PROOF THAT VATICAN II IS COMPROMISED AND THE ONLY SALVATION IS GETTING BAPTIZED IN A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC CHURCH AND REPENTING ! ! ! :
pastebin.com/jkSzCMVm ---- Currently the Papacy is vacant, as the last 4 "popes" are not Popes but Antipopes. They are heretics, as they have denied traditional Catholic dogma and thus can not be considered popes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I devote my time to watching any of this, can you boil down the argument to where Biblical Christians are in error?
Aiden Cruz
I have already watched them. I will repeat what I said. They are sedevacantists, which literally translates to empty chair. They deny the papacy in its fullest, thus they are schismatics, and thus they are heretics.
Bentley Gomez
The argument is that nowhere does it say in the Bible that salvation is through faith alone. The only thing it says in the Bible is that faith is necessary.
Sedes are basically on the end of the heresy spectrum opposite to the Jesuits.
What teaching have the most recent Popes denied?
Which traditional
Ian Brooks
>Was Luther "right" on the matter of salvation? >Is proselytism bad? >Should remarried persons, even if in new relationship they engage sexually, be allowed to Communion? >Are Jews worshiping the true God and their rites have any meaning? >Are Muslims worshiping the true God? >Can a person pray to the true God, even if this person is pagan and true God is unknown to such pagan? >Should ecumenism mean that we do not proselytize heretics and schismatics? >Are heretics and schismatics inside the Church of Christ? >Are people outside of said Church saved? >Is engaging in old rites of judaism, or muslim rites, or pagan practices, harmless to your salvation? If your answer is "no" to any of these, beware, either you are a heretic (not obedient to the Pope), or "pope" is.
Justin Fisher
The better question is: what teachings have they NOT broken?
In the Bible, Jesus says "I am the way" and says that salvation is through him.
So where do these faggot Catholic priests and the Pope come into play? They're not necessary.
William Carter
>So where do these faggot Catholic priests and the Pope come into play?
The part where the early Church fathers were catholic and the catholic church wrote that thing you call the New Testament
William Watson
Can you tell me one thing? I'm not going to watch all those videos unless you show that there is good reason to do so
From Matthew 16:
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Jace Smith
>Can you tell me one thing?
Ok, the major one is that John Paul II and Francis both have said that there is salvation outside the faith
Mason Sanchez
>by grace through faith, not of works This is exactly what Church has taught. Whomever has works, but not faith, will not be saved, for he lacks grace. But that we have grace, doesn't mean we shouldn't worship God in ceremonies, doesn't mean that sacraments are unnecessary and doesn't mean that by sinning we do not lose that grace. Adam had grace of God in the Garden of Eden, but he lost it by committing original sin. Thus humanity suffered without grace, condemned to death and Hell, until Jesus, by spilling His Blood on the cross, washed away this sin and any other the person might fall into. This is exactly why baptism is saving sacrament, for it includes you in the Church and washes away all your sins, original and actual. The only "works" required for salvation is sacrament of baptism to redeem from sins before inclusion in the Body of Christ, and sacrament of penance to redeem from sins committed after. Missing Eucharist, when one is valid in your vicinity is a mortal sin, but every sin can be redeemed at the penance, as long as there is desire of penitent to not commit the sin again. And if you hold that the penance is completely redundant, no removal of sins is necessary, for grace is invincible, then what is the point of: Matthew 7,21-23; 22,11-14; 25,34-46, Mark 4,18-29, John 20,23, Romans 5,1; 6,1-2; 6,15-18; 8,12-13, James 1,23; 2,26?
Nolan Myers
>Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Anyone who teaches otherwise (even if the person in question is the man who is supposed to be the pope) is a heretic.
Camden Lewis
>Catholic >traditional Heretics always think their cult is the only right way.
Logan Gray
>listening to what pedophiles and pedophile enablers have to say >worshiping a kike carpenter hobo necromancer >listening to the marxist pope who encourages coexistion with protestants heretics and orthoniggers
Nice aesthetics tho...
Eli Lopez
>Heretics >Catholic >Literally the first Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.
Do Protestants even read the Bible or is everything just based on emotions for you guys?
Nathaniel Powell
>Biblical There is your problem. While the original texts of the Bible are infallible, all transcriptions and especially translations may err. If word of God is derived solely from the Bible, then some of it has passed away (lost its original meaning in translation, for example), and Jesus was not right when he said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." That is, of course, impossible. But if the word of God is kept in Church's teaching also, then nothing has passed away and Jesus was right.
Oliver Martinez
>listening to the marxist pope who encourages coexistion with protestants heretics and orthoniggers But those guys are sedevacantists.
Bentley White
The teaching is and has always been that virtuous people who seek the truth and who don't have the opportunity to learn about revelation may have a chance to make it to heaven, but if they do it is only by the mercy of God and not due to their practice of their other religion.
Otherwise you're damning everyone who lived before Christ and everyone who did not have the opportunity to convert (because of the speed of its spread) to hell. If people who lived before Christ are banned to hell, they were essentially predestined to hell, and this goes against the Church's teaching on free will. So to say that there is strictly no way someone like Aristotle could make it to heaven is against Church teaching.
Justin Green
Read again and get back to me.
Nicholas Young
Guys I feel called to the Catholic Church, but the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix is blasphemy. Also Catholics are so wishy washy on the end times and are largely ignorant or totally disbelieve the prophecies. These really try my conscience. When I hear Fulton Sheen I feel at home, but now Catholics mock you for discussing the prophesies.
Also can you be a Catholic and not believe Mary is co-redemptrix?
Charles Martin
Anybody help me with this?
Eli Ortiz
Nobody knows if Jesus founded it. My faith is based on feeling that the are true. Another one is that Jesus despises the church. I do not claim things I cannot prove.
Landon Wilson
God bless
Lincoln Butler
Mary is not co-redemptrix, this isn't what the Church teaches, not dogmatically anyway.
As for the end times, every prediction about their date that was ever made has been wrong. It's better to focus on more useful things
Carter Moore
Am I shadow banned? Can you guys see this post.
Nolan Kelly
>Also can you be a Catholic and not believe Mary is co-redemptrix? The short answer is yes. But I think your objection comes primarily from misunderstanding of what this title means and what it implies.
Dominic Foster
...
Nathaniel Fisher
But that we do not have a valid pope holding office, doesn't mean that office itself is invalid. >the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix is blasphemy Yes indeed it is. Mary intercedes on behalf of those who ask, but to elevate her to co-redemptrix is blasphemous and would be discouraged by Mary herself, she was a humble woman. She is no more of a co-redemptrix than other believers are, when praying for salvation of others. And yes, you can be Catholic and not believe in heresy of co-redemptrix, in fact I think such elevation is contrary to the teaching of Church. You can even abstain from asking for saints intercession, if you fear that you might worship them, instead of simply venerating them. The only thing that would cause you to deviate from Catholicism in that regard, would be to dismiss intercession of saints entirely.
Parker Wright
No one man should claim to be the voice of God Therefor the Catholic church is false. I respect the traditions, and the piety but they are misplaced within a corrupt institution.
Evan Sanchez
...
Wyatt Hill
>Mary is not co-redemptrix, this isn't what the Church teaches, not dogmatically anyway. It's true it's not a dogmatic teaching, but that's not the issue. The issue is you're most likely misunderstanding what this title means. >As for the end times, every prediction about their date that was ever made has been wrong. Off course it was, for "you do not know the day or the hour".
Alexander Long
...
Daniel Ross
...
Levi Hernandez
...
Brody Campbell
I've been reading up on Christianity, specifically Catholicism recently I've been reading the bible in my own time, but how do I find a good church? can I just start attending mass to see if it's a good fit? my dad's side is Catholic, but my dad had a falling out with the church years ago. I was baptized, but I think it was done at a Protestant church (parents married in one, mom was non-denominational) also, recommended reading, studying, etc before speaking to a priest about converting?
Reading the Bible alone isn't the best approach. Try reading some of Ed Feser's stuff so you know how to interpret it
Ryder Bennett
I have heard the explanation and it makes sense, but also it seems like an unnecessary stumbling block that can totally be misinterpreted.
The very words themselves seem to steer too close to danger. Not trying to argue for the hell of it. Really bugs me. Fulton Sheen is awesome. Love Kolbe, love John of the Cross, love lots of the church fathers. They led me to see the bishop of Rome is preeminent to a great extent, still struggle with the amount of reverence but I can get to understand it I think.
But Mary being co-redemptrix bothers me. That and this weird aversion for certain things like eschatology or the idea of allegorizing the scriptures to nothing. Some Catholics are very sharp on eschatology and deep in the scriptures, but many I come across don't discuss it like Protestants.
Blake Peterson
...
Luke Hill
>I was baptized, but I think it was done at a Protestant church Then you weren't baptized. If the baptism wasn't done in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church or Old-Catholic Church, then it's null.
Josiah Mitchell
I know that I won't get the whole story (so to speak) by reading by myself, but I want to finish the New Testament and have some idea of what I'm getting into before speaking to a priest I will look into Ed Feser though google pushes his Five Proofs of the Existence of God any good? or any other recommendations?
Easton Morgan
>Otherwise you're damning everyone who lived before Christ
>This supernatural endowment is only restored and received in Christ through the grace of New Testament justification (regeneration). That’s why those justified in the OT (with the inferior justification available then) could not get to Heaven until after Christ came.
>Hebrews 11:39-40- “And all these [Old Testament righteous men], though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”
>You will find more facts about how Old Testament justification was inferior to New Testament justification in this video. We might also post another video or article that provides many additional facts on this issue. But these materials are directly relevant to the issue:
Thanks man I am starting to warm up to the idea that brothers and sisters in Christ can intercede for us in heaven, and we can pray for those dead and waiting for the resurrection. Have even discovered in the Epistles some verses that seem to imply purgatory, where Paul says (paraphrasing) we are saved, but as thru fire. I am still unsure of some of it. Need to pray more about this.
Adrian Davis
This isn't true at all, Catholic dogma has stated for hundreds of years that baptism can be performed by anyone, even a pagan. Protestant baptism is valid.
Gavin Reed
>aversion for certain things like eschatology Nah, it's the opposite: it's just some crazy protestants being fucking obsessed by it. That's how you get fucking retards pronouncing the end of the world every decade like you had in XIX century America. >the idea of allegorizing the scriptures to nothing Scriptures are obviously full of allegories. Saying otherwise is a heresy. Four types of interpretation are an essential way of understanding the Bible right from the earliest times of the Church.
Isaiah Anderson
Oh this is very true. I come from the Darby dispensationalists. Plymouth brethren type I guess. There are many who have had the gall to name a specific time but my father was wise in he Lord and strictly taught against this in any way.
Also was taught that many prophesies will only be clear very very near when they are to be fulfilled, and are a warning to the saints and to glorify God Almighty.
Still there is this fear of watching and studying of the scriptures on the end times. I understand that people can get away we in wrong directions, but the prophesies of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Epistles, and Revelations have a wealth of info that believers like Sheen or Bellarmine or the church fathers like Irenaeus taught, and is rarely discussed.
So I guess here are lots of Catholics who taught on this, it probably has to do with different elements in the Church not wanting to seem too alarmist or something.
Oliver Fisher
fair enough. I knew that I would have to be baptized again, but I was curious about how this was viewed another question since I might actually get answers in this thread: Any tips for celibacy? I've been kind of promiscuous in the past, but have been trying to change my ways since my last girlfriend It's been almost a year, but I still get really strong urges i don't want to claim "born again virgin" or anything stupid like that, but I'm done with thots and want to try and be better
Grayson Peterson
Absolutely not. ABSOLUTE HERESY!
Thomas Gutierrez
a simple google search shows you are correct thank you, user
Ian Jenkins
>CATHOLIC >CRISTHIAN pick one
Carter Ortiz
>Have even discovered in the Epistles some verses that seem to imply purgatory,
read the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants eliminated
No, it doesn't. For the baptism to be valid, there have to be met several criteria. To be on the safe side it's absolutely recommended to be baptized sub conditione in the Church.
Cooper Evans
So should the people of Israel be called co-redemptors with Christ? They too, had the unique role to fulfill in plan of salvation. Christ came out of Israel, so the special bound is there. Are 12 Apostles co-redemptors with Christ? It was too a unique role, only given to few and not repeated since, they too knew Christ personally, and they lead many people to the faith and salvation. But that someone is used in divine plan of salvation in a unique way, it shouldn't give them this title. Genesis 3 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Notice how it says "he" not "he and the woman". >Mary is entirely with the Redemptor No. She is in Heaven, she views His image, but she is not in full union with Him (as Jesus Christ is in full union with the Father). She is His Mother, yes. But are you in full union with your mother? His judgments and mercy are only evident to her, when He wants her to see them. And if that wasn't the case and His every intention was known to her, then she wouldn't have lost Him in the Temple. >She suffered with Jesus No. Even if she was to suffer one tenth of what Jesus suffered, she simply wouldn't be able to endure it. She was suffering, when she wept under cross yes and have seen His death, but it was her suffering, not His. She suffered because of Him (His death to be specific), not "with" Him. Her suffering had a different meaning, the divine plan was not evident to her at the time, so she suffered not for the salvation of mankind (as He did), rather out of simple human emotion.
Jaxon Young
In case anyone else is wondering, the only heretic is the Polack. >Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.”
Zachary Powell
If God knows I'm sorry why do I have to go to a man and tell him all the bad stuff I did before God forgives me?
Landon Long
>Any tips for celibacy? I don't practice myself. We're all sinners after all. Honestly the only thing I see for myself is that I'm hopefully going to marry soon, so that'll stop being a problem.
Angel Allen
Not all Protestants are crazy on eschatology. Read Irenaeus on this. Some Protestants sound almost identical to Bellarmine. In fact I think the prophesies of Daniel and the seventieth week or the seven year tribulation is an example. Many Catholics would not even know what you are talking about.
Oh no there is tonnes of allegorizing and many, many types and their accompanying antetypes which are so awesome to read. What I mean is the allegorizing of scriptures where it is pretty plain it is not allegory. I came from a very literalist interpretation of scriptures.
I guess I am just not used to how huge the Catholic Church is. There are lots of progressive types in it and many in the middle.
I also need to get back into the catechism, because many theological ideas I grew up with are either explained differently or are at odds with the Catholic Church.sorry for going off on tangents but I rarely get to discuss this stuff. I saw a debate with a Catholic and Protestant on Justification. In this instance you can see that they can be reconciled.
Julian Bennett
You dont HAVE to. Just keeps you honest.
Dylan Lopez
Yes, you fucktard. It's called EXTREMA NECESSITAS for a reason. It was used in situations where a child was dying without baptism so it could baptized. If you baptize in normal situation by the heretics then you're by definition irregularis ex delicto.
Asher Stewart
I agree that the past 4 popes were niggers but Catholics have so many unbiblical practices that I can't get behind them. A good half or so of Catholicism has absolutely no base in the bible whatsoever, it's blatant heresy.
>inb4 protestant I'm not Protestant nor am I of any denomination, I'm Christian and that's it. The only true church doctrine is that which was followed by the early Christians in the decades after Christ's death. The establishment of the formal church was the beginning of the tainting and poisoning of Christianity.
Colton Perry
The act of contrition is what absolves your sin, not the confession. How would you know what acts your god required if you didn't pay a man to tell you? And remember to pay the one your parents did or you're going to be punished for all time.
Samuel Jones
It is you who are mistaken. To cite council of Florence: In Polish >W wypadku konieczności ochrzcić może nie tylko kapłan czy diakon, ale także świecki mężczyzna lub kobieta, a nawet poganin i heretyk, byleby zachował formę Kościoła i miał intencję czynić to, co czyni Kościół. >Sesja 8 (22 listopada 1439) >Bulla unii z Ormianami (Exultate Deo) soborowa.strefa.pl/phone/florencja.html In English >All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. >But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. >Session 8—22 November 1439 >[Bull of union with the Armenians] ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3
So, as long as it is through water [matter], those words are spoken: "May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit;" or "This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit." [form], and the person baptizing wants to include that way a person into the Church of Christ [intent], it's perfectly valid, even if administered by a heretic.
Nathan Hall
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is and interesting read (between the Catholics and the Lutherans, and Methodists later signed up to it too). The Catholic church does believe that salvation is through faith and is a gift from God alone, the issue is whether a person can lose their salvation. Works and penitence can keep your faith strong.
information I'm getting from google is suggesting the Australian is correct, but I'm sure the priest will straighten things out for me other questions if you all would be so kind: going to my first mass soon. how do I attend respectfully as a non-catholic? do you call a priest "father" if you aren't a member? (some titles are relationship specific and I just want to be respectful)
Charles Ross
The Church was established by Christ Himself. You ARE a protestant. It's obvious. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not recognizing its Traditional Teachings is heresy. You don't follow the Bible. You could literally interpret it to mean anything if you don't follow the Tradition.
Jaxon Bailey
If one is born in a country were majority of population is heretical or infidel, I think that necessity is there for baptism to be administered even by a heretic, to include one into the Church of Christ.
Leo Wright
Wiem to, debilu. Problem polega na tym, że wiele "kosciolow" protestanckich ma problem z dochowaniem materii i formy, a czasem nawet intencji. Dla przykładu największym problemem ostatnio jest udzielanie chrztu przez pokropienie, czasem wielu dzieci naraz, które jest teologicznie niedopuszczalne. Dlatego najlepsze co można polecać ludziom tak "ochrzczonym", to żeby dla pewnosci ochrzcili się w Kosciele Katolickim sub conditione.
Luke Howard
Teenage larpers have ruined this board. Op you are a demented fag. Get some fresh air.
Adrian Morgan
God Bless you OP
Oliver Harris
He's not correct. I mean he might technically be, the problem is theory is not practice. If the matter, form or intent was fucked up even a little bit and it often is in heretical circles, then the baptism is not valid. The best you can do is to baptize yourself sub conditione in the Church. Even if your priest tells you otherwise, just ask for it repeatedly. Better safe than sorry. >going to my first mass soon. how do I attend respectfully as a non-catholic Just do what other people do. >do you call a priest "father" if you aren't a member? Probably yes. I don't know the English nomenclature.
Liam Myers
What a bunch of nonsense. There's a lot of Catholics in the USA. If you want to get proper baptism there, you absolutely can.
Bentley Fisher
>several criteria Only three, as with all sacraments. Matter of the sacrament, form and person administering a sacrament. Since a person could be anyone with the right intent, all three are uphold, even in prostestant churches (with imo notable exception of ironically enough Baptists, for they do not understand baptism - they view it as not the thing that includes you in the Church and saves, but rather public profession of faith - so the original intent, is not there). And for that reason, yes, if there is any doubt about intent sub conditione should performed.
Juan Gonzalez
For starters if you're a sedevecantist there aren't any valid priests around anyway so it IS extrema necessitas.
Secondly, none of that makes the rite invalid. There's no objective way to tell whether or not the situation necessitates a less suitable baptizer. Yes, ideally a Catholic priest should do it, but it's still ultimately valid if anyone else does it.
I can tell you most priests will tell you it was valid (unless it was a Mormon or JW baptism). As a non-Catholic, feel free to participate in whatever you feel comfortable doing (singing, standing, kneeling, etc). Just remember when everyone gets up to receive communion just remain seated for now. (DO NOT eat the bread, this is considered a grave sin). You can call the priest father, although whether they prefer father *firstname* or father *lastname* depends on the priest.
Aaron Fisher
My father was an ordained minister. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Should I be baptized again?
Also, what do I need to do to be able to take Communion?
Isaiah Reed
Czytaj to:
Charles Morris
What if a child baptized this way [with valid matter, form, and intent, but by heretical priest], because of heretical parents, were to die before said child could receive conditional baptism in Catholic Church?
Anthony Rogers
>TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC FAITH Where would you go for this? The catholic church has been compromised.
Adrian Roberts
thank you, user I was going to ask to be re-baptized anyways because I wanted to remember the experience (and I suppose getting it done twice is better than none at all)
Josiah Morales
>I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Should I be baptized again That only tells you that the form was right. Intent probably too, you have to ask your dad. The last thing is what actually happened with the water. Was the water properly on your head? Namely wasn't it done by "sprinkling"? If not, then you are properly baptized.
This refutes the works salvation nonsense derived from the misunderstanding if James 2.
Thomas Russell
Baptism is obviously valid then.
Evan Allen
...
Jose White
Was dunked, was at a river. My Father is dead now so I cannot ask him these questions. Don't understand what you mean by intent.
What is required of me to receive Communion?
Nolan Evans
Sure, np, man. >and I suppose getting it done twice is better than none at all That won't even happen. The whole point of baptism sub conditione is that it won't happen twice, you're safe in that regard. After all we believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins".
