/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Catholic General got deleted, so I will post this here and hope he find it:

>>>647985

>if you act like sedememer you will be treated as one

I don't see why a different treatment. I claim only to be catholic, and you claim that I'm in error. Why don't just refute all the points, like in all discussions?

>you mean that post-VII Church is this counter-church. And then you are wrong

I meant that, even if this interpretation is wrong, Fulton Sheen still said that a counter-Churc will be made.

>loss of magisterium and sacraments for half a century mean that Michael lost the battle

It's obviously not a complete loss of Magisterium. It's to be restored to a greater glory afterwards, meaning Michael wins. If 1000 years for God are like 1 day, what is half a century?

"From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days."

The daily sacrifice in the OT was a symbol of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, wich is repeated every Holy Mass.

>do not lie

We were talking about the St Michael Prayer, not the Paul IV bull.

"We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation", talking about the possibility of a heretic claiming the Papacy.

Leo XIII later composed a prayer for the case were this abomination have already been set up, asking for the help of St Michael in this time of tribulation.

>saying that there will be no Magisterium is denying of teaching of the Church

Not necessary no Magisterium, but there is possibility of a really scarce one.

And since this tribulation is unequaled, we don't have how to know what to expect:

For at that time there will be great tribulation, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again.

'If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened.…''

(Mt 24)

"I tell you, He will promptly carry out justice on their behalf. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Lk 18)

(cont)

>>648076

(cont.)

>oh so you don't accept Pope St. Gregory VII as saint ethier

I am not saying that this is necessarily the case, but saints can err too, during their lifetime. Either way, "to confess one God in different ways" is not the same as "adoring the same God".

12 Q. Who are infidels?

A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

"Because '''all the gods of the gentiles are idols. The LORD made the heavens."

If you agree that muslims and catholics worship the same God, then there would be no problem for you to say "I worship the one that muslims call Allah". Would you do it?

Also, can you please provide the source on this letter? I wish to read it on the full. Original language would be nice too. I see it quoted all over the place, but I can't find the source.

I can't even find any registry on a "King Azir" in the 11th century.

>but this little word "ut" means nothing

“…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.”

(Pope Clement XIII)

If the word meant nothing, why was it added to the Rite of Ordination?

>two things are essential: laying of hands as matter and form that signifies the power of the Order being conferred with the Grace of the Holy Ghost

Why are you simply ignoring this part?:

"But the form (of Ordination) consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity"

>so since Church uses and accepts new rite as signifing univocally power and grace it's valid form

The problem in your logic is that, in the case of the instauration of a Counter-church posing as the true Church, the counter-church, made by Satan, would accept what is of Satan.

Pope Pius was talking about the True Church, that accepts that especific form that he said.

>every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established

It's infallible truth that those exact words are required for it to be valid, and the Church would never abrogate a word required for the Rite to be valid.

All he is saying here is that the traditio instrumentorum that is not necessary for the Rite to be valid. He said "the only form is the words which determine the application of this matter", as you quoted.

>and all saints understand it that public worship will once again be secret. And that it will be for only 3,5 years

You're saying that by "daily sacrifice" Daniel meant just "public worship"?

The daily sacrifice in the OT was a symbol of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, wich is repeated every Holy Mass. Lambs where burnt between evenings.

/christian/ more like /papist/

>>648076

>Catholic General got deleted

uhh impossible, the catholic mod mafia rules this place, they would never do such thing

>>648077

>>648076

I liked that thread, there was just a lot of nice apologetics in it. Also, could please try not to space your posts so that it becomes an eyesore to look at? You do not need to space every sentence like that.

>>648036

>I don't see why a different treatment. I'm claim to be catholic, and you think I'm in error. Why not just refute all the points and apoint my errors, like in all discussions?

The same reason why St. Nicholas slapped Arius who to claimed to be Catholic. Heresy and heresy-ish statement are to be tolerated only to a slight degree.

>I meant that, even if this interpretation is wrong, Fulton Sheen still said that a counter-Churc will be made.

But you bring it out in almost direct verbatim way that sedememers do i.e. with almost direct suggestion that it was VII that made counter-church.

>I don't see why, if they are to be restored afterwards, meaning Michael wins. If 1000 years for God are like 1 day, what is half a century?

You do know what "and gates of hell shall not prevail" mean? Magisterium is not something that can just vanquish, not before the very end of end times.

Also, do you forget how ordination works? Ordination come from apostolic succesion and only from apostolic succesion. Only bishop can make a bishop.

>The daily sacrifice in the OT was a symbol of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, wich is repeated every Holy Mass.

And all saints have said that it means that PUBLIC masses will be forbidden and that it will be for three and a half literal years.

>We were talking about the St Michael Prayer, not the Paul IV bull.

And I quoted from what you have titled as this prayer

>"We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation", talking about the possibility of a heretic claiming the Papacy.

And he called invincible prince so that it won't happen.

>Leo XIII later composed a prayer for the case were this abomination have already been set up, asking for the help of St Michael in this time of tribulation.

Quotes or didn't happen.

>Not necessary no Magisterium, but there is possibility of a really scarce one. And since this tribulation is unequaled, we don't have how to know what to expect:

Problem is that if those retarded sedememe teories are right it means exaclly that - no magisterium. For all bishops accepted new ordination as valid, even those who latter objected new mass.

>"to confess one God in different ways" is not the same as "adoring the same God".

Adore means act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature's dependence upon Him with outward sign meaning the prayer of praise. It also mean "pray to smb". And since confession of faith is such act or relgion Pope says what other Pope after him - we adore one God.

Also, it saying that you cutted out that Gregory also said that "we believe in one God" and "praise and worship Him".

>Can you please provide the source on this letter? I wish to read it on the full. Original language would be nice too.

St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A

I couldn't find the full later (or rather I could find it but I am not spending money to buy a book for you). But there are large fragments of it over the web (in latin too)

>From Cathecism:

or though admitting one true God

>If the word meant nothing, why was it added to the Rite of Ordination?

Same reason why some prayers end by 'Per eumdem Christum…" and not "Per Christum…" - tradition and sound. "Ut" is not esential part of the text.

>Why are you simply ignoring this part?:

I do not. I just explains to you "the form is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects". Form used by Pius XII "which was accepted and used by the Church in that sense" do not mean that Coptic Catholic form, or Greek Catholic form, or Apostolic form second century that was base for new rite are invalid.

>The problem in your logic is that, in the case of the instauration of a Counter-church posing as the true Church, the counter-church, made by Satan, would accept what is of Satan.

<New Rite cannot be right because it was made by counter-church and it is counter-church because they made new rite.

Its circular logic, nay, it's pure idiocy on "trail of blood" level.

>It's infallible truth that those exact words are required for it to be valid, and the Church would never abrogate a word required for the Rite to be valid.

It's infallible truth that "the form is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects" and "which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense".

>You're saying that by "daily sacrifice" Daniel meant just "public worship"?

I just say what saints always said such as St. Robert Bellarmine

And since I said what has to be said, and your reddit spacing really pissing me off I will end here. Pax or something.

>>648087

Check the catalog yourself. It's gone.

>>648077

>The daily sacrifice in the OT was a symbol of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, wich is repeated every Holy Mass. Lambs where burnt between evenings.

Maybe, but have you considered that daniel 8:11-13

>Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

>And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

>Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

The "daily sacrifice" "was taken away" could actualy be in reference to luke 9:23-24

>And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

>For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

and 1 corinthians 15:31

>I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

And the taking away of this sacrifice would be the fullfillment of revelation 6:11

>And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The "host" would be 1 kings 1:19

>And he hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host: but Solomon thy servant hath he not called.

Which is to say the prince of the host would be Jesus, as we as Christians would be the host itself. The "sanctuary" would be in reference to john 2:19-21

>Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

>Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

>But he spake of the temple of his body.

So the "sanctuary" would be in reference to the temple of Jesus' body for we are many members but one body and the host would be us since Jesus is the prince of the host. Maybe the reason in matthew 24:15

>When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

The "whoso readeth, let him understand:)" was there could be because all the "fellowservants and their brethern" "that should be killed as they were, should be fullfilled" would have already happened in that context. And the next verse as a warning matthew 24:16

>Then let them which be in Jud��a flee into the mountains:

Could be in reference to being in Christ, as Christ is the revelation 5:5

>And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

So Christians ought to flee to Jesus. That's why matthew 24:17 goes on saying

>Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

How do you come off a housetop without going down into it? By jumping off, and possibly dieing. Hence revelation 6:11. Also hence he that seeks to save his life shall lose it.

>>648086

This board needs to be renamed to /catholic/ in all seriousness.

>>648089

<Its circular logic, nay, it's pure idiocy on "trail of blood" level.

>implying circular logic is wrong when speaking about the Bible which requires the circular logic of faith to believe God exists and tells the truth in the first place which you can not prove

Not an arguement, I am not the same poster you were replying too btw.

>>648087

Mods are actually prots. They always have been.

>>648100

So it would be more appropriate to rename to /catholic/ as /papist/ implies ignorance of the above. Atleast with /catholic/ you can say they only abide by their theology which is against collosians 2:8, use doctrine instead and none else. TBH don't bash other denominations ye hypocrites, especially if you apart of one as 1 corinthians 3:4-7 applies

>For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

>Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

>I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

>So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

<I am of luther

<I am of calvin

<I am of morioni

<I am of pope

1 corinthians 1:12-13

>Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

If you quote matthew 23:8-11 too much

>But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

>Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

>But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

they get angry because of john 8:43-47

>Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

>Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

>And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

>Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

>He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

>>648076

>Catholic General got deleted

Why? It was a nice containment thread for catholics.

>>648185

>we

mark 5:9

>And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

>>648185

>not even when you come shit up our own fellowship threads

Why is it the mods, who are self-proclaimed catholics, deleted it then?

Luke 8:30

>And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

>>648190

>we is satanic now

This is your mind on sola scriptura.

>>648192

Is Christ divided? was the pope crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of the pope? Why yet say ye as a "we" are of catholics, and not of Christ?

>>648195

Yeah, okay. Not taking the bait this time.

>>648195

Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous?

If you want to go down that way, there'd no need to differentiate denominations if you heretics hadn't turned your back to the true Christianity just to spread your falsehood.

>>648201

>if you heretics hadn't turned your back to the true Christianity just to spread your falsehood.

The Catholics were the first to schism from the one true Church.

>>648212

>None of the mods deleted it

Proofs now

>>648201

Calling the word of God falsehood is not going to get you places. You cannot contain Scripture, nor can you change it to satisfy you.

>>648101

>implying circular logic is wrong when speaking about the Bible which requires the circular logic of faith to believe God exists and tells the truth in the first place which you can not prove

>implying circular logic is wrong when speaking about the Bible which requires the circular logic of faith to believe God exists and tells the truth in the first place which you can not prove

Dude. No. That God exist is matter of natural reason and thus non-circular logic. That God spoke in form of Bible that is by revelation is to be taken by faith but it was faith prooven true by miracles and in no way circualr since by alredy have God as axiom.

Not to mention that what sedememers here do is actual circular logic.

Hey /christian/ i want to convert back to christianity.

I have been a psudo atheist/nondeist for a while now, infact i still believe the world is largely subjected to the laws of evolution but i'm starting to believe there is a Higher power that created all this.

I was baptised by my family when i was at the age of 6 but i have never read the bible and i don't know any prayers or verses since i was never taught any of them or given a bible to read them, which does not really help.

I am wondering where i should start, just start reading the bible and going to church as often as i get the chance? If so, which bible? I'm fairly sure Jehova's witness bible is a trap/joke but i'm not sure if i should start with old or new testament, evangelic or baptist or even orthodox. Heck i don't even remember what the church i was baptized in practices.

I'd also like to learn to learn latin. I know english, spanish (castellian) and some portuguese, but i never got ahold of info or guides for this dying language. I want to learn it more out of a hobby, i'm planning on learning german and french as well but i'd like a good hold on the originating language itself. I know the vatican still has latin speakers so i supposed i would ask that in here as well.

>>648089

>with almost direct suggestion that it was VII that made counter-church

The suggestion of this possibility, with also the possibility of it coming later. The only point that matters is that, sometime, a counter-Church will be made. Unless, obviously, if you think that Fulton Sheen is wrong in this point. This doesnt matter much in the discussion.

>you do know what "and gates of hell shall not prevail" mean?

That, in the End, the Church will be victorious. I stressed that the end-times tribulation is unequaled, so we have to expect to see things we never expected to see.

>and I quoted from what you have titled as this prayer

I said that the word lest doesnt appear in the St. Michael prayer, and you acused me of lying, proceeding then to quote the word "lest" from the bull. You must have got confused…

>and he called invincible prince so that it won't happen

It's the opposite. The prayer is calling the invincible prince in the case that it has already happened. "[…]These most crafty enemies have filled[…]"

>quotes or didn't happen

Again, I fail to see how you can't infer that from the words of the prayer itself:

"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions" Those things are in the past, meaning that the prayer is made for a time where those things already happened.

>it means exaclly that - no magisterium. For all bishops accepted new ordination as valid

Or maybe low key Magisterium. Maybe some among them changes their minds later and starts ordaining with the valid rite. I think it's quite important to stress that the end-times tribulation is unequaled. This existence of this problem however doesnt disprove the fact that the "new rite" is invalid.

>Gregory also said that "we believe in one God" and "praise and worship Him"

"[…]we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world[…]''

This isn't the equivalent of "we worship the same God". If a person worships Satan as god, confessing thus "one God", because he thinks Satan is God, and worshipped Satan daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world, the same can be said about them, without still saying that we adore the same God.

>or though admitting one true God

Funny thing is that I was going to highlight those exact words, but didnt think it was necessary. He says that, though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, and thats why they are infidels.

And it's written that "All the gods of the Gentiles are worthless idols".

>Same reason why some prayers end by 'Per eumdem Christum…" and not "Per Christum…" - tradition and sound. "Ut" is not esential part of the text

> "the following are essential and so required for validity"

>"Ut" is not essential.

If that was the case, Pius XII would have said "the following (words) are essential and so required, with exception of "ut". Nonsense. "Ut" is included in the group of words that Pius XII declared to be necessary for validity, and thus is necessary.

…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.(Pope Clement XIII)

>Its circular logic, nay, it's pure idiocy

It's quite linear.

>New Rite cannot be right because it was made by counter-church

That is not the claim. The "new rite" is invalid because it misses a word required for it to be valid.

>I just say what saints always said such as St. Robert Bellarmine

It is realy the opinion of ALL the saints?

>and since I said what has to be said, and your reddit spacing really pissing me off I will end here. Pax or something.

"If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles".

All I want is to know the Truth, and others to know it too. If I'm wrong, please teach me.

>>648229

>Dude. No. That God exist is matter of natural reason

What does this even mean? How did you come to the conclusion that He is, based off of philosophy? Why did you use philosophy/reason instead of what God says in the Bible, as anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23. Also also why are you even using reason/philosophy to begin with against colossians 2:8?

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

<philosophy isn't a synonym of natural reason

Yes it is https://archive.fo/P6CJC https://archive.fo/pGkYL

>>648209

What does that have to do with anything?

>>648199

>quoting the Bible

>bait

Really makes you think.

>>648247

>I am wondering where i should start, just start reading the bible and going to church as often as i get the chance? If so, which bible?

Read the KJV Bible as it is the only version I am aware of that wouldn't make God a liar titus 1:2 if it were true, which it is true. Don't go to a modern denomination, just read the Bible and believe it/do it. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask, you might not like the answer though.

>I'd also like to learn to learn latin.

duolingo.com might have it. You could learn some or most of it for free.

>>648257

>If I'm wrong, please teach me.

job 40:7

>Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

<so we have to expect to see things we never expected to see.

matthew 24:24-28

>For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

>Behold, I have told you before.

>Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

>For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

>For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

<carcase

hebrews 3:17

>But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

james 2:26

>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

>>648076

<I claim only to be catholic

See >>648195 and I forgot to quote luke 17:29-37

>But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

>Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

>In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

>Remember Lot's wife.

>Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

>I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

>Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

>Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

>And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

<Lot's wife

genesis 19:17-26

> And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,

neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

>And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:

>Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

>Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

>And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

>Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

>The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

>Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

>And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

>But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Don't look back.

>>648276

>quoting the Bible

Pretty sure that wasn't the bible, m9.

>>648069

Begone ChristCom tranny.

>>648276

KJV Bible? Hopefully i'll be able to find a copy on my locale or ship one in.

>duolingo

Forgot this thing existed. Been relying on torrenting audiovisual lessons and immersing myself into communities that speak that language, but i never found any info for latin because there are so few that speak it now.

Thank you for replying and may God bless you.

>>648331

Is Christ divided? was karl marx crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of communism? Why yet say "become christcom", and not of Christ? Simply do what God says in the Bible, if that's what men call communism so be it. If that's what men call national socialism then also so be it. But what matters is Jesus and what God says.

>>648276

>What does this even mean? How did you come to the conclusion that He is, based off of philosophy?

Yes. Reason and authority of Church. Just like Justin Martyr and Augustine.

> Why did you use philosophy/reason instead of what God says in the Bible

Because faith presupposes reason just like grace presupposes nature and every perfect presupposes something to perfect.

> as anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23.

Context m8. Read whole passage from verses 13. And then read this:

Ver. 23. He that discerneth, or who judgeth that he ought to abstain from such meats, if he eat, is self-condemned, because he acts not according to his faith. For whatever a man doth, and is not according to what he believeth he may do, or whatever is against a man's conscience, is sinful in him. It is a mistake of the sense of this place, to pretend that every moral action done by an infidel, must needs be a sin, as when he gives an alms to relieve the necessities of the poor.

Discerneth. That is, distinguisheth between meats, and eateth against his conscience, what he deems unclean.

Of faith. By faith is here understood judgment and conscience: to act against which is always a sin.

>Also also why are you even using reason/philosophy to begin with

Because I am Image of God and Image of God is in me by fact that I have in my soul Mind, Intellect (that is Reason) and Will just as there are Father, his Logos (that is Reason) and their Spirit of Love.

>against colossians 2:8?

Ver. 8. Lest any man impose upon you. In the Greek, make a prey of you, as thieves that steal things.

There were two sorts of false teachers among them; they who mixed vain errors from heathen philosophy with the principles of the Christian religion, and they who had been Jews, and were for making them retain those rites and customs which the Jews had among them, and were only from their private human traditions.

This alludes to the traditions and observances which the Pharisees had added to the law of Moses, and which Christ had blamed; but which these false apostles wished to introduce amongst the Colossians. The ceremonial laws were the elementary instructions given by God to the world, but we are to attach ourselves to the doctrines of Jesus Christ, from whom alone we expect light and justice, and sanctity.

According to the rudiments of the world: by which some expound vain fallacies and false maxims of the first kind of teachers; others the Jewish ceremonies, which are called weak and poor elements, or rudiments. Gal. iv. 9. This is neither to condemn in general the use of philosophy, which S. Aug. commends, and made use of, nor all traditions delivered by the apostles. See 1 Cor. xi. and 2. Thess. ii. 14.

>Yes it is

That's why we who are Image of God use it.

Ecclesiastes 7:26 I have surveyed all things with my mind, to know, and consider, and seek out wisdom and reason: and to know the wickedness of the fool, and the error of the imprudent:

Romans 12:1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

>>648281

>I will demand of thee

In a discussion, one demands of the other the refutation of their own position, since both claim to proclaim the truth.. I claim that the "new rite" is invalid, since the words necessary for it to be valid aren't complete. Were Pius XII wrong when he said that "the following [words] are essential and so required for validity"? What follows this sentence is:

>grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

If you say that "ut" is meaningless and not essential for validity, while being included in the group of words that Pius XII said to be essential, then you are saying that Pius XII are wrong. If you say Pius XII were wrong while talking Ex Cathedra, then you are wrong. Therefore, the "new rite" is not valid.

Catholic enciclopedia, on Sacraments:

"''[…]The matter and form make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition[…]" (Highlight added)

"[…]diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death. (Pope Clement XIII)

>>648505

>>648089

>>648101

"It is a memorial of all his love, and, as it were, a compendium of all his benefits. Hence, the devil has always endeavored to deprive die world of the Mass by means of the heretics, constituting them the precursors of antichrist, whose first efforts will be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar; and, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts will, according to the prophet Daniel, be successful. "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins" (Dan. viii. 12)" [St. Alphonsus Liguori]

>>648505

>In a discussion, one demands of the other the refutation of their own position

First all I was doing for that gird up thine loins verse was quoting the Bible to make the point sometimes we get things wrong as a human. Second why are you unironically argueing against the Bible? Third I don't know what this "new rite" or the "old rite" is as I am not catholic, I am simply a Christian. Is this biblical? Why does it have to do with Christ?

>>648395

<Yes. Reason and authority of Church. Just like Justin Martyr and Augustine.

You still haven't explained to me how you came to your conclusion based off the Bible. I don't care about the words of men, but rather the word of God.

<Ver. 8. Lest any man impose upon you. In the Greek,

What version are you quoting? If you aren't quoting a version that is a whole as to discern its fruit, then what manuscript and family are you using. Also what are you doing to come to this conclusion that those words mean what they mean in greek? As no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20 and you would be claiming to be moved by the Holy Ghost to produce scripture as to also be claiming that you are speaking by the spirit of prophecy/testimony of Jesus Christ in revelation 19:10.

<This is neither to condemn in general the use of philosophy,

Yes it is, it says

>beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit

That's clearly a warning against philosophy, any type that is, with no exception made. Rather you ought to obey God and not what men think.

<Because I am Image of God

No you aren't, Adam in the day they were created was in the image of God see genesis 5:1-2

>THIS is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

>Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 1:27-28

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

>And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

They, or Adam in the day he/she/they were created, was still together as God hadn't taken eve out of Adam yet. So the image of God is the completed state Adam was in where they as one could still be fruitful and multiply. God is like this also, as He is the Father of spirits in hebrews 12:9 and is reproducing/creating without a wife as God is complete yes the church is the bride of Christ in 1 corinthians 12 but we aren't technically married until revelation 19:7-9 because we are "espoused" see 2 corinthians 11:2. The only thing comparable to Adam today are trannies but they can't be fruitful and multiply without a partner still.

>>648522

>the devil has always endeavored to deprive die world of the Mass

Literally what? How did you come to this conclusion?

>whose first efforts will be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar

What sacrifice, which altar? Where in the Bible is this conclusion spoken of?

>>648505

>The suggestion of this possibility, with also the possibility of it coming later. The only point that matters is that, sometime, a counter-Church will be made. Unless, obviously, if you think that Fulton Sheen is wrong in this point. This doesnt matter much in the discussion.

I am sure that counter church will come, nay, that it's already there. And that it was here for at least circa 7000 years, since his first member Cain killed the first martyr. And I am more than sure that part of this counter church is sedevacntism. And bishop Sheen would agree with me.

>That, in the End, the Church will be victorious. I stressed that the end-times tribulation is unequaled, so we have to expect to see things we never expected to see.

And here is where you are wrong, threefold. First for thinking that it does not mean that: "by this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ". Second by thinking that you can just start magisterium ex nihilo. For you are saying that magisterium is no more and there cannot be Church without it's teaching office for it is written "go and teach all nations". Third by saying against all the saints, that last tribulation will happen secertly, without antichrist, for more than three and half years.

>I said that the word lest doesnt appear in the St. Michael prayer, and you acused me of lying, proceeding then to quote the word "lest" from the bull. You must have got confused…

If previous thread exited I would draw you an arrow to the place where you quoted sentence with "lest" in it as part of prayer to Saint Michael. Sadly I cannot.

>It's the opposite. The prayer is calling the invincible prince in the case that it has already happened. "[…]These most crafty enemies have filled[…]"

Arise then, O invincible prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them the victory.

The only way that this prayer could mean that enemies of the Church could destroy her (by for exemple invalid rites) is to say that Michael failed. But invincibles do not lose by definition

>Or maybe low key Magisterium. Maybe some among them changes their minds later and starts ordaining with the valid rite. I think it's quite important to stress that the end-times tribulation is unequaled. This existence of this problem however doesnt disprove the fact that the "new rite" is invalid.

ALL Bioshops accepted New Rite. ALL of them. That means two thing - ethier magisterium erred in most important matter (can't happen) or that new rite is legit. And even in most un-possible scenario where all magisterium err it does not matter if some of bishops used old rite again - there still were a time when gates of hell preveld. And this possibly cannot be. Ever.

>This isn't the equivalent of "we worship the same God". If a person worships Satan as god, confessing thus "one God", because he thinks Satan is God, and worshipped Satan daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world, the same can be said about them, without still saying that we adore the same God.

Sedememers have serious reading problems.

What part of "We believe[…] [in] one God […] ==and worship Him daily"==

can you possibly understand as not equivalent to "we worship the same God"?

>>648568

>Funny thing is that I was going to highlight those exact words, but didnt think it was necessary. He says that, though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, and thats why they are infidels And it's written that "All the gods of the Gentiles are worthless idols".

<Catechism says that they are admitting one true God

<That means that they are not admitting one true God

For winnie the pooh sake. What part of "true" do you not understand? Or better yet why do you insist that all infidels are pagans/idolaters. To use Catehsim once more.

"Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do,

or

though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like."

Idolaters are infidels. Muslims are Infidels. But Muslims are not Idolaters nor is God of Muslims Idol.

>If that was the case, Pius XII would have said "the following (words) are essential and so required, with exception of "ut". Nonsense. "Ut" is included in the group of words that Pius XII declared to be necessary for validity, and thus is necessary.

Pius says about validity of form used for old rite. And "the form is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects". Form used by Pius XII "which was accepted and used by the Church in that sense" do not mean that Coptic Catholic form, or Greek Catholic form, or Apostolic form from second century that was base for new rite are invalid.

And I will repeat it until it either get through your thick skull or you will harden your heart beyond human capacity to reason with.

>It's quite linear.

It's not.

>That is not the claim. The "new rite" is invalid because it misses a word required for it to be valid.

To form to be valid it have to have "words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects" anf "which was accepted and used by the Church in that sense". New rite meets all those requierments.

But since New Ride is accepted as Valid but the One True Church and your poor sacramentology and ever poorer reading skills are not allowing you to accept that you insist that it had to be made by counter-church. And why is it counter-church? Because it changed rites of course!

>All I want is to know the Truth, and others to know it too. If I'm wrong, please teach me.

You want real lesson? Sure I will give it one and it will be the last since its undisprovable. And it will be quite fit to since all this talk about Devil.

Lesson is this - exorcisms work. And only validly ordinaded bishops can make priest exorcist. And in some case even those exoricst have to ask bishops for special authority. And only vlaidly ordinaded bishops have such authority. But exoricsms work. Therefore New Rite is Valid. And more than that, demons hate Eucharist. But only priest can offer it. But only validly ordinaided bishops can make priests. But devils still do hate modern-made Eucharist (no matter if it was TLM or NO Mass Eucharist). Therefore New Rite and New Mass are Valid

End of discussion. For to contuine you have to deny spiritual reality but there I will not say a word more. Only shake off dust from my fingers and maybe split in general Western direction.

>>648569

<Lesson is this - exorcisms work.

Wrong, casting out demons in the name of Jesus in the faith to so do works and not exoricsts. In acts 19:13-16

>Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

>And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

>And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

>And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

<And only validly ordinaded bishops can make priest exorcist.

Maybe so, but don't be exorcists. Just cast out demons in the name of Jesus as spoken of in matthew 10:8. But you also have to fast and pray beforehand to cast them out in the name of Jesus matthew 17:21. Also you have to do so in the faith as anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23. The jews in acts 19:13-16 weren't Christians and weren't doing so in the faith nor praying nor fasting, as they were exorcists.

>>648522

See last part of >>648569

>>648558

>You still haven't explained to me how you came to your conclusion based off the Bible. I don't care about the words of men, but rather the word of God.

Ignoring stupidity of this request (for taking Bible as something authoritative presupposes Faith. And Faith presupposes Reason) I did.

Ecclesiastes 7:26 I have surveyed all things with my mind, to know, and consider, and seek out wisdom and reason: and to know the wickedness of the fool, and the error of the imprudent:

Romans 12:1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

>What version are you quoting?

DRA. Not that it's important since wording is practically the same and meaning is THE same.

>If you aren't quoting a version that is a whole as to discern its fruit, then what manuscript and family are you using.

Vulgate. From which parts of TR was translated fyi.

>Also what are you doing to come to this conclusion that those words mean what they mean in greek?

Because author of this commentary studied koine Greek

>As no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20 and you would be claiming to be moved by the Holy Ghost to produce scripture as to also be claiming that you are speaking by the spirit of prophecy/testimony of Jesus Christ in revelation 19:10.

That's why I do not claim my own authority. Nor author of commentary. For he takes authority from the Church, Pillar and Foundation fo Truth.

>Yes it is, it says That's clearly a warning against philosophy, any type that is, with no exception made. Rather you ought to obey God and not what men think.

Oh then I should not listen to Paul. For it is him who in Acts 17:22-28 says that "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " For man cannot seek God on his own ONLY by Reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.

Netheir I should listen to Sirach who in Sacred Writ says: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee". But things that are not to high for me are known by reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.

Nethier I should listen to John. For he name the Revelation apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou. But theology have as it core ratio et fides. Et si ratio ergo philosophia.

>No you aren't, Adam in the day they were created was in the image of God see genesis 5:1-2

<Humans are not image of God

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait you serious? Then let me laugh more

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>648578

>Wrong, casting out demons in the name of Jesus in the faith to so do works and not exoricsts. In acts 19:13-16

And this is why in every single case of demonic possession Protestants go to Catholic Priests. You are cute when you are stupid, like retarded kid who cries because he ate the cake and have no cake.

>>648569

Forgot one thing

>It is realy the opinion of ALL the saints?

Yes. Read St. Robert Bellarmine "On Antichrist", you can buy it via Mediatrix press. He gather all he could about Antichrist and End times.

>>648581

<Wait you serious? Then let me laugh more

Literally not an arguement.

<Ignoring stupidity of this request

>asking how you came to your conclusion in line with 2 peter 1:20 is stupid

<Romans 12:1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your

bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

What does this have to do with philosophy/natural reason? How does this even justify it? All

romans 12 is about presenting your bodies a living sacrifice, your reasonable/acceptable

service.

<Because author of this commentary studied koine Greek

Why do you trust this mans interpretation? Why not study it yourself to understand how the conclusion was made? Some other men might say the passage meant something different.

<DRA. Not that it's important since wording is practically the same and meaning is THE same.

No its incredibly important as that version would make God a liar if it were true, which it

is not true in 2 samuel 21:19 DRA https://archive.fo/BaXfV

>And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Did David slay goliath the gethite in 1 samuel 17:51 or did Adeodatus in 2 samuel 21:19? Also in john 7:8,10 DRA https://archive.fo/LiQiv

>Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.

>But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.

How did God, Jesus that is, lie against titus 1:2 about going up to the feast in john 7:8,10? God can't lie, but the fruit of the DRA is that of lies, therefore the DRA is not of God and stop using it lest it make you a liar also.

<Oh then I should not listen to Paul.

1 corinthians 16:37 KJV

>If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

<Netheir I should listen to Sirach who in Sacred Writ says:

No you shouldn't listen to sirach. Who is this sirach? Where can I read about him in the Bible?

<Nethier I should listen to John. For he name the Revelation apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou

No, revelation is revelation. What is this latin

>apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou

Even mean? Where did you find this? How did you come to your conclusion it means whatever it is you are trying to communicate?

<And this is why in every single case of demonic possession Protestants go to Catholic Priests.

See >>648105 , those protestants ought to say they are of Christ and not this prot fellow. Same with the catholics saying they are of pope. Surely those catholic excoricsts not acting in faith aren't actually casting out demons just like the jews in acts 19. But are liars.

>>648592

>Literally not an arguement.

You are the one who said that Humans are not Image of God. It's the same level of wtfery as claim that "David was from tribe of Ephraim" or "Cain is biological son of devil"

But for all seriousnes you are in serious error

Genesis 9:6 Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.

1 Corinthians 11:7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

James 3:9 By it [tongue] we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God.

>asking how you came to your conclusion in line with 2 peter 1:20 is stupid

Ignored stupidity of request that evrything have to be "based off the Bible". You cannot have Bible without Reason.

As for 2 First Pope 1:20 I did it latter.

>What does this have to do with philosophy/natural reason? How does this even justify it?

You cannot have REASONable (RATIOnabile, LOGikos) service without REASON (RATIO, LOGOS). It's not that hard to understand unless you literally cannot into basic word building.

>Why do you trust this mans interpretation?

Because a)he is a scholar and a priest b)Church said it good and truthful

>Why not study it yourself to understand how the conclusion was made?

I am humble enough to know that I am not alpha and omega and mysteries of the Bible are best transferred by mouth of the pastors.

>Some other men might say the passage meant something different.

I am no respecter of person but of Bride of Christ.

>No its incredibly important as that version would make God a liar if it were true,

That's why I am not using KJV it twist Scripture to fit anglican dogma.

>which it is not true in 2 samuel 21:19 DRA https://archive.fo/BaXfV

Primo - it's not passage in question so it's irrevelant.

>>648702

Secundo:

Adeodatus, the son of Forrest. So it is rendered in the Latin Vulgate, by giving the interpretation of the Hebrew names, which are Elhanan, the son of Jaare.

We should translate all the proper names, or none; as the present mode is extremely perplexing. Adeodatus might therefore be rendered, "God given;" (Dieudonne, as the French have it, though they will not translate Saltus, but leave Jaare) or, if Adeodatus must remain, as it is sometimes a proper name, why may not Saltus? A mere English reader might suppose that Forrest was a Hebrew name, and , with Swift in jest, maintain the high antiquity of our language.

Regularly proper names should be retained.

But the learned have often chosen to give the import of foreign names, in the language in which they have been writing. See Du Thou's History. Thus Dubois is styled Sylvius; Newman, Neander; &c

An embroiderer. Prot. make this a part of the man's name, "Jaare-oregim." Sept. "the son of Ariorgeim." In 1 Par. xx. no notice is taken of his profession.

That passage will evince that Elhanan is not the same with David, as some would infer from the mention of Goliath's death, but the son of Jair, uncle of Joab, (C. xxxiii. 24.) who was born at Bethlehem, though the verse in Paral. would insinuate less correctly, that the giant's name was Lechem, thus, "Elehanan…slew Lechem, the brother," &c. as the copyist had written ath instead of bith.

Our version has not this mistake: "Adeodatus, the son of Saltus, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath, the Gethite," &c. 1 Par. xx. 5.

"It would be difficult to find a passage more disfigured than the present; and, without the help of the Paral. it would be impossible to make it out."

Kennicott makes a similar remark. Diss. i. and ii. But he believes that the Book of Chronicles, though the latest, and usually the most corrupt, of the Old Testament, is here perfectly correct; and that the passage before us is strangely corrupted, "Jaare Oregim, a Bethlehemite," being placed instead of , …"Jaor slew Lahmi," as he thinks that oregim, "weavers," has been inserted from the line below, p. 79. Josephus (vii. 10.) relates this transaction as follows, "When the king had sent a fresh army against them, Nephan, his relation, displayed the greatest valour. for engaging in a single combat with the bravest man of the Philistines, and killing his antagonist, he caused the rest to turn their backs, and many of the enemy fell in that battle." Thus he evades all the difficulty, adding much out of his own head; and by Nephan, designating Elehanan, the son of his (Joab's) uncle, (C. xxiii. 24.) or Dodo, a word which the Vulg. renders patrui ejus, "his paternal uncle," though it hat a wider signification, and denotes other relations. Hence, as Joab was the nephew of David, this brave man might be in the same degree, and born of one of the children of Isai; or, perhaps, Josephus infers that he was a kinsman of David, because he was of the same city.

Goliath. He might have the same name as his brother, who had been slain by David forty-three years before; or the title of brother may only signify, that this giant resembled the former in size and strength. Prov. xviii. 9.

Beam. See 1 K. xvii. 7.

>Also in john 7:8,10 DRA

Primo - it's not passage in question so it's irrevelant.

Secundo:

Go you up to this festival day, which lasted eight days.

I go not with you, nor to be there at the first day, nor in that public manner as you desire. But when the feast was half over, about the fourth day, Jesus went thither in a private manner, yet so that when he arrived, he spoke publicly in the temple.

But why does he ascend to the festival day, when he said he would not? He did not say, I will not ascend, but only, I do not ascend; that is, in your company. S. Chrys. hom. xlvii. in Joan

Or, I do not go up to this festival, viz. the first or second day of the feast, which lasted eight days, and to which you wish me to ascend: but he went afterwards, when the first part of the festival was over. S. Austin, tract. 28. in Joan.

You bringing up irrelevant stuff makes me think that you are already know that you lost and try to b8 me into another topic. You flatter me.

>>648703

>1 corinthians 16:37

Irrelevant to discussion. It does not change the fact he did said in Acts 17:22-28 that "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " For man cannot seek God on his own ONLY by Reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.

>No you shouldn't listen to sirach. Who is this sirach? Where can I read about him in the Bible?

Right there in the Bible, between Wisdom and Isaiah. You should know him, he is one of the most alluded guy in NT.

>No, revelation is revelation. What is this latin

Greek. And this is title of his work.

>Even mean? Where did you find this? How did you come to your conclusion it means whatever it is you are trying to communicate?

"Apokalupsis" mean literally unveiling or revelation. "Ioannou" means John's. "Tou" means something along lines of the. "Theologou" means literally God-Reason-er or scholar of God just like biologou means scholar of life (bios). Seriously though you don't even need to know greek for this one, since it was transliterated into english.

You outright ignoring it makes me think that you are already know that you lost and try to b8 me into another topic. You flatter me again.

>See >>648105 , those protestants ought to say they are of Christ and not this prot fellow. Same with the catholics saying they are of pope. Surely those catholic excoricsts not acting in faith aren't actually casting out demons just like the jews in acts 19. But are liars.

You can check if Catholic exorcist are real really winnie the pooh easy. Just contact nearest diocese and ask if you can accompany exorcist at work or just talk with him. I take words of those holy man without such childish delusions like yours though. I've already been there and I am not willing to come back. Nor am I willing to prolong this discussion. I presented my arguments. You ignored them. And moved goalposts. That's just rude. To paraphrase another anon I walked with you an extra mile.

>>648703

>and that the passage before us is strangely corrupted

So you admit you are lieing, why should I believe a word you say?

<He did not say, I will not ascend, but only, I do not ascend; that is, in your company.

It doesn't say that in john 7:8,10 DRA

>Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.

>But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.

<You bringing up irrelevant stuff

This is preety important stuff, considering God can't lie titus 1:2 and yet here you are affirming lies as truth.

>>648702

<You cannot have REASONable (RATIOnabile, LOGikos) service without REASON

Yes you can, its called discernment as spoken of in 1 corinthians 2:12-14 and hebrews 5:14.

<As for 2 First Pope 1:20 I did it latter.

Why do you yet call a man on earth your father against matthew 23:9?

<You are the one who said that Humans are not Image of God

Indeed and as a counter proof you again quoted a version that would make God a liar here's those verses in the KJV Genesis 9:6

>Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The "image of God made he man" here would be Adam of course. 1 Corinthians 11:7

>For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Here it is talking about marriage where a man and wife are one flesh, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God being complete in this case with a women. James 3:9

>Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

<similitude

<not image

The image of God would be completeness like how Adam was in the day they were created before eve was taken out of Adam.

>>648704

<between Wisdom and Isaiah

Wisdom is not a book in the KJV Bible which is true. Maybe it is a book in the DRA, but the DRA as you just admited above would be corrupted, that is to say make God a liar if it were true, which it is not true.

<Seriously though you don't even need to know greek for this one, since it was transliterated into english.

Which manuscripts did you use for these words? How did you infer their meaning? Don't tell me you trusted men again.

<childish delusions like yours though

>quoting the Bible to pray and fast to cast out demons is now childish delusions

Nice ad hominem you got there.

>>648568

>and that it was here for at least circa 7000 years

Nonsense. If the counter-church of the end-times spoken about in the prophecies where already in effect since then, the prophecies wouldnt say that it would come in the future.

>nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Chris

"Prevail" meaning "definitive victory". This doesn't mean that there can't be crisis in the Magisterium. There were times were all bishops accepted an anti-pope, for example.

>second by thinking that you can just start magisterium ex nihilo

Couldn't God do it?

>you quoted sentence with "lest" in it as part of prayer to Saint Michael prayer

Well, if I did that, it was obviously a mistake. Nevertheless, I said "the word 'lest' doesnt appear in the prayer", wich is a fact, and you called me a liar for saying it.

>the only way that this prayer could mean that enemies of the Church could destroy her (by for exemple invalid rites) is to say that Michael failed

At any time I said that the Church would be "destroyed". Leo XIII talked that, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, and thats why the help of St Michael is needed. Note that Pope Leo XIII says "Arise then, O invincible prince".

>and this possibly cannot be. Ever.

"''it shall not be possible for it [election of a heretic Pope] to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period oftime in the foregoing situation;…”

Pope Paul IV said it was a possibility. At one point, for example, none of the bishops accepted Urban IV as Pope.

>and worship Him daily

He didn't said it this way. "''hanc utique caritatem nos et vos specialius nobis quam ceteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum creatorem seculorum et gubernatorem huius mundi cotidie laudamus et veneramur"

Gregory VII said that muslims claim that there is only one supreme God, and praise this God daily, like christians do. This doesn't mean necessarily that they are right about who this God is. What Gregory VII said would fit in this case also. Either way, diplomatic private letters doesnt have dogmatic value. But scripture is infalible:

"Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)"

So a muslism, who denies that Jesus is the Christ, denies also the Father. How could that mean that this muslim, denying the Father, worship the same God as christians? How can antichrist worship God? Heres what The Cathecism of the Council of Trent says about infidels: […]their thoughts and efforts are continually employed in darkening by falsehood the true faith and in subverting all Christian piety[…]

>Pius says about validity of form used for old rite. And "the form is the words which determine the application of this matter"

>the form is the words

Exactly. The form of Ordination consists of the words of the preface '''of which the following are essential and so required for

validity. Those exact words, that follows this statement. Meaning that, if those exact words aren't pronounced, the form is incorrect, and the ordination doesnt take place. Also, the words are the most important part of the sacrament'''. You aren't even replying to the points I made here. I will put it in the form of direct questions that are to be answered by "yes" or "no":

>Pope Pius XIII said, Ex Cathedra, that all the words that follows the previous statement are required and essential for the Ordination to be valid

Yes. No way around it.

>the word "ut" is among the words that follows the previous statement?

Yes. No way around it.

>therefore, if the word "ut" is removed, the ordination isn't valid?

Yes. No way around it.

>if the rite is valid even if the word "ut" isnt said, then Pope Pius XIII were wrong when he said that it is essential?

Yes. No way around it. Wich leads to claiming that a infalible teaching is wrong, wich is nonsense.

Please apoint wich one of this answers you think is wrong.

>>648762

(cont)

>to form to be valid it have to have "words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects" anf "which was accepted and used by the Church in that sense". New rite meets all those requierments.

And the words which determine the application of this matter are those exact ones. If the "new rite" doesnt have this word, then it does not univocally signify the sacramental effects.

>exorcisms works, and only validly ordinaded bishops can make priest exorcist

>exoricsms work. Therefore New Rite is Valid

Terrible argument.

'

'"[…]If, then, the Pythian priestess is beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless it be of the same order with those demons those demons which many Christians cast out of persons possessed with them? And this, we may observe, they do without the use of any curious arts of magic, or incantations, but merely by prayer and simple adjurations which the plainest person can use. Because for the most part it is unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making manifest the grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable weakness of demons[…]''" (Origen, Against Celsus)

"But even after the institution of this order, exorcism was not forbidden to the laity, much less to the higher clergy, nor did those who exorcised always use the forms contained in the Book of Exorcisms. Thus the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.26) say expressly that "the exorcist is not ordained", i.e. for the special office of exorcist, but that if anyone' possess the charismatic power, he is to be recognized"

''"[…]we may refer to what Sulpitius Severus relates of St. Martin of Tours (Dial., III (II), 6; P.L., XX, 215), that he was in the habit of casting out demons by prayer alone without having recourse to the imposition of hands or the formulae usually employed by the clergy[…]" (Catholic Encyclopedia)

"''[…]The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apology 23; cf. On Idolatry 11) and Origen (Against Celsus VII.4). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration

>you are cute when you are stupid, like retarded kid who cries

"Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

>>648583

I forgot this also:

>it is the opinion of ALL the saints

At least not of St. Alphonsus Liguori, as I stated here >>648522

"[…]the devil has always endeavored to deprive die world of the Mass by means of the heretics, constituting them the precursors of antichrist, whose first efforts will be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and his efforts, acording to Daniel, will be successful[…]"

>>648768

>die world

I meant "the world", obviously.

>>648569

>But Muslims are not Idolaters nor is God of Muslims Idol.

Yes they are and yes it is.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

>>648860

“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.” (Pope Eugene IV)

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. (Pope Clement V)