Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I can see why the Church would think squashing the Cathars was a good idea, honestly.

And I don't blame them. Cathar theology would have undermined the lynchpin of the church that it was supposed to be the continuation of the Jewish covenant. Would the church have admitted that there were two deities, one evil and the other good, it'd be an affront to their claims of continuity and thus their followers would have thought they either were liars, or that Jews had the truth, which would undermine Jesus' words and actions in life.

I can see why the Islamic State would think massacring the Christians is a good idea, honestly.

And I don't blame them. Christian theology undermines the lynchpin of the Caliphate that they are the successors of the Prophet of Allah. Were the Caliph to admit that Jesus is the son of God, and Mohammad was not the seal of the Prophets, it'd be an affront to his claims of successorship to the Ummah and thus his followers would think either he is a liar or the Christians have the truth, which would undermine Mohammad's words and actions in life.

Oh, wait, that's right, committing genocide against people who have different religious beliefs than you is typically considered to be evil by the vast majority of people. If Catholics had genocide committed against them, you would obviously object.

Surely you don't think I would disagree with you on your analysis if that's what you said in a conversation about ISIS, right?

Because I would honestly agree with your analysis. And genocide happens around the world, it's all about who we give a fuck about, or not.

I mean, sure, I would object to people committing genocide against Catholics, even though I am not a Catholic, because genocide is wrong nowadays, at least culturally, in the West. Back then these people were products of their time, so it's easier for me to detach myself from it and the rationale is "fuck it, they're long dead now, it's not like it's a current event anyways".

I mean, if the point here was "you're an asshole for saying that and a hypocrite for pretending it was right for the Cathars to be massacred while you would object to Catholic genocide", well, yea, I am an asshole. Tell me what's not obvious.

[United Muscovite Nations]

FRE, what do you think of the Palmarian Catholic Church? They are probably about as few as Marcionites.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

FRE, what do you think of the Palmarian Catholic Church? They are probably about as few as Marcionites.

They seem to be Catholics in all but who they recognize as the Pope.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

FRE, what do you think of the Palmarian Catholic Church? They are probably about as few as Marcionites.

Far as I can tell, they're some sort of an anti-Papacy which has some minor differences between it and the regular Catholic Church. They still uphold most of the same doctrines as the Catholics, so I would say that they are still illegitimate.

Surely you don't think I would disagree with you on your analysis if that's what you said in a conversation about ISIS, right?

Because I would honestly agree with your analysis. And genocide happens around the world, it's all about who we give a fuck about, or not.

I mean, sure, I would object to people committing genocide against Catholics, even though I am not a Catholic, because genocide is wrong nowadays, at least culturally, in the West. Back then these people were products of their time, so it's easier for me to detach myself from it and the rationale is "fuck it, they're long dead now, it's not like it's a current event anyways".

I mean, if the point here was "you're an asshole for saying that and a hypocrite for pretending it was right for the Cathars to be massacred while you would object to Catholic genocide", well, yea, I am an asshole. Tell me what's not obvious.

Is the Church meant to conform to the customs of the time, or is it meant to conform to the customs of God (which say murder is immoral)? If the Church consists of holy men, it isn't too much to expect that they follow divine laws and customs rather than the fleeting laws and customs of men.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, it's time to mark today's Great Feast of the Orthodox Church, which is the only one of the 12 Great Feasts that always falls on a Thursday...

The Ascension of our Lord



“The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me;
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.”
-- Acts of the Apostles 1:1-12

The Ascension is a moment of transition. It is an end, but also a beginning. It is the end of the Earthly ministry of Christ, the final fulfillment of everything that our Lord came to do among us. He united human nature to Himself, and was born in the flesh; He lived and grew up as a man; He was baptized in the Jordan and gathered disciples and preached the Gospel to them; He performed many miracles, healing the sick and even resurrecting the dead; He was betrayed and crucified, and He died; through His death He destroyed the power of death and smashed the gates of Hades, opening Heaven to us; and He rose from the dead on the third day, in the flesh, becoming the first-born of the dead, the first to undergo the bodily resurrection that we will all experience at the end of time. Then He spent an additional 40 days with His disciples, teaching them about things they had previously misunderstood, and fully revealing His mission to them. And finally... "He ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father", as the Creed says.

So this is it. This is when Christ leaves our world, promising to return at the Last Judgment. It is the end of the Gospels... But it is the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles.

It is a beginning, because Christ instructs the Apostles to wait in Jerusalem, and ten days later the Holy Spirit descends upon them, and the Church is founded, and the history of the salvation of humanity truly begins. That will be marked by another Great Feast - Pentecost - but it is already prefigured in the Ascension.

And of course, although He has ascended back to Heaven, Christ never left us. As He said, "I am with you always, to the very end of the age". And He meant this quite literally. He is with us and in us, not only in spirit but in flesh and blood, through the Eucharist. We are all members of Christ. In fact, He is even more present with us after His ascension than He was before. Because prior to His ascension, while He lived on Earth, His presence was limited in space and time. Being a man and living as a man, He could only be in one place at a time. If He was in Galilee, then He wasn't in Judea. If He was in Jerusalem, then He wasn't in Capernaum. His Apostles and some other disciples followed Him around, of course, but most people could not. So, most people could only encounter Christ once or twice, if He happened to travel to their village or town, or to some place close enough for them to reach. Even His disciples didn't get to be with Him very much if they were not traveling with Him (for example Lazarus, and his sisters Mary and Martha).

This was fine for a while, but Christ wanted His good news preached to all the peoples of the world, unto the ends of the Earth, and He wanted all to partake of communion with Him. This would require something very different from a single traveling preacher - even if that preacher also happened to be God incarnate. What was required was to have many preachers, each able to carry Christ with him everywhere. What was required was the Church. And that is why Christ had to ascend. He has ascended to become the Head of the Church, and the central pillar of our communion, the tree trunk on which we grow as branches. He has ascended to join the Father, as we should also seek to ascend through repentance to join Him.

Here is some music for the occasion on YouTube:

Troparion and Kontakion for the Ascension (in English)
Troparion for the Ascension (in English)
Troparion for the Ascension (in Bulgarian)
Katavasia for the Ascension of Christ (in Bulgarian)
Troparion for the Ascension (in Romanian)
Axion for the Ascension (in Romanian)

Troparion:

You ascended in Glory, O Christ our God,
Having gladdened Your disciples by Your promise of the Holy Spirit,
And Your blessing confirmed their belief
That You are indeed God's Son
The Redeemer of the world!

Kontakion:

When You had joined Earth to Heaven,
And fulfilled Your plan of redemption,
You ascended in Glory, O Christ our God,
While remaining in our midst,
For You assured us who love You
That no one can prevail against us,
Since You Yourself are with us.

[The Sauganash Union]

Pope Piux IX sucked.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Pope Piux IX sucked.

Apart from Papal Infallibility, I don't see too much what he did that was that bad.

[Constantinopolis]

For the record, my above post about the Ascension wasn't an accidental double post - I edited out my older post on the same topic and replaced it with this new one, in the hope of helping to not-so-subtly change the topic of the current conversation.

Indeed, happy ascension, in the Catholic church as well.

Christ is ascended! Happy feast day to you as well, my friend!

Although we strongly disagree on a few major issues, days like this are a good time to remember how much we hold in common.

[The Sauganash Union]

Pope Piux IX sucked.

Apart from Papal Infallibility, I don't see too much what he did that was that bad.

He spurred on the Irish Catholic hordes and implicitly recognized the Confederate States. His whole papacy was a "fuck you" to the United States.

[Constantinopolis]

Apart from Papal Infallibility, I don't see too much what he did that was that bad.

He spurred on the Irish Catholic hordes and implicitly recognized the Confederate States. His whole papacy was a "fuck you" to the United States.

Are you trying to make us like him? Because the first and last of the things you mentioned sound pretty good...

[Hakons]

You're throwing around some accusations which are inconsistent with what I have said. No, I don't reject the divinity of Jesus; I have never said so anywhere. I don't reject the majority of the Gospel as you claim (I reject certain interpretations of it, just as everyone does, yet I have not professed to reject the authenticity of the text itself); if I did, I wouldn't be quoting it as valid scripture here. Likewise I do not reject the majority of the "New Testament" books as you claim; I haven't attacked their authenticity.

So you are not truly a Marcionite? Marcion only followed his own gospel, similar to Luke's, and ignored Mathew, Mark, and John. Since Marcion only accepted parts of the Gospel he likes, he does not follow the Gospel. Actual Christian Churches follow the Gospel. Marcion also only accepted Paul's epistles. He ignored the rest of the New Testament.

And as for the "you reject the consensus of the Christian Churches," and the "you reject the extreme majority of writings of by Christian theologians," bits, the exact same principle could be applied to dozens of semi-large sects of Christianity which exist today because they disagree with traditional consensuses and popular opinion regarding doctrine. Real Presence is accepted by a significant majority of Churches and theologians, and yet it is a fair bet that you would never condemn someone as not being Christian simply for going against the majority opinion on that particular doctrine. You're saying that going against the majority makes somebody not a Christian, and yet you're picking and choosing specific doctrines on which it is not permissible to oppose the majority.

That is not logical at all, nor is that theologically sound. Differences in doctrine don't separate Churches as much as mono vs poly theism. While the Churches have differences, we mostly recognize each other as fellow Christians. You, on the other hand, are not Christian, not of an Abrahamic faith, and not even monotheist. You are polytheist. On these grounds alone you are not Christian and are more similar to Hindus or Zoroastrians than Christians. You are further from the truth than Muslims, because they at least recognize there is only one God. It's not just the majority that is against you, it is the 99% of Christians that are against you. To give a secular comparison, you are the one scientist that denies climate change.

Yes, I do reject the Tanakh and its God; I have explained my reasoning for doing so. That is in violation with the orthodox consensus; and yet so is rejection of Real Presence. And thus we get back to the issue of picking and choosing which popularly accepted principles are and are not acceptable to deviate from.

When you reject the God of the Old Testament, you reject the only God. There can only be one all-powerful God, as my quotes from Tertullian already showed anyway. You are very far from the truth, and you will have to answer for this when our time is complete on this Earth. "Picking and choosing"? There is now "picking and choosing." Christ Himself states He is God and has been God since the beginning. There is no Biblical support for polytheism. All you do is contrast two contextless passages as if that is theological proof of two gods. Frankly, your argumentative style is more similar to atheists than any religious person. You make frequent references to fallacies as opposed to actual theology, you claim virtually all of Christendom is "picking and choosing" parts of the Bible, and you smash two contextless pasages together and call it an argument.

[The Sauganash Union]

He spurred on the Irish Catholic hordes and implicitly recognized the Confederate States. His whole papacy was a "fuck you" to the United States.

Are you trying to make us like him? Because the first and last of the things you mentioned sound pretty good...

Anti-American papist.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Are you trying to make us like him? Because the first and last of the things you mentioned sound pretty good...

Anti-American papist.

Roman Catholicism is better than Presbyterianism, tbh.

[The Sauganash Union]

Anti-American papist.

Roman Catholicism is better than Presbyterianism, tbh.

The episcopate is rooted in sin, debauchery, and corruption. It's tyrannical and unjustifiable.

[Constantinopolis]

Are you trying to make us like him? Because the first and last of the things you mentioned sound pretty good...

Anti-American papist.

I take offense at that last word. I'm no papist.

[Thermodolia]

Are you trying to make us like him? Because the first and last of the things you mentioned sound pretty good...

Anti-American papist.

>calls an member of an Orthodox Church a papist
>uh what?

[The Sauganash Union]

Anti-American papist.

>calls an member of an Orthodox Church a papist
>uh what?

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

[Thermodolia]

>calls an member of an Orthodox Church a papist
>uh what?

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

Hahahaha


No stop!!! You're going to give me a heart attack

[Dylar]

>calls an member of an Orthodox Church a papist
>uh what?

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

*cough*Catholic Church was here before the Orthodox*cough* Also...got any recent proof(1900's on up) that shows that the episcopate is "wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy?" Cause, I feel like you're going to give me a history lesson on all the illegitimate popes that we've had since the Middle Ages, which was like...two I think...

[Luminesa]

Anti-American papist.

I take offense at that last word. I'm no papist.

I AM!!!! 8D

[The Sauganash Union]

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

*cough*Catholic Church was here before the Orthodox*cough* Also...got any recent proof(1900's on up) that shows that the episcopate is "wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy?" Cause, I feel like you're going to give me a history lesson on all the illegitimate popes that we've had since the Middle Ages, which was like...two I think...

Yes, the Catholic Church was before the Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox Church is arguably closer to what the Catholic Church was at the time of schism.

And where do I start? Besides the Jesuits fostering communist revolutions in El Salvador, priests molesting kids and bishops covering for them, nuns abusing kids, and fighting secularism in America tooth and nail so that they could have their precious "parish schools", the Catholic Church has a long list of crimes. Not to mention perpetuating feudalism in Latin America, the affects of which linger to this day.

Also, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest sponsors of mass immigration and refugee resettlement. Their Jesuit pope kisses the feet of terrorists.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, you really have (1:) no consistency, (2:) no historical backing of your opinions, (3:) and certainly no scriptural basis from which you can pull your assertions from since for starters the Bible is not a gnostic document, nor was it written to support a gnostic truth. (4:) It was written to support the leading Christian thought of the time, that being the basics on which Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and plenty of Protestant churches rely upon as dogma.

Alright, let's go over some of these claims.

1: Literally the one and only reason why Luminesa thinks I "have no consistency" is because I said the scriptures lead to me to the belief that the right school of Christianity will be small, and I also criticized the argument from a couple people who said "the majority believe this is true, therefore it is true." Even if you consider that to be an inconsistency, absolutely everything else I have said has been totally consistent.

That's not accurate. Lumi's claim of inconsistency is based on what we would call a special pleading fallacy.

You make two claims:
1. The Catholic Church is too big therefore it cannot be correct. (we'll call this a reverse ad populem)
2. Arguments based tradition and history constitute arguments via popularity and are not valid reasoning. (ad populem)

Both these statements are logically fallacious, in and of themselves, but setting that aside, they're also not constant with each other. Both arguments make a correlation of validity/invalidity to size. If you claim a certain size as proof of invalidity, it also follows that a certain size is a proof of validity, as the valid/invalid relationship is dichotomous. If size is a valid quantifier of correctness, then argumentum ad populem is a valid argument. Therefore you cannot use size as a justification for your own argument, and reject size as a justification for another argument. It's logically inconsistent. Size either is, or isn't a valid judge of correctness.

2: Bandwagon fallacy.

Not really. Christianity, like virtually all religions, is a tradition and precedent based system. Any new doctrine cannot simply be invented with any credulity, new doctrine must be invented within a conceivable relation to existing precedent. Therefore the claim that your position has no historical backing does stand as a potentially legitimate critique of your position. However, it also does not adequately dismiss your position, as precedent as a concept can and often is over turned by new precedent. Whether precedent can be overturned in the religious context is a different argument.

This critique however also falls flat on its face because there is historical precedent. Marcion was a real person. He had a position which he taught and defended. However his rejection by the Christian community at the time also undermines your position, though not dispelling it. The real problem is not much of the first two centuries is known, and true marcionism isn't known as well, just like true pelegianism isn't known. No collection of their teachings exists, all that we know of their teachings is known through their critics, which, well, aren't a great representation of anything.

3: I posted a list of over a dozen different verses from the Tanakh and over a dozen different verses from the Gospel and compared them side by side, showing the contradictory behaviors and statements. Tarsonis briefly addressed one or two, Luminesa responded with "YOU DON'T HAVE UNDERSTANDING!1!1!!11," and nobody else even made an effort to refute it. Oh, but I guess they don't count because I was the one who posted them and I'm not a Nicene Christian.

I'm getting to that, I just haven't had time. However, the argument of "you don't have understanding" is not criticism that's unmerited. Religions are paradigmatic. If you don't have a working knowledge of the paradigm, your deductions from the material will be skewed. Therefore, saying you don't have understanding of the paradigm, is a valid critique. Whether it's accurate is different matter, though in my personal opinion I'd have to say your understanding of the Christian religion and the its originating paradigm is, shall we say, lacking.

4: Are you seriously trying to say that the Bible was written in the second century to support "leading Christian thought?" The Tanakh is supposed to predate Christianity rather significantly. And if the entirety of the Gospel was simply conjured up by men to support their opinions, well, that Gospel would have no value as it would be the words of men and not God, thus rendering Christianity as a man-made religion.

Not quite. The New Testament Canon, and the various OT canons, reflect the opinions of the people who codified said canons. They chose the books and rejected others, because certain books correlated with what they taught, and the other books didn't. Hence why the Christian establishment accepted the Gospel of John, and rejected the Gospel of Thomas. Christianity and the Christian establishment preceded the codified Christian Bible. Not the other way around.

Also, all Christianity is a man made religion. All religion is man made, because all religions are curated by humans. The Bible did not fall form the sky. It was written, edited, and ultimately codified by men. God's hand in this process is a matter of faith, not a matter of demonstrable fact.

And from where do you find that the God of the Jewish people and the God of Christianity are different deities?

And the point from which deviation from traditional theology makes someone completely un-Christian is when said theology has nothing to do with Christianity. Slight differences of opinion in doctrine are fine, although two churches will sincerely believe the other is heretical if this happens. But there's a difference between heresy, and outright making shit up. The notion that the Bible is talking about two gods instead of just one would fall in the latter because there's nothing in the Bible that I know supports your notion of two deities.

As I have said before, I find that they are different deities because they behave in contradictory ways, and as for the verses which show said contradictions, I already gave them, several times, in fact, and the only person who even made an effort to refute the verses themselves was Tarsonis; Luminesa simply threw out an ad hominid and tried to change the subject, and nobody else even bothered to respond to them.

It's gonna take a while to do so.

The God of the Jews	The God of Jesus
And out of the ground the Lord Yahweh made every tree to grow...the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9	For a corrupt tree bringeth forth not good fruit; neither does a good tree bringeth forth corrupt fruit. Luke 6:43 "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit." Matthew 12:33
And the Lord Yahweh called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?" Genesis 3:9	But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answering said unto them, "Why do you reason in your hearts?" Luke 5:22
Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot... Exodus 21:24	And unto him that smiteth thee on the cheek offer also the other... Luke 6:29
...there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him [Elisha]...and [he] cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty two children of them. 2 Kings 2:23	And they brought young children to Him...and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But Jesus...said unto them "Allow the little children to come to Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." Mark 10:13
And if a woman have issue, and if her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even... and if a woman have an issue of her blood...beyond the time of her separation ...she shall be unclean. Leviticus 15:19	And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living on physicians, neither could be healed of any, came up behind [Jesus], and touched the border of His garment: and immediately her issue of blood ceased. Luke 8:43
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. Deuteronomy 24:1	Whosoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. Mark 10:11
Therefore shalt thou make them turn their back, when thou shalt make ready thine arrows upon thy strings against the face of them. Psalm 21:12 Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. Psalm 18:4	Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand the evil one...taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery arrows of the wicked. Ephesians 6:16
Clouds and darkness are round about him... Psalm 97:2 He sent darkness, and made it dark... Psalm 105:28 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. Psalm 78:49	For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this Aeon, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12
I form light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord Yahweh do all these things. Isaiah 45:7	God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5
I the Lord your God am a jealous God. Exodus 20:5 ...for the Lord, Whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exodus 34:14	And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4
He is a Jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If you forsake the Lord, then He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you... Joshua 24:13 For I the Lord God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Exodus 20:5	Love is never rude, never irritated, never resentful. 1 Corinthians 13:5 Then came Peter to Him, and said, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I say not to you, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Matthew 18:23
I am Yahweh, that is my name- And my glory to another will I not give... Isaiah 42:8	And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with thine own self with the glory I had with Thee before the world was. John 17:5
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies...for the Lord fought for Israel. Joshua 10:12	Be ye angry, yet not committing sin; Let not the sun be going down upon your wrath. Ephesians 4:26
Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive: Thou hast received tribute from men. Psalm 68:18	Wherefore He saith, "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Ephesians 4:8

[Tarsonis Survivors]

usually it's the militant atheists, who come during summer.... this militant fundamentalist invasion is an oddity this year.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

*cough*Catholic Church was here before the Orthodox*cough* Also...got any recent proof(1900's on up) that shows that the episcopate is "wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy?" Cause, I feel like you're going to give me a history lesson on all the illegitimate popes that we've had since the Middle Ages, which was like...two I think...

I beg to differ.

[Luminesa]

>calls an member of an Orthodox Church a papist
>uh what?

The Orthodox are OG papist, although their episcopate isn't as wicked, corrupt, and responsible for human tragedy.

NAH NAH MAN.

WE CATHOLICS, WE'RE THE OGs.

YOU SEE THIS MAN?!



LOOK AT THAT PAPAL SWAG. YOU DON'T GET MORE GANGSTER THAN THAT, I TELL YOU WHUT.