Educate us on the new Cardinas, lads
Pope to appoit 5 Cardinals next month
>The new cardinals were named as Archbishop Jean Zerbo of Bamako, Mali, Archbishop Juan José Omella of Barcelona, Bishop Anders Arborelius of Stockholm, Sweden, Bishop Louis-Marie Ling Mangkhanekhoun of Pakse, Laos and Bishop Gregorio Rosa Chávez of Mulli, El Salvador.
Other urls found in this thread:
usccb.org
newadvent.org
divinumofficium.com
lms.org.uk
ecclesiadei.org
latinmassireland.com
play.google.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
youtube.com
breitbart.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Here are your daily readings
usccb.org
Community links, such as recommended media, are now below in pastebin links. Remember to recommend things to add to the lists!
>Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org
>Online Breviary
divinumofficium.com
>Directory for Finding a Latin Mass (U.K)
lms.org.uk
>Directory for Finding a Latin Mass (U.S/Can)
ecclesiadei.org
>Directory for Finding a Latin Mass (Ireland)
latinmassireland.com
>Laudate App
play.google.com
>Recommended Movies
pastebin.com
>Recommended Books
pastebin.com
>Recommended Music
pastebin.com
>Beauty of Creation
pastebin.com
>Tales of Love and Virtue
pastebin.com
Nice, you can easily forget that there are catholics even in non-catholic countries.
The pope is a traitor
Around 100 years ago, Catholics were given the right to vote and hold public office in Sweden. I still question the wisdom of the members of parliament at the time.
Agreed. For some reason, the idea of a Catholic Cardinal of Sweden just seems weird to me. He was a convert from Lutheranism so he should know how to convert the rest of 'em
Yeah, Catholics are the problem in Sweden
Update on relations between SSPX & the Holy See, lads
>For the record: Rome has given SSPX right to ordain priests without permission of local ordinary
>It started with absolution and moved recently to marriage. Now Pope Francis has given the three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) the right to ordain priests without the permission of the local ordinary.
>Starting at the 15:25 mark in the video below, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, states: "Last year, I received a letter from Rome, telling me you can freely ordain your priests without the permission of the local ordinary. So if I can freely ordain that means the ordination is recognized by the Church not just as valid but in order. ... So this is one more step in this acceptance that we are, let me call it, 'normal Catholics.'" (video at link)
- rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
You think the Catholics are any less cucked?
>Bishop Anders Arborelius of Stockholm, Sweden
>Arborelius har visat engagemang för flykting- och invandrarfrågor. Han var en av undertecknarna av det så kallade Påskuppropet (2005), som syftade till att underlätta för nyanlända flyktingar att erhålla uppehållstillstånd i Sverige.
Get your head out of your ass.
translate pls
>Arborelius has shown commitment to refugee and immigration issues. He was one of the signatories of "Påskuppropet" (2005), which intended to make it easier for newly arrived refugees to obtain residence permits in Sweden.
Something about the Bishop saying the migrants (who are in the country because the Swedes have voted for government after government who opened their borders) should be helped with housing.
Here's the Bishop's (soon to be Cardinal) interview on EWTN Journey Home on why he left Lutheranism (I haven't watched it, so I don't know if it's any good)
youtube.com
>being a christian is a flaw now
ok then
Noice :)
SSPX have monthly tridentine masses in Oslo. In time, I'll get there to experience it.
> The government of Sweden lets in throngs of immigrants.
> Swedes voted for the goverment
> Massive propaganda going to normalize the immigrants
> Christians sign the document since it's a christian thing to help people in need AND not getting harrased by goverment sanction immigrant violence
> Somehow all this is the fault of the Catholics
One day, Scandinavia will once Catholic and proper Christian again :)
Brunne says that in a hypothetical emergency scenario where a boat full of hindus or muslims are stranded near a Swedish church and have no access to their own place of worship, the church should let them hold their ceremonies in the church temporarily (this is what she actually said). That's cucked. But when Arborelius wants to make it even easier to get residence in Sweden for alleged refugees, he's being christian and criticizing it is being anti-christian?
This leads to the obvious follow-up question: Are you fucking retarded?
>WHTEVER YOU CALL PPL FROM LAOS WELCOME
They are called laotian and is pronounced lay-oh-shun
Any decent fan of King of the Hill would know this.
>Calling Muslim guests to the church “angels“, the Bishop later took to her official blog to explain that removing Christian symbols from the church and preparing the building for Muslim prayer doesn’t make a priest any less a defender of the faith. Rather, to do any less would make one “stingy towards people of other faiths”.
Actively hiding your Christianity is shameful.
I understand why you'd be angry about the Catholic Bishop, but fact remains, Swedes voted for governments who you knew would open your borders. Now they're there, what's the Catholic Bishop to say? 'Let them form ghetto camps as they did in Calais. That worked out fine'
Breitbart is a fucking garbage source. If they wrote an article about the catholic bishop it would have you believe he sucked 15 immigrant cocks before letting them fuck his wife in front of his children. This obviously isn't true but both he and Brunne are both cucks nonetheless.
God bless everyone here.
How was mass today?
Brunne is openly in a homosexual relationship with a woman. That's just plain disgusting and a sin. What sins has the Catholic bishop committed?
...
...
Haven't been yet user. Going to the evening mass. How about you?
Hey user. I'll be going to my first TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) today at noon. I'm very excited!
Very glad to hear it Americanon. I greatly prefer the TLM. Are you comfortable with the responses etc? (Not that you need to be. Majority of churches have sheets at the back with the order of mass on)
>homosexual relationship with a woman
>a sin
Can you point out which part of the bible that prohibits homosexual female relationships?
Romans 1:26-27
>26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Thanks! I'm still learning them, but I will definitely need to follow the missal for the first few times I go.
The Latin masses I've seen online seem to show a lot more reverence than the average Novus Ordo mass.
Oh, in my opinion, they certainly do. There are, of course, many NO massess which show equal reverence, but the whole structure of TLM means even the most reveren NO can't match it.
Also, if you get the laudate app in the OP that has the order of mass (both NO & TLM) so you could have a look yourself before you go to mass if you wanted
Thanks for the advice, I'll download it now.
God bless you, user.
Jesus condemns fornication and lust. She is doing both
>believing in the sky fairy
That doesn't say anything about homosexual relations, you're only assuming that's what they are implying. This is a terrible argument since you have no idea what the authors of the text actually meant. It could very well be anal intercourse or bestiality. It could be literally anything, and unless you can demonstrate that homosexuality among women is part of what they consider an act contrary to nature your argument is moot.
It's also necessary to point out that he burden of proof lies on you, since everyone agrees that the bible explicitly forbids male homosexuality. Since it explicitly forbids male homosexuality, it should be assumed, exceptio probat regulam, that female homosexuality is permitted.
what church is that?
>WHTEVER YOU CALL PPL FROM LAOS
Laotian.
Did you never watch King of the Hill?
...
>Year of our Lord 2017
>Still being a fedora tipper
Sad!
It specifies "likewise the men" where it speaks of homosexual relations, which means they commit the same abomination.
Certainly one of the strongest arguments for atheism I've ever seen
Santa Maria dell'Orto in Rome
Omella is a fucking Liberal.
Hen from a feather. You're trying to argue from the semantics in the translated version that the likewise creates a subclause that is also true for the previously mentioned group. It could just as well refer to the fact that the men, just like the women, gave up on natural heterosexual intercourse. It's not clear at all that that sentence prohibits female homosexuality, especially not considering that it's not in the original language nad one of many translations.
And these semantic arguments are ridiculous either way. Why does the bible explicitly forbid male homosexuality and not female homosexuality if they are both sin? Why doesn't it say that a woman sleeping with a woman as she would sleep with a man is in a state of sin, right next to the corresponding sentence about male homosexuality? The unescapable conclusion is that male homosexuality is undoubtedly considered a greater sin than female homosexuality, if female homosexuality is even considered a sin at all.
what stance should a catholic take when asked about crusades?
i keep hearing about this a lot but most of the times its people who larp to be for it when it fits their narrative
Not doubting you iberianon, but have you got any links etc so we know just how much of a liberal?
>men
>gave up natural relations with women
>consumed with passion for each other
>committing shameless acts with each other
>could be literally anything
What the fuck? Are you some kind of--
*checks flag*
Oh.
Undoubtedly positive. After Byzantines got BTFO at Manzikert, Muslims could have take Constantinople in days. This would have meant control of the Bosphorus & given Muslims a platform to launch raids in to Europe. Was better to fight them in their lands than in ours
Also, this shows they were indeed a defensive action youtube.com
The crusades were a series of defensive battles against Islamic aggression against Christian people.
Good luck m8
Don't be put off if you don't have a clue what's going on, no one does for a while.
Used to be a youtuber called SheIsCatholic, she was a bit nutty, but she had a great video introducing Latin Mass, it's what got me into it.
She then became a nun, and as a result had to remove her online presence (starting a new life etc). I've considered writing to the nuns to make an exception for that video, it was really good
thanks for the info
the map guy in the video made is perfect
Liberal enough to be preaching that nuns should be doing mass.
I don't have sources now, I'm phonefagging.
Put some effort into your trolling instead of rehashing the same argument over and over.
Hey Catholic General,
I am at the verge of becoming Orthodox, any good arguments against Orthodoxy and for Catholicism before I commit?
Try to keep up. Nobody disputes that the bible explicitly forbids male homosexuality. Similarly, the bible should explicitly forbid female homosexuality if it is to be considered equally sinful, but such a source has yet to be produced.
GET IN HERE LADS, THE SMELL OF HERESY IS IN THE AIR
Try to produce a counterargument instead. From where I'm standing everyone should now be in agreement that the bible does not condemn female homosexuality. The side claiming this was given the opportunity to demonstrate their case but failed in doing so. Intellectual honesty then dictates that they change their view to that which has been demonstrated to be the case lest they be incapable of assimilating arguments.
you might also want to ask questions to a catholic and an orthodox priest before you commit because opinions of random strangers you meet on the internet arent the best way to shape your worldview, even tho they can too be helpful
Read the Acts of the Apostles. Take notice of the fact whenever Peter is there, he's the one who speaks or works miracles. He is clearly the leader. Even the early Church fathers attested to this (pic relared)
Britirenaeus...I'm heeeeeeeeeeeeeere...
...
...
...
...
All Christian lineages claim to have come from Peter, not just the (((catholic))) church.
Fact is that the (((catholic))) church isn't following the words of Jesus Christ, written in the Bible, anymore thus making the other denominations legitimate while the (((catholic))) church illegitimate.
>it doesn't explicitly forbid this paticular form of this act therefore it's ok.
What a terrible arguement. By this logic, muslims are right when they ask Christians to point to where in the bible Jesus says the exact words "I am God, worship Me." God gives us reason, put it to use. Just because He doesn't say this exact thing is a sin doesn't mean it's ok, especially when similar acts are forbidden.
Also, as this user pointed out
Romans clearly forbids it.
>but it doesn't speficy lesbianism explicitly
Lesbianism is not a "natural relationship" ergo it would be a sin as per romans.
>All Christian lineages claim to have come from Peter, not just the (((catholic))) church.
>peter was the bishop of rome
>the pope, also the bishop of rome, is his successor
>all other denominations are out of communion with the holy see, the successor of peter.
>in anons mind, this means they are from Peter's lineage.
Moreover, if the church is no longer following the bible as you claim, please point the moment to when the successors of Peter stopped acting as his successor. Under which pope did the Church lose legitimatcy?
The moment they formed Catholicism they lost legitimacy. Literally everything Christ preached is against what the Catholics did.
I know you don't know this because Catholics don't actually read the Bible. You should try it some time. It's a good book.
>The moment they formed Catholicism they lost legitimacy. Literally everything Christ preached is against what the Catholics did.
Ok, and when would that be? What year? Under what pope? What exact decrees were made that lost the church legitimatcy, and what about those decrees caused that to occur?
Ad homs and broad sweeping statements don't answer the question, I want you to tell me exactly when the Church stopped following Christ.
The first recorded time the church is called Catholic Church is by saint St Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD): "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church"
Is that when the church atopped following Christ? Under pope Saint Alexander the first in 110 AD? That's the first use of "Catholic Church." If so, what did the church decree that made it wrong?
That's a very simplistic view of things user.
What makes you deny the Truth of Christ? What led you to doubt God?
>Ok, and when would that be? What year? Under what pope? What exact decrees were made that lost the church legitimatcy, and what about those decrees caused that to occur?
>Ad homs and broad sweeping statements don't answer the question, I want you to tell me exactly when the Church stopped following Christ.
Literally the first one. Matthew 23:9
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."
Would you prefer Peter tell you? 1 Peter 2:9
"But you (all Christians) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"
1 Peter 2:5
"you (all Christians) also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
What about John? Is he allowed to add anything or should we only listen to Catholic priests?
Revelation 1:6
"Jesus has made us (all Christians) to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen."
Revelation 5:10
"You have made them (all Christians) to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."
Is your argument that the church was not meant to have any spiritual leaders after Jesus?
But at least the Latin Mass is really cool, right? Nope.
Ephesians 3:4
"By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ."
1 Corinthians 14:19
"in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."
Is your argument that Christ meant there was ONLY ONE spiritual leader after Him? That the other Apostles were meaningless? Not commanded to go forth and preach the Word?
Is that YOUR argument? If it is, good luck with your eternal judgement, friend. Good luck.
Mali
Spain
Sweden
Laos
El Salvador
Not a single white country listed
I see. So then you don't ever reffer to your biological father as father?
Is the word "dad" also banned? Or is it truly just that you can't use the word father?
Oh, and what of all the times the early church fathers use the term father?
Such as 1 cor 4:14-16 "I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.“
Or when Saint Stephen calls Abraham father in acts? "Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?” 2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran. 3 ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.’"
Or in 1 John, when he calls believers children amd uses the term father?
"I am writing to you, dear children,
because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13 I am writing to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men,"
And what of the Ten Commandments? God says "honor they FATHER and mother." Why would God use the term father if nobody but God can be called father?
Such a literal interpretation contradicts much of scripture, even Jesus uses the term father to reffer to people other than God. Is He breaking His own commandment?
And once again, that's not an exact date. When did this violation occur? Under what pope? What decree violated this commandment?
Don't evade the question. "Is call no man father" is meant the way that you imply then there should be no spiritual leader. And besides there is not just one spiritual leader in Catholicism. Every bishop has authority, not just the pope.
>I see. So then you don't ever reffer to your biological father as father?
>Is the word "dad" also banned? Or is it truly just that you can't use the word father?
Classic runaround. You know damn well that phrase is referring to your spiritual father and has nothing to do with your actual father ("dad"). Oh I know I know, next you'll say, "hurr durr well why wouldn't he clarify?! who decides the semantics?!" Get the fuck out with that retarded argument.
Do you have a pastor?
See here
>I'm right if I add in extra words, (all Christians), that don't appear in the original text
Amazing how that works.
That in no way condems the latin mass.
That is entirely based upon the assumption that latin can not be understood, Res verus non est.
No.
And what of the many times the apostles reffer to themselves as fathers of believers? They are not, at least I would assume they aren't, there actual biological fathers. Are the apostles themselves wrong?
Really getting pissed at all the stupid shit the church ia doing lately, not just francis but locally
You're not answering the question. If "call no man father" meant what you think it means than the church should have no spiritual leader of any kind. This is classic prooftexting.
Was Paul a spiritual leader? What do you make of this:
They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23).
If there are any French speaking anons interested on how the church evolved on migration, this is a nifty book. It goes through the history of the church on islam and migration.
I'm not through it yet but it shows how migration was something that was first seen as "only in utter necessity" and became a right. Also highlights how the pope knows nothing about living in Europe and the rising muslim population, because he comes from a country where they are maybe 2-3%, not 10% and rising as in Europe.
Also I'm absolutely fascinated about how the get their stuff on islam wrong and keep insisting that it's "the same god". Only Pope Benedict had his wits about this and installed some very needed distance.
What's wrong user? What exactly are they doing?
>>I'm right if I add in extra words, (all Christians), that don't appear in the original text
>Amazing how that works.
Remove the parentheses. It doesn't change the meaning at all, retard.
>That in no way condems the latin mass.
>That is entirely based upon the assumption that latin can not be understood, Res verus non est.
Ah yes, because as the Latin language died, certainly the Church would have allowed printing and distribution of the Bible in English so that all their congregation could understand and follow the Word of the Lord, correct? Certainly they wouldn't have outlawed understanding of scripture unless going through the priests, correct? Clearly, the Catholic Church would not do such things...
Orthodox accept papal supremacy but use weasel words to try to reject it. They accept the pope has administrative supremacy but not ontological. However peter was the first apostle to receive the holy spirit and be ordained and jesus specifically gave him the keys to heaven. The apostles all acknowledged his position of leadership as the proto apostle. It's pretty clear that peter's supremacy wasn't just administrative but also divinely given to him.
They were divinely ordained except for the 4th crusade which was condemned. Thet were objectively good. The slaughter of muslims and jews was ordered by god
In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the bible alone, but the bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture" along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."
In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched sacred scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.
Since protestants teach that the bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?
This is a massive problem for Protestants and they do not have a good answer for this.
>You're not answering the question.
You're choosing to ignore my answer because you don't like it. The Catholic Church follows the Pope as its spiritual father. It has declared the Pope infallible. Not me. There is only one who is infallible, the Lord our God.
This is what a Catholic does. Ignores anything they don't like. Fortunately, I'm born in an age where they just ignore rather than murder and burn anything/anyone they don't like. Thank the Lord others came before me and fought the ridiculousness that is Catholic doctrine.>They "appointed elders
>appointed elders
>elders
Wow. Really made me think.
>Remove the parentheses. It doesn't change the meaning at all, retard.
Yes it does. By adding in those words, which do not appear in the original text, you are ensuring your personal interpretation is the only one possible.
Supporting criminals.
All the church has done politically for the last rwo decades has been pushing the gov to stop going after thieves and murderers etc.
Also big scandals of priest getting dirty money, I used to like our old cardenal because he was always talking real conservative.
He once called to burn gays in the streets, but then he came out and admited that he had helped the vatican envoy escape the country after some guy had raped a bunch of kids.
It just gets hard to stay around when so much nasty stuff is happening in the hierarchy all the time, didnt want to detract from the thread.
Yes, Peter has supremacy. The Orthodox Church, being a descendant of Peter, follows its lineage back to the first leader of Christianity.
...
...
...
Addressing qualms one has with the church is not in anyway detracting from the thread.
As for all that stuff, I think Fulton Sheen said it best when he said to judge the church by it's best members, not it's worst. There are bad people in any institution, it's inevitable. But men are short lived, the substance and Truth of the Church is eternal, and that's what matters.
...
>"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"
>"you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
>"Jesus has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen."
>"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."
Wow. Really changed the meaning there pal. Really ensured my personal interpretation there chap.
Hallelujah. Christ is risen.