/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>654105

t. quote-orthodox

>>654106

t. Michael Dimond

>>654105

>2 minutes in

>Orthodoxy is polyhteistic together with a bunch of fallacies

>53 more minutes to go

nope

>>654105

The vatican II sect is as far from the catholic church as you can get.

>>654105

>there is no salvation outside The Catholic Church

He simply means you have to be in communion with the true Holy See, which is now based in Fillmore in Upstate New York

>>654118

Right, so I guess that debunks the Petrine Keys meme. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church and therefore he was speaking of The Orthodox Church of which The Roman Church was once a member.

Their position is that they are part of the Catholic Church, and that the imposters currently occupying the Vatican might call themselves the Catholic Church but aren't.

>>654136

nonetheless the gates of hell have prevailed against The Basilica which is alleged to be the literal church because its on top of the tomb of Peter. So if we're not going with that then the next logical step is to assume Jesus was speaking of Antioch or else the entire Orthodox church.

>>654132

> therefore he was speaking of The Orthodox Church

Yet the four seats of the Pentarchy that sided against Rome now lay in ashes or in the hands of Infidels

>>654110

you just commited a quote fallacy fallacy end-quote and quote appeal to belief fallacy end-quote.

>>654141

>The Church is a physical thing/place

I think you're hurting your argument here rather than helping it.

>>654141

>Yet the four seats of the Pentarchy that sided against Rome

Yet, except Alexandria, where the copts were the majority, all 4 sees fell while in communion in Rome.

And then they fell again, with latin patriarchs at the helm.

>>654108

>Michael Dimond

Well that explains it all.

>Catholics and Orthodox are still fighting to this day

If anything thing I believe God is punishing us for our hubris. We talk about which church is better instead of just praying for each other and to God. I sincerely hope everyone in this thread is shitposting and memeing.

>>654168

We good, glad you decided to join us!

>>654167

Truth and error cannot coexist.

>>654261

We are at error anon. Catholic or Orthodox, I hope you can have peace with your Christian brothers.

>>654168

you made a good choice, let us know when you get chrismated!

>>654136

>>654118

this

>>654296

>daring to use St. Pio for this self-indulging crap

Sedes are reaching levels of low that no one thought of as reachable. Repent now.

Uh dont you know God's eternal plan for salvation is contained solely within my small monastry of 5 dubiously ordained priests?

>>654333

You will receive no reward for disobedience. It would have been better for you if you weren't a Catholic to begin with.

>>654523

What is it like?

The most annoying thing about VaticanCatholic is that when he's talking about things that are not totally insane, he makes videos that expose false ideas with incredible clarity. His videos on justification, Mary's sinlessness, the Papacy, why the Jews aren't saved, etc, are all full of good information.

But then the other half of his videos are borderline retarded.

Sedes are the worst. They care so much that someone be "Catholic", that the papacy matters, etc, but then they decide Papal authority doesn't matter based on their own conscience. They are basically just the same as Catholics for Choice or other degenerates like that who think they can pick and choose Catholic teaching they like.

They read church documents like Protestants, interpreting parts out of context. And, perhaps the worst part, is how, in Sola sciptura-esque fashion, their whole case rests on these "anti-Popes" having already been deemed by God to be heretics and divinely judged. Of course, they can't prove this. It's just a feeling they have. They can't even decide on who the last real Pope was.

It's important, to them, that God gave us an authority on earth in the form of a Pope so that we wouldn't just follow what was convenient to us, but turns out we can just decide it's not a real Pope and believe what's convenient to us whenever we feel like. Who'd have thought?

Attacking Orthodoxy is next-level retarded considering he's basically in a worse position than an Orthodox layman these days. At least they have valid succession and a few valid sacraments (even if they aren't licit)>

>>654138

It was predicted that the fake church would be built in Rome.

"These mostcrafty 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. In the Holy Place itself, 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, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered." (Pope Leo XIII)

“I saw again the strange big church that was being built there (in Rome). There was nothing holy in it." (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich)

>>654545

So they built a church (with "nothing Holy in it"), but then it proceeded to be Holy for another thousand years and change, then it became not Holy because some autists felt like being Protestant and eating their Cath-cake too? Pretty convenient.

>>654546

>so they built a church (with "nothing Holy in it"), but then it proceeded to be Holy for another thousand years and change, then it became not Holy

What? No. There is the true Holy Church. Then, theres an anti-church with nothing holy in it pretending to be the true Church. It was predicted also that Satan would get to abolish the Mass: "'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)''"

Another proof that the church now in Rome is the anti-church is the removal of an essential part of the rite of ordination, making it invalid, and thus abolishing mass.

>>654550

Is it an essential part?

Sedes like to claim this.

But to believe you, I have to accept that it was essential, and also accept that this happened under the noses of a church full of theologians and canon lawyers, who did not complain one bit until decades later.

The problem with sedes is I'm supposed to trust the words of some young man on the internet over the church. Old men who'd devoted their life to the church just all got duped and were none the wiser until the internet came along and some autists showed them where they messed up.

How are you any different from a Baptist street preacher?

>>654555

>is it an essential part?

Pope Paul IV said so while speaking Ex Cathedra, so it is.

>church full of theologians and canon lawyers, who did not complain one bit until decades later

A part of them corrupts, other part mistaken. "And for this cause God shall send them the operation of error, that they should believe a lie (Tess 2:11)". "It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side." (Fr. Frederick Faber)

>trust the words of some young man on the internet

No, you need to trust the Church. I'm only posting things the Church already declared, not preaching some new doctrine.

>how are you any different from a Baptist street preacher?

Well, I'm catholic and preaching on the internet.

>>654560

But there's no reason to believe the teaching office of the church isn't infallible. The only reason to believe that is that some sedes told everyone that God has judged Rome already. Even though the anti-Popes still keep coming and very few people seem to think they aren't real Popes.

Tell me why I should trust you.

And before you say again that you're just telling me what the church has already taught, tell me why I should trust YOUR INTERPRETATION of these church teachings.

Because there are no shortage of answers to these claims that sedes make.

>>654564

>tell me why I should trust you

I'm not telling you that you should just blindly trust me. Actually you should try to prove me wrong, because if I'm wrong I would like to be corrected.

>YOUR INTERPRETATION of these church teachings

The thing is: I'm not interpreting, I'm just posting them. For example:

"But regarding the matter and form inthe conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree andestablish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity: “Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyterii dignitatem); 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.” (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947)

I interpret that all those words are essential and so required for validity. It's exactly what he said, Ex Cathedra, isn't it?

>>654564

>very few people seem to think they aren't real Popes

"Lord, someone asked Him, “will only a few” people be saved? Jesus answered, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able"

"Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

>>654568

So Popes no longer have the power to bind and loose? The Rite is still essentially the same. You will have to show me in canon law where older Rites promulgated by older Popes are somehow more valid. If this is proof of the new Popes not being valid Popes, you have a problem because if they are indeed valid Popes, it is within their rights to make such changes. It's not a magic spell.

>>654569

Few will be saved. But by few, I'm pretty sure that Christ didn't mean about forty dudes most of whom live in America for some reason.

>>654568

I should point out that bishops were consecrated before then and somehow their rites were valid.

>>654576

>so Popes no longer have the power to bind and loose?

An Ex Cathedra statement can't possibly go against another Ex Cathedra statement, because Truth can't go against Truth. If Pope Pius IV said Ex Cathedra that "ut" IS essential and required or validity, then it is. If a pope sais Ex Cathedra that "ut" isnt essential, while Pius IV said Ex Cathedra it is, then this person is not a true Pope, because he would be wrong. About the "every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established" argument, Paul IV was talking about the Traditio Instrumentorum, that at any time was declared Ex Cathedra to be essential to the rite to be valid.

>by few, I'm pretty sure that Christ didn't mean about forty dudes

You're right. The Church will be restored to an even greater glory, and many will convert. "Then my Heavenly Spouse bound me as He Himself had been bound to the pillar, and He said: ‘So will the Church yet be bound. She will be tightly bound before she shall again arise (Blessed Anna-Katarina Emmerick).’”

>>654582

If the rite is invalid, this is impossible, though. It's been too long. Apostolic succession will be lost and never regained, because that is impossible.

It's not logical.

>>654577

>bishops were consecrated before then and somehow their rites were valid

Because the Ordination contained those words.

>>654589

What about in the eastern rites?

Can someone please link the video where he himself debunks sedes.

>>654586

The "new rite" being invalid doesnt mean that there cant be real ordinations with the valid rite being made. The Church is passing throught an eclipse as predicted. "For then there will be great tribulation, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now".

>>654593

"All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum"(Sacramentum Ordinis)

>>654550

>Another proof that the church now in Rome is the anti-church is the removal of an essential part of the rite of ordination, making it invalid, and thus abolishing mass.

Sedes made a reverse-Apostolicae curae?

This is just grand.

t.ortho

>>654595

>The "new rite" being invalid doesnt mean that there cant be real ordinations with the valid rite being made.

By whom?

Copts and melkites are gonna repopulate the church, bishop-wise?

>>654623

>>654625

"On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."

What do you mean by "reverse"?

>>654543

>The most annoying thing about VaticanCatholic is that when he's talking about things that are not totally insane, he makes videos that expose false ideas with incredible clarity.

The problem with statements like this is they read as one of the two possibilities:

1) When VaticanCatholic speaks about things I know about, he's totally insane, but when he talks about things of which I am ignorant, I believe him.

(this is the one I believe that applies to you because most conspiracy theorists are not believed by anyone with personal knowledge)

2) When VaticanCatholic talks about stuff I disagree on, he's totally insane, but he is completely right about the stuff I agree with him on.

This is just boring level confirmation bias. Either way, you should check your own thought processing when you make a statement like that.

I watched the video.

I feel that they misrepresent the Palamite doctrine on several points, and they don't even address the light of Tabor. But I also can't respond to everything, of course - I'm not a genius, or even bothered to try tbh.

I rate it a 6/10 because I like his voice.

>that sedememer phase you went through

he has a few good points but if sedememers were correct they wouldn't be literally whos with a handful of believers. Vatican II And the current pope are God's will, don't forget the gates of hell will not prevail against His church.

It is strange noticing that the biggest liberal modernists who twist the truth are br*testants though.

>>654674

>then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."

Again, even assuming this absurdity is true, who is gonna reverse that?

You'd have to spam eastern catholic bishop consecrations across almost 5000 western riters.

>What do you mean by "reverse"?

Pope called anglican orders null and void because the ritual got changed at one point, losing succession in that moment.

Vatcath now makes the same claim about the modern roman church.

It's hilarious.

One thing I wish to repent of is the sarcastic attitude I had as I created this thread.

>>654693

Neither of those are true.

Even sedes have orthodox Catholic views. His videos on the Jewish people, on justification, on reasons for Mary's sinlessness all have nothing to do with his insane sedevacantist views.

Justification is the same whether you're sede or NO. Why the church believes in Mary's sinlessness is the same whether you're sede or NO.

It has nothing to do with confirmation bias or what I agree with. Sedes still believe in the authority of the church up until the middle of the 20th century after all. His video on justification betrays none of his personal beliefs about the Popes in this day and age.

Is it so hard to believe that one could simply parse information one is being presented with and judge its truth or falsehood?

If a Muslim says that Jesus was born of a virgin, am I supposed to just disagree with him because any truth he utters is somehow tainted by his being a Muslim or also holding false ideas? You don't make sense.

>>654105

Honestly, it's meme criticism and mischaracterization.

I actually felt sympathy for the orthodox by listening this.

>>654530

>>654792

>Sedes still believe in the authority of the church up until the middle of the 20th century after all.

They are spreading doctrines that were universally regarded as false before that time too. Case in point: their denial of baptism of desire.