be studied by scientists.

Trad Catholics thinking they have a right to petition. SMH.

@baidanbeel @sincead33 God will judge you by every errant word. Twitter doesn’t get an exemption, liberal!

@sincead33 God picks saints by who is nicest on twitter!☝️

I think the Orthodox Church has the mark of holiness in a very special way... I'm not sure if they are producing saints within, but they certainly are producing saints outside of their communion by producing patience and longsuffering among Catholics. (Ybarra didn't respond for 16 minutes btw...)

@SipsWithSerra Its over guys. Pack it up. Guy who has been EO for 15 minutes says so.

I'm sorry but a lot of y'all's takes on Catholicism sound like a drunk woman who is losing an argument and so she intentionally misunderstands what her opponent is saying and declares victory. Also, if you're wondering how I know what that sounds like, I'm hispanic.

The only thing I support about this post is the anti Italian racism.

@IrvGoldfarb @sincead33 Your opinion about his opinion is irrelevant.

@sincead33 Praise God that his opinion is irrelevant.

St. Augustine said worse things about those not in communion with Rome. IYKYK

@Isaac_Turbo @ElijahElishaRap Someone who has published books on the papacy, is widely read on the topic, has debated the Roman position either knows the answer to this question or should be too embarrassed to ask it openly.

@allthewhile @ElijahElishaRap Asking a question to understand someone’s position is willful ignorance?

It is not an ex cathedra.

@Craig_Truglia @AllanRuhl Craig I'm trying to figure out how the numerical collapse of Catholicism in Pennsylvania, of all places, is relevant to whether or not Orthodoxy is on a numerically significant rise in the United States.

@AllanRuhl Pennsylvania lost 1,000 RC parishes in PA in the last 50 years.

But Luigi said that no one can stop what is coming????

@xtianherring @ChrisRojas4081 St. Augustine makes the first distinction between dulia and latria that we have in the historical record. He was a "papistical sophist?"

@ChrisRojas4081 It’s objectively true. Papistical sophists made it up to have plausible deniability for their idolatry

Petrus van Mastricht on the polytheism of papists: “In heaven, they have the angels, the blessed Virgin, and the departed saints. On earth, they have that which they call the host, they have images to be venerated with the same kind of worship that belongs to their prototypes, they have the relics of the saints. Now if a god is one to whom divine worship belongs and is attributed, then the papists will have many gods: they will have angelic gods, they will have human gods, they will have gods of stone, gold, silver—they have a god of bread. Let me not say anything about their pope, whom they hold as if he were a vice-God on earth.”

@mfjlewis @FrTotleben92742 He's not thinking about you out of nowhere. Rather, you hopped on his thread first and made an accusation and ended up with egg on your face.

@FrTotleben92742 RENT FREE. 🤣🤣🤣

Dr. White doesn't think St. Augustine was part of God's people. I'm surprised, actually.

A similar discussion happens when trying to demonstrate to Protestant interlocutors that the bones of St. Ignatius were "venerated." No matter how much religious and spiritual devotion was present in that act of parading away his bones, which the faithful said were more precious to them than gold or ruby's, the Protestant interlocutor says "aha that's not veneration though, because they're not placing his bones in a gold reliquary and putting them on display in a church, and praying before them." Likewise, there seems to be very strong evidence for religious honor being paid to religious imagery very early on, even if that outward act of honor hadn't developed into the N2 fully fleshed out understanding.

@ErickYbarra3 @Michael__Garten @sincead33 My critique here is that you seem to be too narrowly defining religious veneration such that it ignores that the development was *in* the veneration, not that it went from no religious veneration to a fully fleshed out N2 icon veneration.

@sincead33 and @ErickYbarra3 Fr. Andrew Louth does have significance as a scholar. But even as a non-scholar myself, I can recognize how he (like all scholars) has an area of specialization (Byzantine era, esp. Saint John of Damascus). When he speaks in this area of specialization, it's very weighty; when he goes to summaries from other scholars about matters he's not as familiar with, it only carries the weight that those other scholars have. It makes sense that he would open a different essay of his, "The Theological Argument about Images in the 8th Century" in A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm, by speaking of the "small extent of the making and veneration of icons in the period before the “iconoclast” controversy." As support for his statement that this was not a significant phenomenon, he quotes the standard treatment of this historical period, Brubaker and Haldane's Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c.680–850: A History (Cambridge: 2011). Father Andrew is not a scholar of the ante-Nicene period per se as far as I can tell. He is also not an art historian, or material culture expert. This does not mean his statements have no weight or that he is to be distrusted by default; it just means we should be careful not to lean too heavily on him. It also deserves saying that people in academia can be uncomfortable breaking with academic consensus (Brubaker and Haldane apparently have intense personalities on this issue of early icon veneration in particular, according to Robin Jensen). It's much easier to quote a standard, textbook-type work expressing the summary of the last generation of scholars about the pre-Byzantine period, than to venture into academic heresy or quote a bunch of smaller-name academics who are looking at the subject matter close up. Because they are experts on either the material culture, or the ante-Nicene written sources, you will find admissions of pre-Nicene image veneration (or concessions which lead in this direction) in other scholars. I've included a list of some of these scholars in the attached pictures from the class I taught through Saint Athanasius college on this subject. So overall, I don't think this quote from Fr. Andrew is very significant.

This isn't difficult. It is well known that Presbyterian services are boring. It does not follow that they are therefore boring because they contain various amounts of scripture being read or recited, and further, the "preaching of the word of God", being largely of human construct except for those parts quoting scripture explicitly are not the word of God themselves, could be called boring without implying that The Word of God itself is boring.

Let’s engage in logic then. The contrast of your post was between “this kind of stuff” and Presbyterian services. The adjective used to describe the latter was “boring”, therefore the contrary must be the case for the former, that is “this kind of stuff is compelling”. It is well known that Presbyterian services are saturated with the word of God, the central part of the liturgy being the preaching of God’s Word. Is it not proper to make an inference that the statement was in reference to preaching, and further contrasted with the “amusing” possession of relics?

Apparently God’s Holy Word and Sacrament are “boring”

@Iamsock @christopherhale Opus Dei priests have been a great blessing to my family. If this is true (I doubt it is) then lots of normal, healthy, Roman Catholics will be upset.

@christopherhale A bunch of freaks are going to be very upset about this

BREAKING: Pope Leo XIV is set to effectively disband Opus Dei in the coming weeks. This would be the most sweeping internal reform of his pontificate — and a dramatic continuation of Pope Francis’s legacy. thelettersfromleo.com/p/new-pope-leo…

@MasonSCraig @_taylor_TJ @WesternCatholik Already with the hot takes on an essay you haven't read. Amazing.

I plan to write a more thought out review of his essay when I finish reading it. But in short, I think his theory devalues the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, implies certain significant doctrines are not needed for all times, and overall advocates for an unwarranted degree of doctrinal clarification to the point where it could be used to justify just about anything.

John Henry Newman's theory of doctrinal development arose during a time heavily influenced by Romanticism and philosophies that emphasized change and gradual organic growth. We see the idea of development touch many fields of study: - Biology (Charles Darwin) - Politics (Karl Marx) - Linguistics (August Schleicher) - Geology (Charles Lyell) - Anthropology (Lewis Henry Morgan) - Sociology (Herbert Spencer) - Theology (John Henry Newman) A common theme among these various thinkers is viewing their subjects as if they were an "organism," evolving dynamically over time. I find this context important, especially accounting for why this theory came about so late in history and why Newman in particular was the one to propose it.

Even your private group chats should be consistent with your faith and be free from impurity, vulgarity, and anything else that would bring shame to Christ. One day, you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter.