I don't see why adopting local cultural forms is such a bad thing. When peoples join the universal Church, they bring their culture with them. Historically, this often added a local flavor to preexisting Catholic feasts

Yes, we are in logical agreement, and yet come to 2 different conclusions. I would say that I am safer trusting in the church consensus and apostolic tradition to tell me what the church has believed from the beginning, while you find it safer to intellectually discern the truth yourself by your personal devotion and interpretation of the scripture.

Then the question is, is your perception of truth infallible? We both agree that there is absolute truth, the question is how do we determine that truth if 2 people believe that they hold the truth and come to opposing positions? Does my position become truth if I convince you that I'm right? What gives the Nicene creed the authority to bind our conscience to its standard, if you will? Arianism had a great, logical, biblically based argument, and convinced many that their position was orthodox. If you determine that my position is heterodox, is your opinion the objective standard, and does your interpretation have the power to excommunicate me from the body of Christ as a heretic? I think it's a slippery position.

Halloween is not catholic stuff. In Brazil as a child, I did not even know it existed. It has nothing to do with All Saints' day.

Only as a teenager reading Peanuts I learned from Charlie Brown that in USA there was some kind of witch-festival with candies.

HW is anglo-german stuff. "Witch culture" is stronger on protestant lands, because superstitions and accusations could grown into mass histeria (Salem, etc). I remember being amazed how americans could be so primitive as to be witch-hunting in the 1690's. If some woman were accused of witchcraft in catholic lands the church would investigate with strong cepticism, and calumny was a grave crime everywhere.

witches flying in brooms were not in our imagination until we got american cartoons, much less salem-level stuff.

That said... we repeat the pagan god's names when we name weekdays. We learn mithology, read Homer, docs use esculapius rod, etc.

if nobody takes the witch-pagan stuff seriously... why HW would be different? We lose so much time idolizing sportsmen or Batman, why not witches or ghosts?

'wrong' is when real satanists exploit it to their ends.

or when HW occupies so much mental time that people forget All Saints Day, or All Souls Day.

But halloween is not the only secular feast pushing religious ones out of our minds, every decade there is another woke-festival worse that the previous one.

I dont care about halloween.

Happy Whitepaper Day.

As noble and well meaning as that position is, the issue is when you run into 2 individuals who inevitably claim that they were guided by the Spirit and yet came to 2 incompatible conclusions. Because there isnt a normative authority, we have no way of determining who is truly interpreting correctly.

If we were to set a baseline as to what characterizes a Christian, most people would point to the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed. This was the creed in which the early church came together and, believing as a united body that they were led by the Holy Spirit, came to a consensus on fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, on the two natures of Christ, on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. I believe its a much more reasonable position to trust this church than a single individual who decided that all councils had erred and that scripture is simple enough to interpret at the subjective, individual level. 500 years and 30k denominations later, I believe we can agree that this isnt the case.

As noble and well meaning as that position is, the issue is when you run into 2 individuals who inevitably claim that they were guided by the Spirit and yet came to 2 incompatible conclusions. Because there isnt a normative authority, we have no way of determining who is truly interpreting correctly.

If we were to set a baseline as to what characterizes a Christian, most people would point to the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed. This was the creed in which the early church came together and, believing as a united body that they were led by the Holy Spirit, came to a consensus on fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, on the two natures of Christ, on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. I believe its a much more reasonable position to trust this church than a single individual who decided that all councils had erred and that scripture is simple enough to interpret at the subjective, individual level. 500 years and 30k denominations later, I believe we can agree that this isnt the case.

Donald Trump shouldn't be president.

He should be the Jester King of America.

This position will have no power, but every week the president has to go before the Jester King to give a report on how the country has been going. The whole exchange will be broadcast live on television and social media.

The people are the sovereign in a democracy.

If the government acts against the people, it has lost the legitimacy to govern.

Anyone who restricts fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, who disregards the constitution, has lost the right to govern.

#bitcoin and #nostr are tools against repression and restriction of fundamental rights.

Use them!

#bitcoin and #nostr are hope!

The people are the sovereign in a democracy.

If the government acts against the people, it has lost the legitimacy to govern.

Anyone who restricts fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, who disregards the constitution, has lost the right to govern.

#bitcoin and #nostr are tools against repression and restriction of fundamental rights.

Use them!

#bitcoin and #nostr are hope!

That's fair, i meant it as an observation of a sort of stereotype if you will, but I see how that could have come off as a truth claim. I cant imagine how difficult it would have been for people to believe they were leaving the "one true church", to break from it because Jesus "was wrong" about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. So I understand why the reformation happened, and I understand that was their best option to their knowledge, but while much fruit has come from protestantism, there is (in my opinion) a lot of rot as well, stemming from its origins. Now, I'll say up front that I don't typically have fruitful debates with protestants, not because we cant have a calm and civil conversation, but because by definition protestants have no normative interpretational authority, and thus it is impossible to deal with it collectively and effectively. However, I have a healthy respect for the reformation while being neither protestant or papist.