The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Lost Memories]

I think the question of why in the old testament god couldn't make universal comandments from the start, instead of picking one human tribe over all the others, can be explained by looking at the relationship between god and humanity.
God. Immutable and eternal.
Humanity. Everchanging in knowledge and culture.
The Bond between God and Humanity. Developing as humanity gets more in tune with the eternal god.

Meaning over 4000 years ago, humanity as a whole wasn't developed enough, and wasn't yet at a stage of relationship with god where universal rules would have worked out.

That last line seems a bit insulting to the Patriarchs, especially Soloman, allegedly the wisest man on earth?

I'm talking about humanity as a whole, not individuals. Using different words, average humanity.

Wise and more mature than the average persons have always existed, no doubts about that.

[Negarakita]

Can someone give me some good sources for Christianity being the true religion? Then some stuff confirming their denomination?

[Lower Nubia]

Can someone give me some good sources for Christianity being the true religion? Then some stuff confirming their denomination?

Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Ties neatly the philosophical and theological developments of Ancient Judaism to second temple Judaism and then to Christianity out of Christ, all in a purely scholarly perspective.

Wainwright Tucker, The Oxford History of Christian Worship, confirms the necessity of Eucharistic worship, Sacramental nature of the Church, and developments of liturgical rites (Kretschmar calls this the: "Plurality of possibilities" for developing rites) for the Early Church.

It's very difficult to ask for a resource that proves a religion, but if a religion is true, it should be seamless, comprehensive, having integrity and being dogmatic in the claim, and theologically practical in life of worship, not just being scholarly works. Something Christianity does emphasise greatly in her people.

[Tarsonis]

Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Ties neatly the philosophical and theological developments of Ancient Judaism to second temple Judaism and then to Christianity out of Christ, all in a purely scholarly perspective.

Wainwright Tucker, The Oxford History of Christian Worship, confirms the necessity of Eucharistic worship, Sacramental nature of the Church, and developments of liturgical rites (Kretschmar calls this the: "Plurality of possibilities" for developing rites) for the Early Church.

It's very difficult to ask for a resource that proves a religion, but if a religion is true, it should be seamless, comprehensive, having integrity and being dogmatic in the claim, and theologically practical in life of worship, not just being scholarly works. Something Christianity does emphasise greatly in her people.

Can you guys debunk this video?

EDIT:
Presumably by not believing in Biblical literalism aka the 4004BC stuff.

I’ve already written on this so many times in here, I’m not sure I have the heart to do it again.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The problem is that yes, they are things we don’t do, TODAY, but not then, that was what was expected, that was what was to be done. You have to remember, God is dealing with people of then, not today.

Your ideas are foreign even to people who lived just 300 years ago. It’s like going to the first century and discussing Nuclear reactors. The people of the Levant were judged fairy by their own rules. That’s all that matters.

Murder, implies without right, those people were guilty by their own standards, as well as the standards you no doubt espouse today. Theft implies it was theirs to begin with, but seeing as the land belongs to the obedient and good, and they were evil, it left their possession. Adultery was punished highly amongst the Jews of that time, it is ridiculous to assume they were wed and then had institutionally allowed sex slaves. Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks. Adultery is not going to slide in that group.

Define slavery. In those days, it wasn’t the Atlantic Slave Trade, with whips or chains, it was merciful, otherwise you starved.

All of this is without discussing the nuances, such as that the people had time to escape, and be exiled from the cities, rather than stand and be slain. Without discussing the calamities that the people did to the Jews in the wilderness, the evil of those people, and their good.

An omnibenevolent, omniscient God should not be bound by cultural context. They should do what's right, and encourage what's right all the time, regardless of who it is being done to.

Except they are not foreign. They just got done hearing about how murder was wrong, and now they're being murdered by the same person who told them it was wrong, and encouraged to commit murder. It's not all that matters, because if you think someone has psychotic rules, you don't go and use those psychotic rules on them, because that's psychotic, you see?

Yes, murder does imply without right. You have no right to kill anyone except in self-defense or defense of others. Their own standards don't mean squat to an omnibenevolent God. It is theft, because it was their land, them being bad doesn't mean it's no longer their land. Yes, Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks, I'm just gonna let that statement sink in for a while.

Slavery is slavery, fam.

No it’s not a massive consolation, but you have to remember God sees things on a much larger picture than we do. Also Sheol wasn’t hell, at least not yet. Those distinctions hadn’t been made yet, Sheol was just where you go, where everyone goes. Perspectively, for us it’s a huge deal about life and deaths. But cosmically? It’s basically being in different rooms.

"The big picture" and "life, afterlife, what's the difference?" Are pretty poor excuses for mass murder.

That’s not really what I meant. Before Christ, the importance of preserving the earthly life was essentially none. Thus, the moral prohibition was essentially tied to what we call the Imago dei, bearing the image of God. We are prohibited from murdering people, because they are preciously made in the image of God. Didn’t mean you can’t kill people, just can’t commit murder. Which is “lying in wait” or essentially dishonorable killing without just cause or authority to do so. God, being the Creator and divine Judge has the authority to wipe you out, or command other humans to kill you.

That's just not correct. All human life is pricelesss, before or after Christ. Any God that does not recognize this is malevolent. All killing except in self-defense is murder, whether or not God told you to do it, and indeed, whether or not you are a God. No being has the authority to kill other than in self-defense.

I disagree. God can be omnibenevolent, and still enact wrath. Because while God is benevolent God is also Just. The best example
I can think of this is Sodom, and the Abraham’s debate. God tells Abraham he’s going to be destroying Sodom. Abraham negotiates with him, saying “far be it from you do such a thing” slaughtering innocent and evil alike. Basically Abraham haggled with God to the point of saying that if there were as little as 5 righteous people in Sodom, God would spare the city. 5 righteous people couldn’t be found.

To be omnibenevolent implies you are constantly and absolutely benevolent and never malevolent. Wrath is inherently malevolent, so I'd argue that you can't be omnibenevolent and still enact wrath. Even if you could, wrath is one thing, mass murder is quite another. And God promising to spare a city as long as he could find 5 righteous people in it means nothing when his criteria for righteousness is so rigged that not even 5 people in an entire city can meet it. Doubly rigged when you realize that two of the people from that city who God spared went on to commit incestuous rape.

This part was already explained to you some posts before.

In the old testament, the people under god's rules weren't all humanity, but only the tribe of Israel. All the comandments, were valid only inside the tribe of Israel. As they were rules to govern the life inside the tribe. So there isn't inconsistency when war was waged on the enemies of Israel, who clearly, weren't part of Israel, so not under god's rules.

The universality of the comandments, and of being part of the peoples of god, was introduced by Jesus in the new testament.


I think the question of why in the old testament god couldn't make universal comandments from the start, instead of picking one human tribe over all the others, can be explained by looking at the relationship between god and humanity.
God. Immutable and eternal.
Humanity. Everchanging in knowledge and culture.
The Bond between God and Humanity. Developing as humanity gets more in tune with the eternal god.

Meaning over 4000 years ago, humanity as a whole wasn't developed enough, and wasn't yet at a stage of relationship with god where universal rules would have worked out.

If they're valid only within the tribe of Israel, they're hardly worth much in my opinion.

[Luminesa]

The problem is that yes, they are things we don’t do, TODAY, but not then, that was what was expected, that was what was to be done. You have to remember, God is dealing with people of then, not today.

Your ideas are foreign even to people who lived just 300 years ago. It’s like going to the first century and discussing Nuclear reactors. The people of the Levant were judged fairy by their own rules. That’s all that matters.

Murder, implies without right, those people were guilty by their own standards, as well as the standards you no doubt espouse today. Theft implies it was theirs to begin with, but seeing as the land belongs to the obedient and good, and they were evil, it left their possession. Adultery was punished highly amongst the Jews of that time, it is ridiculous to assume they were wed and then had institutionally allowed sex slaves. Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks. Adultery is not going to slide in that group.

Define slavery. In those days, it wasn’t the Atlantic Slave Trade, with whips or chains, it was merciful, otherwise you starved.

All of this is without discussing the nuances, such as that the people had time to escape, and be exiled from the cities, rather than stand and be slain. Without discussing the calamities that the people did to the Jews in the wilderness, the evil of those people, and their good.

An omnibenevolent, omniscient God should not be bound by cultural context. They should do what's right, and encourage what's right all the time, regardless of who it is being done to.

Except they are not foreign. They just got done hearing about how murder was wrong, and now they're being murdered by the same person who told them it was wrong, and encouraged to commit murder. It's not all that matters, because if you think someone has psychotic rules, you don't go and use those psychotic rules on them, because that's psychotic, you see?

Yes, murder does imply without right. You have no right to kill anyone except in self-defense or defense of others. Their own standards don't mean squat to an omnibenevolent God. It is theft, because it was their land, them being bad doesn't mean it's no longer their land. Yes, Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks, I'm just gonna let that statement sink in for a while.

Slavery is slavery, fam.

No it’s not a massive consolation, but you have to remember God sees things on a much larger picture than we do. Also Sheol wasn’t hell, at least not yet. Those distinctions hadn’t been made yet, Sheol was just where you go, where everyone goes. Perspectively, for us it’s a huge deal about life and deaths. But cosmically? It’s basically being in different rooms.

"The big picture" and "life, afterlife, what's the difference?" Are pretty poor excuses for mass murder.

That’s not really what I meant. Before Christ, the importance of preserving the earthly life was essentially none. Thus, the moral prohibition was essentially tied to what we call the Imago dei, bearing the image of God. We are prohibited from murdering people, because they are preciously made in the image of God. Didn’t mean you can’t kill people, just can’t commit murder. Which is “lying in wait” or essentially dishonorable killing without just cause or authority to do so. God, being the Creator and divine Judge has the authority to wipe you out, or command other humans to kill you.

That's just not correct. All human life is pricelesss, before or after Christ. Any God that does not recognize this is malevolent. All killing except in self-defense is murder, whether or not God told you to do it, and indeed, whether or not you are a God. No being has the authority to kill other than in self-defense.

I disagree. God can be omnibenevolent, and still enact wrath. Because while God is benevolent God is also Just. The best example
I can think of this is Sodom, and the Abraham’s debate. God tells Abraham he’s going to be destroying Sodom. Abraham negotiates with him, saying “far be it from you do such a thing” slaughtering innocent and evil alike. Basically Abraham haggled with God to the point of saying that if there were as little as 5 righteous people in Sodom, God would spare the city. 5 righteous people couldn’t be found.

To be omnibenevolent implies you are constantly and absolutely benevolent and never malevolent. Wrath is inherently malevolent, so I'd argue that you can't be omnibenevolent and still enact wrath. Even if you could, wrath is one thing, mass murder is quite another. And God promising to spare a city as long as he could find 5 righteous people in it means nothing when his criteria for righteousness is so rigged that not even 5 people in an entire city can meet it. Doubly rigged when you realize that two of the people from that city who God spared went on to commit incestuous rape.

This part was already explained to you some posts before.

In the old testament, the people under god's rules weren't all humanity, but only the tribe of Israel. All the comandments, were valid only inside the tribe of Israel. As they were rules to govern the life inside the tribe. So there isn't inconsistency when war was waged on the enemies of Israel, who clearly, weren't part of Israel, so not under god's rules.

The universality of the comandments, and of being part of the peoples of god, was introduced by Jesus in the new testament.


I think the question of why in the old testament god couldn't make universal comandments from the start, instead of picking one human tribe over all the others, can be explained by looking at the relationship between god and humanity.
God. Immutable and eternal.
Humanity. Everchanging in knowledge and culture.
The Bond between God and Humanity. Developing as humanity gets more in tune with the eternal god.

Meaning over 4000 years ago, humanity as a whole wasn't developed enough, and wasn't yet at a stage of relationship with god where universal rules would have worked out.

If they're valid only within the tribe of Israel, they're hardly worth much in my opinion.

Not sure if this makes a huge difference in this discussion, but there's a difference between wrath and righteous zeal. You're definitely right in saying wrath is malevolent, it's a deadly sin. Wrath is extreme anger fueled by hatred. Righteous zeal is a burning desire for justice. Many of us have that burning desire for justice, and sometimes we misplace it. That's when it runs the possibility of becoming wrath. There's also the factor that the part of the story you're talking about was not a literal piece (the two daughters raping their father Lot), but rather a sort of 'mythological' way of explaining the origins of two other tribes which came to be. One has to keep in mind that while some things in Genesis are literal and did happen, some are also stories of the historical, literary, and theological origins of the Jewish people. So taking Genesis literally is not the same as taking Kings literally, if you get what I mean.

[Napoleonic-Russia]

Who believes in absolute truth?

[Lower Nubia]

The problem is that yes, they are things we don’t do, TODAY, but not then, that was what was expected, that was what was to be done. You have to remember, God is dealing with people of then, not today.

Your ideas are foreign even to people who lived just 300 years ago. It’s like going to the first century and discussing Nuclear reactors. The people of the Levant were judged fairy by their own rules. That’s all that matters.

Murder, implies without right, those people were guilty by their own standards, as well as the standards you no doubt espouse today. Theft implies it was theirs to begin with, but seeing as the land belongs to the obedient and good, and they were evil, it left their possession. Adultery was punished highly amongst the Jews of that time, it is ridiculous to assume they were wed and then had institutionally allowed sex slaves. Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks. Adultery is not going to slide in that group.

Define slavery. In those days, it wasn’t the Atlantic Slave Trade, with whips or chains, it was merciful, otherwise you starved.

All of this is without discussing the nuances, such as that the people had time to escape, and be exiled from the cities, rather than stand and be slain. Without discussing the calamities that the people did to the Jews in the wilderness, the evil of those people, and their good.

An omnibenevolent, omniscient God should not be bound by cultural context. They should do what's right, and encourage what's right all the time, regardless of who it is being done to.

Except they are not foreign. They just got done hearing about how murder was wrong, and now they're being murdered by the same person who told them it was wrong, and encouraged to commit murder. It's not all that matters, because if you think someone has psychotic rules, you don't go and use those psychotic rules on them, because that's psychotic, you see?

Yes, murder does imply without right. You have no right to kill anyone except in self-defense or defense of others. Their own standards don't mean squat to an omnibenevolent God. It is theft, because it was their land, them being bad doesn't mean it's no longer their land. Yes, Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks, I'm just gonna let that statement sink in for a while.

Slavery is slavery, fam.

An omnibenevolebt God has to communicate to those creatures, presumably he spoke in a language they understood, like Hebrew, rather than Tuareg. If a quality of language is imbued with context, how can moral and socio-economic context not de facto be established in their communication? Likewise in a means they can understand and thus utilise? So if their is the context of language, why not other contexts, both socio-economic, or moral? Especially considering that the intent here isn’t just Revelation to these people, but liberation in the form of establishing a sovereign state for these people. Which comes with socio-economic judgement that first and foremost WORKS in that period and time. It’s great being a hippy but being a hippy gets your people destroyed by Assyrians. Sad truth, I know, but people in volkswagon vans don’t make good fighters.

For a start off, you’re claiming that a) your system is right, without providing any basis for why your moral system is more correct than any others. b) the people of that time would of seen it as righteous. And therefore right. c) it assumes that the judgement of those people was not right, even though your own moral system would equally condemn them. Hypocrisy. d) forgets several theodicies that God is to utilise man’s condition to demonstrate the lowly estate of humanity. e) assumes that the people had not been given fair warning to be judged. f) assumes God, as creator and judge, has no right to judge or determine ownership of land, or of iniquity.

I’m sorry if the means of that judgement offend your modern sensibilities, but the people were evil, and needed removing. Again, under your own system, those people would be inprisoned, what’s the difference between theft of land through forcing their exile, and the equivalent theft of land by putting them in prison?

The only ones that were slaughtered were the ones that refused to flee and go into exile. Which again, is the ultimate objective for God’s people before going into the land. Why do you think they wandered around for 40 years? To give time for everyone to escape, in those places to leave, without any bloodshed. Several passages reveal it is exile from the land, that is the aim of God’s judgement, but if they refuse to repent of their evil, what else is supposed to happen?

If we applied your reasoning for acceptable murder, evil would abound unchecked, the only time we can deal with it, is if it already is manifested? What about prevention? What about by necessity? How does your philosophy work for a vast ideological evil which will strike, but can be prevented?

Would Chamberain be righteous in preemptively declaring war on Nazi Germany? Preventing evil while also being the first to strike? What about a hypothetical scenario where the Song Dynasty premtively strikes the Mongols, to stop their conglomeration and subsequent conquest of nations, and genocide of million? Not only that, but you remove, without reason, God’s a priori quality as owner, and judge of this planet by fiat.

Yes, it was harsh, but with good reason, corporate responsibility states clearly that any threat away from the covenant, is a rejection of that covenant, and the rejection of God by the Israelites, would of resulted in their destruction by Egypt, or their destruction by the Canaanites. Why? Because the action is equivalent, and this might seem strange, to treason. It is Israel’s duty to accept the covenant, if they reject it, they are cast out. They knew this. The fact that they then do something so mundane, to then reject that covenant, presumably with warning, is such a apathy to that covenant. It warrants serious inspection as treason. Which even today carries life- time penalties and imprisonment.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I am currently discussing sedevanticism with a sede when he posted this quote:

“"...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal [Trindentine Mass] published by us... We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Asserting that this meant that the Post-V2 Church wasn’t the Church. Can anyone help?

[Diopolis]

I am currently discussing sedevanticism with a sede when he posted this quote:

“"...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal [Trindentine Mass] published by us... We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Asserting that this meant that the Post-V2 Church wasn’t the Church. Can anyone help?

Just to start with,
1) that declaration had exceptions built in. A number of order rites which happened to be standardized ahead of quo primum were retained, and a handful of local geographic rites which were seen as ancient or venerable remained as licit exceptions. Quo Primum was not intended to declare the unchanging supremacy of a particular rite of mass, but to ensure the mass was standardized to prevent the adoption of protestant services by Catholics.
2) the mass of Pius V was changed, over and over again. Just within living memory, in 1962, 1955, 1911... where does it end? There's no traditionalist Catholic group in the world that uses the 1570 edition, because it has always been taken that the pope can change the liturgy. That's what separates us as Catholics from protestants with some extra scriptures- the use of tradition to interpret the articles of our faith.
3) the 1970 edition novus ordo is not the traditional mass. It's its own thing.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I am currently discussing sedevanticism with a sede when he posted this quote:

“"...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal [Trindentine Mass] published by us... We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Asserting that this meant that the Post-V2 Church wasn’t the Church. Can anyone help?

I can't help you, but what's a sede?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I am currently discussing sedevanticism with a sede when he posted this quote:

“"...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal [Trindentine Mass] published by us... We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Asserting that this meant that the Post-V2 Church wasn’t the Church. Can anyone help?

I can't help you, but what's a sede?

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

[Diopolis]

I can't help you, but what's a sede?

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

Usually for reasons that range from the spurious to the trivial.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I am currently discussing sedevanticism with a sede when he posted this quote:

“"...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal [Trindentine Mass] published by us... We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Asserting that this meant that the Post-V2 Church wasn’t the Church. Can anyone help?

Just to start with,
1) that declaration had exceptions built in. A number of order rites which happened to be standardized ahead of quo primum were retained, and a handful of local geographic rites which were seen as ancient or venerable remained as licit exceptions. Quo Primum was not intended to declare the unchanging supremacy of a particular rite of mass, but to ensure the mass was standardized to prevent the adoption of protestant services by Catholics.
2) the mass of Pius V was changed, over and over again. Just within living memory, in 1962, 1955, 1911... where does it end? There's no traditionalist Catholic group in the world that uses the 1570 edition, because it has always been taken that the pope can change the liturgy. That's what separates us as Catholics from protestants with some extra scriptures- the use of tradition to interpret the articles of our faith.
3) the 1970 edition novus ordo is not the traditional mass. It's its own thing.

Cheers.

[Nea Byzantia]

I can't help you, but what's a sede?

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I can't help you, but what's a sede?

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

[Diopolis]

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

Sedevacantism is a conspiracy theory that, for a variety of strange, trivial, or simply factually wrong reasons, there is no current pope and has not been for a long time. Most of these people are rather lunatic fringe.

[Nea Byzantia]

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

They don’t think there has been a valid Pope since 1962 (or even earlier in some cases).

[Diopolis]

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

They don’t think there has been a valid Pope since 1962 (or even earlier in some cases).

1958 for most of them.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

They don’t think there has been a valid Pope since 1962 (or even earlier in some cases).

1958 for most of them.

1958 is when the Beatles formed. Can't be a coincidence.

[Lower Nubia]

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

1054? The Copt’s have been waiting since 451.

[Nea Byzantia]

1054? The Copt’s have been waiting since 451.

The Copts are also heretics.

[Minachia]

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

I guess we're just gonna ignore Paradise Lost, then?

[Tarsonis]

A sedevanticist. They believe that the Seat of Peter is currently empty iirc.

I don't speak Catholic. Really though, is this something all Catholics would understand? Beginning to think I got the short denomination of the stick with my Baptist upbringing.

As a Baptist to Catholic convert, you did. You really did.