Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

602

I'm being sincere. I promise. How do you guys justify the following:

  • original sin and baptism of infants
  • transubstantiation
  • celibacy among clergy
  • saints (idol worship imo)
  • systemic/widespread issue of pedophilia among clergy
  • woke Pope

EDIT: Full transparency - I have refered to the catholic church as the church of the devil in other subs. Just my opinion.

I'm being sincere. I promise. How do you guys justify the following: - original sin and baptism of infants - transubstantiation - celibacy among clergy - saints (idol worship imo) - systemic/widespread issue of pedophilia among clergy - woke Pope EDIT: Full transparency - I have refered to the catholic church as the church of the devil in other subs. Just my opinion.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

They cannot. It's a purely Babylonian religion with the thinnest veneer of Biblical Christian terminology.

[–] • 0 pt

For me, it's all about what christ taught while he was on the earth. That's what we should all be focusing on.

[–] • 1 pt

And it's important to note that what He taught while He walked on earth was fully compatible with the teaching of the Old Testament. He told us that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them.

[–] • 2 pts

original sin and baptism of infants

Good recruitment.

transubstantiation

Holy right of communion with God. What’s not to like.

celibacy among clergy

Saves money.

saints (idol worship imo)

Says the cultists?

systemic/widespread issue of pedophilia

Gas the faggots

woke Pope

Can go in the oven too.

All religions are corruptible, and none are perfect. I have issues with mine, but I won’t allow kikes to destroy it. The attack on religion is a communist strategy and should be opposed. Unfortunately, that attack and corruption has infiltrated the highest levels of Catholicism.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I agree with you on a few of the points, but not all of them.

  • Baptism of infants doesn't make any sense. Infants are innocent and, therefore, perfect. They don't need baptism.
  • Transubstantiation is when the sacrament bread and wine LITERALLY turn into the flesh and blood of christ as you consume them. Which also doesn't make sense.
  • Saints are a huge issue. People in Mexico hold the virgin Mary in higher regard than Christ. They pray to her instead of God. We shouldn't be praying to anybody other than God. And don't get me started on memorized prayer.
  • And I think that celibacy - which was never taught by christ - is one factor causing the widespread pedophilia.
[–] • 1 pt

Baptism of infants doesn't make any sense. Infants are innocent and, therefore, perfect. They don't need baptism.

Catholicism is really old. Some of its quirks come from ancient times. Infant mortality was really high in the past, people wanted to make sure their dead babies went to heaven. It’s not really that bad.

Transubstantiation is when the sacrament bread and wine LITERALLY turn into the flesh and blood of christ as you consume them. Which also doesn't make sense.

It’s more about becoming one with God in that moment. You are the blood and flesh of God.

Saints are a huge issue. People in Mexico hold the virgin Mary in higher regard than Christ. They pray to her instead of God. We shouldn't be praying to anybody other than God. And don't get me started onthe memorized prayers.

The Catholic religion is based on the holy trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is the Father, he sent his only son to die for us, and his spirit works through us. When you pray to a saint, you are praying to the Holy Spirit, not the saint. You are not worshipping an idol, you are worshiping God, the part of God that performed miracles through a saint.

And I think that celibacy - which was never taught by christ - is one factor causing the widespread pedophilia.

Totally agree. Celibacy was not always a part of the church, priests could marry in the past. It was only Monks who took a vow of celibacy. It is still contentious within the church.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

You did some mental gymnastics there with the Saints issue, but ok. I believe in the trinity too. But, I believe we should be praying to god the father in Christ's name. Like christ taught in the bible.

EDIT: And transubstantiation is (or was) a thing taught by the catholic church. Look it up. The LITERAL consumption of Christ

[–] • 1 pt

You might get some value out of reading or listening to The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, particular the chapters that document the origin of each of the practices OP mentioned.

[–] • 2 pts

normally i don't like to respond to these types of posts, because you really don't want to be convinced. I have always believed not to argue with people whose only argument is "i am right and you are wrong". that being said, here is a quick response:

original sin and baptism of infants is not only Catholic, but almost ALL mainstream Christian sects do this.

transubstantiation - read John chapter 6. there is really no other explanation when honestly reading the words of Jesus there.

celibacy - Jesus was celibate. don't really understand why there is an issue here. what do you care if a priest is celibate or not? how does that keep you from being Catholic or not? it is a discipline that priests follow, if that is keeping you away from Catholicism, then that would seem a fairly petty reason to reject Catholicism.

saints - do you believe it is wrong to ask someone to pray for you? a brother, parent, friend? if you truly believe in heaven, then you would know that people are there in heaven. what is wrong with asking someone in heaven to pray for you, if there is nothing wrong with asking someone on earth to pray for you? are they no longer people just because they are in heaven? people (Moses and Elijah) came down from heaven and spoke with Jesus, and the two disciples with him were going to build three "tents" there on the mountaintop to show respect for Jesus, Moses and Elijah.

pedophilia - actually, the correct issue here is homosexuality, as the majority of instances were male priests molesting boys. that being said, how could you not understand that any organization has some bad apples? you claim this is systemic/widespread, but that is actually not true. there is no larger percentage of priests abusing children than in the general population.

woke pope - yes, this is a scandal, to be sure. but let me ask you, does a Biden presidency nullify the ideal of freedom in our beloved USA?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant. And the bible never says Jesus was celibate. I personally think Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. She was there for most of the major events in Christ's life. And she was the first person He chose to show himself to after he was resurrected. Some of the apostles were married as well. Why not Jesus?

And homosexual sex with underaged boys is still pedophilia bro.

EDIT: Also, celibacy is probably what's driving these priests to boink little kids. Christ never taught celibacy. None of the prophets did.

EDIT 2: "Jesus saith unto [Mary Magdalene], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

In various Greek translations, "touch me not" is "Do not cling to me any longer" or "Do not hold me." Think about it.

[–] • 1 pt

Jesus, as were all jews, was circumcised as an infant.

"Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife" - the problem with believing in made up stuff is that by it's very nature, it is made up and fake.

It really seems like you are desperately looking for reasons not to believe, rather than being honest and looking for truth.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I'm a believer man. I beleive in the godhead, baptism, the divinity of christ. And I try to follow christ's gospel. The catholic church just doesn't teach Christ's gospel. They teach some bastardized version of it.

And the mary magdalene thing is a fan theory, I grant you that, but the facts are that the bible never states that christ was celibate. So, you cant assume that he was. And he never taught celibacy.

And circumcision is not baptism man. I don't get you're argument there.

[–] • 2 pts

Add calling priests "father" when Jesus said not to

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Original Sin and baptism of infants

  1. What is original sin?

Original sin is that guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, who was the origin and head of all mankind.

  1. What is Baptism?

Baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church.

The word "baptism" means a washing. It is the first of the seven sacraments, the gate through which all must enter into God's Church. It gives a child the right to receive the other sacraments. None of the other sacraments has any value if it is given to an unbaptised person. By giving us grace baptism takes away original sin and makes us God's children.

transubstantiation

  1. What is the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, together with His Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine.

We now come to the most important of the sacraments. Catholics believe that our Lord is really and actually present, Body and Blood, Soul and Godhead, in this Sacrament as really present as He is in heaven. Non Catholics hold various views about His presence, and it is not always easy to understand what they hold. For instance, in the Anglican Catechism the child is asked (speaking of the Lord's Supper), What is the inward part of the sacrament or thing signified? The answer given is, The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Again, in the Communion Service in the Book of Common Prayer, just before the Communion is administered, the minister says in the name of the people, "Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son, Jesus Christ, and drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious Blood. Delivering the Communion the minister says, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life; and then he says, The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. These statements can bear a thoroughly Catholic meaning of the Real Presence. But in the same Book of Common Prayer the rubric at the end of the Communion Service (known as the Black Rubric) explicitly denies a Real Presence in any Catholic sense. The rubric says: Whereas it is ordained... that the communicants should receive the same kneeling... yet lest the same kneeling should by any person be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporeal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored... and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. Taking these different statements together, if they are not to be regarded as completely contradictory, we can only conclude that for the Anglicans the presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament is not actual and substantial, but in some way spiritual, a presence by power and influence. In their belief the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine throughout. Such a belief is contrary to the plain, clear meaning of our Lord's words in the New Testament. In St John's Gospel (chap. 6) we read how our Lord worked a miracle of feeding 5,000 people with five barley loaves and two fishes; and then how He walked upon the sea. Christ's long discourse to the people follows; a large part of it contains the promise of the Holy Eucharist. Having returned to Capharnaum, our Lord is found there by the people. He upbraids them: You seek me not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you(verse 26). Here is our Lord's promise to give them a food much superior to ordinary food a food which will give them eternal life.

The Jews ask what they must do to work the works of God. In reply our Lord points to faith in Himself; He demands their faith. They ask for a sign to justify His claim, forgetting the miracle He had worked the day before. They remind Him of the manna in the desert; that was called bread from heaven. Our Lord answers that the manna was not really bread from heaven; but His Father will give them real bread from heaven. Delighted, the Jews ask to have this new bread from heaven always. Jesus then speaks plainly and says, I am the Bread of life(verse 35). This puzzles them, and they begin to murmur and to say to one another, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven?Jesus gently rebukes their murmuring and unbelief, insists once more on the necessity, of faith in Him, and then (verse 48) begins to speak with complete plainness: I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

The Jews took Christ's words quite literally; how can He do this, they said, how can He give us His flesh to eat? Our Lord does not correct the impression He has given them. He does not say, You misunderstand Me. On the contrary He reinforces His statement by repeating it in various ways. Amen, amen, I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed...Note how definite and clear is this last statement.

The Jews saw that He meant what He said: He had left them no room for doubt. But they would not accept it. This saying is hard; and who can hear it?Many of them, disciples of His though they were, walked away and left Him for good; and Jesus let them go. Surely, if He had meant that they were to receive only some kind of figure of His Body and Blood, and not His real Body and Blood, He would not have let them leave Him all because of a false impression. It was His custom to explain Himself when He was misunderstood. But He did not call them back. Instead, He turned to the apostles, His chosen twelve, and asked them if they too wished to go; as much as to say, My words stand even though I am to loose even you because of them. St Peter, spokesman and leader of the apostles, made their act of faith: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God(verses 69, 70).

What Christ promised at Capharnaum He fulfilled at the Last Supper. In St Luke's Gospel (22:19-20) we read: And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.Now turn to St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:23-25). For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: this my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me: In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. Likewise St Matthew (26:26-28): Take ye and eat. This is my body. . . Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.And St Mark (14:. 22-24): Take ye. This is my body... This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. These are the four accounts of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. To which we may add these other words of St Paul: The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ?(1 Cor. 10:16). Could our Lord have spoken more clearly? His words are plain and obvious. He says quite simply: "This is My Body. He does not say: This is a figure of My Body (or a symbol of My Body).The apostles to whom He was speaking were ordinary men, prone to take Him literally. If He did not mean His words literally He would have said so. Otherwise He was deceiving them, and not only them but also generations upon generations of men who would take His words in their plain sense and give to the Holy Eucharist the worship reserved to God a monstrous idolatry which He who was God and knew all things was permitting, or rather leading, men to practise; and that at the most solemn moment of His life when He was about to die and when naturally He would be careful to make all things clear.

So plain are Christ's words that Martin Luther himself, the father of the Reformation in Germany, wrote: In vain I wished to have denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on purpose to vex the papists more effectually, but the words of the Scripture are so plain and so strong in favour of the mystery that I could never bring my mind to adopt the bold expedient(Ep. car. amico).

What happened when our Lord said: This is My Body? Using His almighty power as God, He changed and bread into His body. He did not alter its taste or the feel of it or the look of it these are what we call the appearances; but, leaving the appearances as they were, He changed the thing itself, the substance of the bread, into the substance of His own Body. After He had spoken, that which continued to look and taste like bread, was in its inner nature no longer bread but His Body. This change of the substance of the bread into the substance of our Lord's Body a change without parallel we call Transubstantiation a long word, but meaning just what we have said. It is the only possible explanation of the Real Presence; and Henry VIII, who was a firm believer in the Mass and. the Real Presence, put to death those Protestants who denied Transubstantiation.

  1. How are the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood of Christ?

The bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of God, to whom nothing is impossible or difficult.

  1. When are the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood of Christ?

The bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ when the words of consecration, ordained by Jesus Christ, are pronounced by the priest in the Holy Mass.

The words of consecration used by the priest are: This is My Body; "This is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.Notice that these are the words of Christ, recorded in the Evangelists and St Paul. Immediately the first sentence is pronounced over the bread by a truly ordained priest, the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of our Lord's Body; and immediately the second is pronounced, the substance of the wine is changed into His Blood. The words in the first instance indicate only the Body, and in the second only the Blood. But, as St Paul says, "Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, along with His Body which the words of consecration make present there is the full Human Nature of Christ and His Godhead. In the Holy Eucharist we have the living Christ.

  1. Why has Christ given Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist?

Christ has given Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist to be the life and the food of our souls. "He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me" ; "He that eateth this bread shall live for ever,” (John 6:58-59).

  1. Is Christ received whole and entire under either kind alone?

Christ is received whole and entire under either kind alone.

One great objection that Protestants have against us is that the cup is not given to the laity, and they cannot understand why it should be denied to them.

We have just seen (268) that in the Holy Eucharist the full living Christ is present after the consecration under the appearances of the bread or under the appearances of the wine. Therefore, when a person receives one kind only he receives the whole of Christ. Therefore, there is no need to receive under both kinds, unless, of course, our Lord Himself commanded us to do so. Our Lord did not in fact give such a command. When, at the Last Supper, He gave the apostles both His Body and His Blood and said, of the Blood, Drink ye all of this, it was to priests He was speaking, for at that moment He was making the apostles priests; and priests have always understood that when they say Mass they must receive under both kinds in virtue of our Lord's words. To the laity our Lord issued no command. When He was promising the Holy Eucharist He said, If any man eat of this bread(He says nothing here about the cup) he shall live for ever(John 6:51); also, The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world(John 6:52). St Paul speaks very clearly (1Cor. 9:27): Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. The English Reformers changed the word of God in this passage in the Authorised Version of the Bible and substituted and drink for or drink to suit their views on Communion in both kinds. In the Revised Version it has been changed back to the original and true text.

The use of the cup is therefore left to the Church to decide. Until the twelfth century it was customary to receive under both kinds. But from the beginning of Christianity there were exceptions. During the persecutions Christian people kept the Holy Eucharist in their houses under the form of bread and communicated themselves. The sick were sometimes given Communion under the form of bread only or of wine according to the nature of their illness. Children were given Communion after baptism under the form of a drop of wine. Sound reasons have determined the long-established practice of the Church not to give the cup to the laity. They are: the danger of profaning the Blessed Sacrament by spilling a very real danger with the feeble and with children; the difficulty in various countries of obtaining sufficient wine for large Communions; the dislike that many have for drinking from a common cup; and so on.

  1. In order to receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily what is required?

In order to receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily it is required that we be in a state of grace and keep the prescribed fast; water does not break this fast.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Cafferata.htm

celibacy among clergy

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/celibacy.htm

systemic/widespread issue of pedophilia among clergy

The Massive Sexual Scandal among the Vatican II/Novus Ordo “priests” https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/22_SScandal.pdf

Communist Leader, Dr Bella Dodd, Confesses to Infiltrating the Church & USA https://youtu.be/37HgRWTsGs0

Freemasonry and the Subversion of the Catholic Church - The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/alta_vendita.html

woke Pope

woke anti-pope. See:

https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-exposed/?utm_source=WPhp&utm_medium=panel-btn&utm_campaign=Theme2020