pagan/secular "philosophers" btfo permanently

[Anonymous No.16217455]

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like: the SSPX 1962 Roman Catholic Missal.

Have you studied the ultimate whitepill, /lit/? If not, why not? Sin of Sodom is not what you expect, btw. It means a sloth and heartlessness towards the poor, despite personal wealth.

[Anonymous No.16217460]

I thought it said THE EIGHT BRAPPITUDES

[Anonymous No.16217461]

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.16217468]

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/

>While I am not much of a religious person, there is one particular argument for His existence that I find to be rather convincing*.
>Those who wage war on God are unmade by God.
>And their descendants, too.
>The idea that He is humane, or fair to individuals, is a modern conceit. The Old Testament makes it clear on many occasions that the iniquities of the father are visited upon the children.

[Anonymous No.16217471]

>>16217461
yes, in fact. read the Cosmological Argument. it prefigures Aquinas' argument for God's authorship of Creation.

[Anonymous No.16217487]

>>16217455
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 it 8/6

[Anonymous No.16217491]

>>16217487
Kantian detected. This is not bait, it is the truth.

[Anonymous No.16217507]

>>16217491
The "sin of Sodom" bit makes it seem like bait about homosexuality imo. I agree with Christianity being correct though, Anon.

[Anonymous No.16217510]

>>16217455
>Sins against the Holy Ghost
>Despair
Is that what Jesus meant when he said a sin that wouldn't be forgiven? Despair?

[Anonymous No.16217527]

>>16217471
Cute, but it's hardly argument for existence of god, just some unknown cause, although as far as we know, there was never "nothing", so we didn't need a being that can create things from nothing.
If there was nothing, there could be trillion of gods, and none would be older and better than other, because time is physical, without universe there was no time.

Btw, how's the sspx pedo scandals, they got pretty catholic with the altar boys lately? They might be my least fave sect, absolutely no coherency or taste.

[Anonymous No.16217528]

>>16217507
>The "sin of Sodom" bit makes it seem like bait about homosexuality imo.
I literally explained that is not the case in the OP.

>>16217510
No, you're thinking of unpardonable sin. Afaik that is an oxymoron. Nothing is outside of the power of the LORD. Still, I wouldn't test it. As far as what "despair" means exactly, I think it refers to despairing of God's ability to save you. A rare occurrence, I imagine. Most people are better catechized than that these days.

[Anonymous No.16217533]

>>16217527
>"as far as we know"
Scientism fails again.

[Anonymous No.16217540]

>>16217528
By bait about homosexuality, I mean "this is bait to make people fight about it", though I'll grant that I just didn't look at the image. I'd disagree that it's about disenfranchising the poor and point towards the fact that the angels were visitors (and thus gangraping them violates the Near Eastern hospitality rules, making it extremely egregious), thus making the sin of Sodom more about our actions to the stranger/alien rather than the poor, especially since treatment of the poor is listed in a different point on that list.
Past that, my apologies, OP.

[Anonymous No.16217548]

>>16217455
>Have you studied the ultimate whitepill, /lit/?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16217559]

>>16217540
Surely you see how "the poor" and "strangers" in a town are synonymous? Possessing nothing but what they carry, having no local connection, and being looked down upon by locals?

>Past that, my apologies, OP.
You are forgiven friend.

>>16217548
Extremely based.

[Anonymous No.16217561]

Sup with those 2head low level religious baits on my lit lately? Sectarian have nothing better to do these days than harass poor anons, since any religious forums shuts them in a matter of minutes?

[Anonymous No.16217568]

>>16217548
Reformed Anon, I'm interested in a good short catechism, particularly one with absolutely no denominational/theological biases, outside of "This is Trinitarian"
Does the Westminster Shorter Catechism do that well? I'm also debating using Luther's Short Catechism for a resource along those lines, though I'm also open to suggestions from any other anons.

[Anonymous No.16217573]

>>16217528
>No, you're thinking of unpardonable sin. Afaik that is an oxymoron. Nothing is outside of the power of the LORD.
Matt. 12:31
>Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

[Anonymous No.16217576]

>>16217455
>accessory to sin
lmao holy fuck christcucks

[Anonymous No.16217591]

>>16217573
I am aware of that passage, anon. I was specifically thinking of it as I typed what you quoted. In response to your implied question: the LORD fulfills his promises in scripture, but he is not bound by them. That is: do not arrogate to yourself knowing better than the LORD what he cannot or will not do.

>>16217576
you mad?

[Anonymous No.16217597]

>>16217591
So in other words, "scripture is always true, except when it isn't"?

[Anonymous No.16217604]

>>16217561
This is a philosophical discussion thread, about a specific work. So far you are representing the pagan and secular philosophers very very very poorly. If you want to jump in and talk about Dennett or Marx or Wittgenstein or God forbid Derrida or Delueze you are welcome to do so. But those fellows are largely irrelevant and speaking a circular language.

[Anonymous No.16217608]

>>16217559
There's some overlap, but I don't know that I'd say they're synonymous--one could be an alien and rich, just as one could be poor and a local.

>>16217561
It's 4chan, what else can you expect? Sadly there's not many good places to discuss religion online, and while to some degree it's good (because religion is best lived, and we live in the real world and not online) I do wish there were a decent place to discuss Christianity online.

>>16217576
Did you read the list? It's fairly legal language, but the basic concept of "don't help other people sin" is pretty easy to grasp.
Pic is also fairly mediocre since even the universalists (actual universalists, not fucking weirdos online who say uwu) would argue that one should preach the Gospel. Largely because one should love God. Plus their view of Hell was purgative and restorative, so technically you've at least got a chance to not go to Hell if you're told. (Especially since the difference between Purgatory and Hell, in Roman Catholicism, is primarily a difference in duration and not severity, to the best of my knowledge, even if there are degrees of severity in both)

[Anonymous No.16217611]

>>16217597
That is a crude and very forced intentional misunderstanding. Scripture is true. So is the LORD's omnipotence. See? No contradiction.

[Anonymous No.16217612]

>>16217568
The ACNA's new catechism isn't short by any means but it might be what you are looking for. It is quite "Mere Christianity". J.I. Packer had a hand in it.
https://anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/To-Be-a-Christian.pdf

Westminster is definitely biased since it talks about the covenant of grace and the doctrine of election.

[Anonymous No.16217615]

>>16217604
>God forbid, Derrida
Derrida is okay when speaking of his thoughts on translation desu,

[Anonymous No.16217618]

>>16217612
>>16217568
Protestants please go. Sola scriptura is literally humans ignoring 1500 years of input [into the magisterium] from the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.16217623]

>>16217615
scritti politti detected. back to the 80s with you. vade retro satana.

https://youtu.be/pNNbJ04167I

[Anonymous No.16217627]

>>16217618
>It's another D&C shill trying to make the Christians fight again
Get thee behind me, Satan

>>16217612
Not bad. I'm sure I'll find something at least a little disagreeable in it, as with all catechetical works, but it looks decent.

[Anonymous No.16217635]

>>16217623
>Bringing up music
>Missing the chance to make a Santana reference too
NGMI

[Anonymous No.16217638]

>>16217627
I don't know what a "D&C shill" is but
>implying sola scriptura isn't prideful intellectualism
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16217643]

>>16217638
D&C stands for divide and conquer
In any case, stop trying to stir up fighting over it, especially given that you're relying on bad strawmen of what the Reformers actually meant by Sola Scriptura, I'm not doing your Religion 101 homework for you

[Anonymous No.16217651]

>>16217643
>anyone who tries to tell me i'm wrong is a divide and conquer shill
okay see you in perdition

[Anonymous No.16217657]

>>16217643
if you aren't going to talk about the topic pls stop derailing

[Anonymous No.16217690]

>>16217638
>>implying sola scriptura isn't prideful intellectualism
if this >>16217548 looks the like the work of prideful intellectuals then I don't know what to tell you lul

[Anonymous No.16217742]

>>16217690
>implying that is an example of sola scriptura's literal reading of scripture and not actually a wasp copy of Catholic doctrine
Through him, with him, and in him, anon.

[Anonymous No.16217943]

>>16217657
Apologies. If you'd like an actual response to the OP:
Whether it was intentional or not, the juxtaposition of the missal, study, and peak performance are far more poignant than one may think. A great deal of 4chan's Christianity is tied up in pseudery, a load of intellectual hogwash devoid of any actual practice, when a great deal of Christianity is actually focused on praxis. To have intellect sans practice, that is, to be able to think and argue but lack that Christian love (which is built through prayer and ascetism, here referring not to just starvation and celibacy but rather a taming of the passions) are, in Paul's words, a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
A great deal more work should be spent in a liturgical and religious life, and whether intentional or not, the OP does a fairly decent job at emphasizing that, even if a lot of that proceeds to be lost ITT. The lack of praxis is also seen fairly often, not just on 4chan, but in a lot of Christian circles both on and offline. It's even visible outside of Christianity, and note that I'm not referring to hypocrisy per se, but rather the rampant theorization and intellectualism in a lot of circles. It goes further, of course, in Christianity, since to lack praxis, love, etc. is to end up being wrong altogether. This isn't just because of the statement in 1 Corinthians by Saint Paul, but also because we cannot understand the essence of God, and all we can truly aspire to do is to understand the energies, which we can participate in; part of this is reference is in the entire nature of divinization/theosis. By that participation and praxis, we can aspire to glean some sense of further understanding, if not of the essence, then the energies of God, and what proper theology is.
It's a hilarious sort of irony, one of the things that's produced the best literature and thus could foster some of the best discussions on /lit/ necessitates that one do far more than just read, and in fact reading alone fundamentally misses the point, reducing a religion that's focused on the deprivation of the Self to make some sort of room for the Other to an intellectual and fundamentally selfish pursuit.

[Anonymous No.16217980]

>>16217943
OP here, and the fellow you are responding to.

Good post. You get it. Especially your very last sentence. This thread is an attempt at engaging those pagan/secular pseuds, grabbing their attention so they might be saved. I want them to know whatever intellectual works the hubris of man has created apart from God still fall short of his truth. Again, I congratulate you on your understanding and hope you post more often.

[Anonymous No.16218540]

It's funny (is it?), but I feel I know the rules, the Catechism, the Creed, the legalisms of the RCC, and I even try to follow most of it. And yet, at the base level, I lack faith. I cannot recite the Creed because I do no believe it. If anything, I understand it all too well. I know what it asks, I know what it expects. It kind of horrifies me that I cannot accept it, even though I sincerely want to. I just don't believe in a virgin birth or a resurrection from death. So, I am condemned to eternal hell, or if I am lucky, annihilation. I don't know why I was made this way, or why I made myself this way, but here I am. Damned.

[Anonymous No.16218576]

>>16218540
try reading a book bro. faith will come if you try. it sounds like you want it but are being swayed by something else, probably the scientism of our secular age. seriously, check out Feser's five proofs, or read Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.16218594]

seriously, check it out

[Anonymous No.16218597]

>>16218540
I've read Aquinas. I've read Calvin. I've read Ratzinger and Bergoli. I've listened to Spellman. I feel like I've done everything I can. I'll try Feser. But so far, I just can't pretend I believe things I don't believe. I've prayed for faith. I've even had miracles granted. Doesn't help.

[Anonymous No.16218601]

>>16217455
What book is this?

[Anonymous No.16218619]

>>16218601
>the SSPX 1962 Roman Catholic Missal.
available from Angelus Press. leather binding. it's beautifully made and will probably last decades. I used it to follow the Latin Mass streamed online.

>>16218597
>"I've even had miracles granted."
>still don't believe.
I don't believe you.

[Anonymous No.16218625]

>>16218594
Don't get me wrong. I WANT TO BELIEVE. But I don't.

[Anonymous No.16218636]

>>16218619
Well you don't know what miracles they were and how impossible their achievement was. I didn't believe it either until I considered what they meant.

[Anonymous No.16219778]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16219825]

>>16218625
I am the same. I have read a lot about Catholicism lately and want to convert and believe, but I cant. I don't trust the sources that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected, and I don't think Jesus' claim that he is the son of God is reliable evidence that it is true. Catholics that I have read attempt to justify this by saying that the claim is so audacious that it is be true - but this is nonsense. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

[Anonymous No.16219857]

>>16219825

[Anonymous No.16219921]

>>16217533
No Scientism would be claiming we know for certain that the universe is eternal. "As far as we know" is good skepticism.

[Anonymous No.16220246]

>>16217576
This pic is inaccurate. People who have never heard the gospel or received baptism may be saved. Ignorance of the gospel however does not *guarantee* salvation. Everyone ought to be baptized and receive catechesis.

[Anonymous No.16220265]

>implying I care what some pedo from Rome thinks

[Anonymous No.16220583]

>>16218597
Don’t read hard theology, read the Church Fathers, like the Book of Faith by Augustine, or read St Francis of Sales.

[Anonymous No.16221218]

>>16220246
You know what's inaccurate? Your entire religion

[Anonymous No.16221242]

>literally nothing about dishonesty but mentions both envy and covetousness

this must truly be the work of divinity

[Anonymous No.16221262]

>>16218594
>five ways
>in 2020
You are aware that bowling balls don't drop faster than basketballs, right?

[Anonymous No.16221334]

>>16220583
Here's my problem (again.) I cannot accept the Nicean Creed. I can't say that I believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection 3 days after death of our Lord Jesus Christ. I love the liturgy, I love the teachings, I love the logic of Aquinas. I love what I WANT to believe. But I just don't have the faith to believe it.

I understand. "Faith" is different from belief. I've read Augustine. Doesn't help. I've also read the Protestants who say that Faith comes only through Grace, the unmerited favor of God and I have to wonder why I am deprived of that. I know no one deserves it. But some get it and some don't. I haven't, so far.

And I feel like people who have received the gift really don't understand how horrifying it is for those who haven't.

[Anonymous No.16221349]

This is a good read. The author attempts to prove the existence of "God" from a pagan, purely philosophical perspective. He later converted to Roman Catholicism after his wife (I believe an evangelical) died

[Anonymous No.16221370]

>>16221262
care to tell me which teaching of yours obsoletes Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.16221376]

Also, I refuse to pretend. I will not say I believe in something when I don't, even in the face of damnation.

[Anonymous No.16221425]

Invincible ignorance is heresy.

[Anonymous No.16221428]

>>16221334
The truth doesn't care if you "believe" in it or not, it just is.

[Anonymous No.16221432]

>>16221425
I guess the sedevacantists were right all along

[Anonymous No.16221441]

>>16221432
Yes

[Anonymous No.16221444]

>>16221428
That's fair. I don't care if if it is true or not. I don't believe it.

[Anonymous No.16221449]

>>16221349
I read this hoping it would strengthen my faith, and all it did was cure me of Abrahamism

[Anonymous No.16221489]

>>16221370
Aristotelian physics do not describe reality.
>b-but that's science and...
Actually read Aristotle. Then, go pick up a physics textbook.
>b-but science has numbers and that's cringe...
Then go read Nagarjuna, or anything in Advaita Vedanta, or even fucking Taoism. Hell, the Greeks were dealing with this as well, go read Parmenides and Heraclitus (hopefully you have a triple digit IQ and you'll see they're in fundamental agreement).

This is just dealing with the problem of "motion" in the first way (argument two is rooted in an assumption that we have no evidence for either way so it's a moot one, and arguments three, four and five are just flat out nonsensical), which any serious examination of will realize doesn't actually exist. Thomists are trying to reify a set of human lived experiences as universal, which is simply not the case.

[Anonymous No.16221532]

>>16221489
>it's Nagarjuna-anon
dropped.

[Anonymous No.16221574]

>>16221425
>>16221432
>>16221441
based Pius IX poster

regardless of what you think of the current pope, or the popes of the 1950s-2000s: the Church is the barque of Peter. there is no salvation outside the faith. we've had corrupt popes before, in centuries past. sedes and sede apologists are miserable souls who need to come back to the faith. you literally cannot save yourself, no matter how pious or better-informed or righteous you think you are.

you want to withhold your charity from the Church? fine. you want to do the bare minimum necessary for salvation? okay. but do not presume to tell anyone they don't need the Church. they do, and you are leading them astray with your false preaching.

[Anonymous No.16221610]

>>16221574
I agree. I don't have to "like" the Pope for him to be our Pope. He is what he is. I preferred Ratzinger, but we have Bergolie. I hope for Sarah. But it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.16221623]

>>16221574
>catholics have to choose between becoming protestants or atheists
That's a fucking black-suppository if I've ever seen one.

[Anonymous No.16221638]

This guy has a good take on Sedevacantism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H633jb0YX2c

[Anonymous No.16222118]

>>16217455
>1962 missal
sorry anon but peak performance is anything pre-55
>>16221638
Based SSPV

[Anonymous No.16222187]

>>16217618
>humans ignoring 1500 years of input [into the magisterium] from the Holy Spirit.
Isn't that what you Catholics/Orthodox/Copts/Orientals do too when you go around making noise about what is the one true church? Denying the input of the holy spirit in x heretical church.

[Anonymous No.16222203]

>>16222187
No, they all have claims to the original Church but the Roman Catholics have the strongest ties because Saint Peter was the first Pope

[Anonymous No.16222217]

>>16222187
The only spirit influencing heretical churches is Satan

[Anonymous No.16222258]

>>16221623
Care to extrapolate? I'm not sure I follow.

>>16222118
yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, I considered that one. Would rather have something a bit closer to the present. I'm not too sure about in-the-weeds liturgical differences, but I'm sure any priest celebrating the Mass will do his best make any issues non-controversial.

>>16222187
You can't deny the Holy Spirit, anon. Scripture says Peter was given the keys. He was the first bishop, ever, and he was the bishop of Rome. Roman Caths got the drop on orthobros. They are based and holy, and I hope we are reconciled with them soon. Protestants are another story: they need to come back from the pseudointellectual anti-theology of sola scriptura and return to praising God in his Church.

[Anonymous No.16222301]

>>16217455
>SSPX 1962 Roman Catholic Missal.
no such thing exists. The SSPX has never promulgated any Missals. The 1962 was promulgated by Saint John XXIII, and I don't see how the SSPX has any special property over it.

At least get your facts straight, schismatic retard.

[Anonymous No.16222357]

>>16222301
>schismatic retard
No, the Society of St. Pius X is in communion with the pope. See:
>On July 1, 1988, a decree of excommunication was published. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society considered that decree of excommunication invalid, particularly because of the state of necessity in which the Church found itself. On January 21, 2009, the decree of excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was withdrawn by another decree at the order of Pope Benedict XVI.

>I don't see how the SSPX has any special property over it.
https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/angelus-press-provides-arms-in-time-of-war-appeal-letter

The book in the OP is the same one in pic related, and it was printed by Angelus Press.

[Anonymous No.16222892]

Don't you guys get sick when you call people like John XXIII and JPII saints? Why do SSPXers want to be "in the Church" and criticize her at the same time? Am I crazy in thinking sedevacantism is so much easier than the recognize and resist position of so many traditionalists??

[Anonymous No.16223031]

>>16222892
>Don't you guys get sick when you call people like John XXIII and JPII saints?
No. They *are* saints. If I should feel sick it ought to be because I am not yet a saint myself. That is the job of the Church: making saints of all of us. The spirit of Vatican II is right, the council itself, led by the pope, invited the Holy Spirit to participate. The *implementation* of the Second Vatican Council is what failed. And failure is not always a bad thing, even here. God works in ways you would not expect.

>Why do SSPXers want to be "in the Church" and criticize her at the same time?
Covered it earlier I think but
>"why do you want to be in the Church"
because it is the only way to salvation. There is no other.

>Am I crazy in thinking sedevacantism is so much easier
I wouldn't say crazy. Just not thinking ahead. Martin Luther never intended to create schism, he was trying to be a reformer. He regretted his 95 Theses, and blamed the devil for fallen-away Catholics starting up their own churches.

[Anonymous No.16223086]

>>16222892
Benevacantism.

[Anonymous No.16223231]

>>16217460
You need beheaded.

[Anonymous No.16224187]

>>16223031
I just feel like the SSPX position is illogical. If there is a true Pope, you must listen to a true Pope but if the true Pope teaches heresy he is still somehow the Pope and you must not adhere to his teachings. Aren't heretics ipso facto outside the church anyway?

[Anonymous No.16224300]

Why can't you LARPers make decent threads and why is your ideology primarily built on trollish need to get a reaction/to react and whiny domesticated thinking. Learn how to socialise and engage in discourse ffs you're like every other socialmediabrained disease.

[Anonymous No.16224322]

>>16222357
Presuming that that's your stack, is the leather on that NRSV bonded or is it actual leather?
Trying to learn to spot the differences.

[Anonymous No.16224692]

the holy week in the 1962 missal is has Holy week as a reform by the same guy (Ab Bugnini?) that made the Norvus Ordo.
While I think they are totally canonically legitimate within the Church, I simultaneously assert they are a sex cult.

[Anonymous No.16224708]

>>16224692
They being the SSPX

[Anonymous No.16224734]

>>16224692
>they are a sex cult
if that assertion had any basis in reality then the same is true for the whole Roman Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.16224746]

>>16224734
Cults shun people that go against the grain, and actively tell you to break off relationships with outsiders. The RCC doesn't do that.

[Anonymous No.16224765]

>>16217455
Is it just me, or are the sins against the Holy Ghost lower than I thought they would be?

[Anonymous No.16224779]

>I don't live in an anarcho-distributist commune

[Anonymous No.16224818]

>>16217455
It's not "the sspx missal." It's simply a 1962 missal.

[Anonymous No.16224833]

>>16224187
It would seem you are unfamiliar with the SSPX position.

[Anonymous No.16224847]

Roman catholic do interservise with pegans so you can't btfo anyone.
Even your pope does it not some random guy.

[Anonymous No.16224850]

>>16224818
They printed it

[Anonymous No.16224870]

>>16221425
This is a false quote, and is itself contradictory to dogma and scripture. Supposing God ever allows a truky hererical Pope, one which openly contradicts dogma, it will necessarily be compatible with Christ's promise of a perpetual and visible Church against which the gates of hell will never prevail. One would of course never be bound to follow or accept an error, but whatever a heretical pope taught or commanded that was not in error would still be binding. Where is the Church if not in Rome?

[Anonymous No.16224885]

>>16224870
Oh sorry, should it be
"If a future claimant to the chair of Saint Peter says something contrary to defined dogma, don't follow him."?

[Anonymous No.16224894]

>>16224850
No, they didn't. The angelus press, though it has many strong ties to the SSPX, is not owned by the SSPX and cannot be considered their printing press. An SSPX priest organized and prepared the Angelus Press reprinting if the 1962 Missal, but it cannot be said it is an SSPX book. It belongs to the Catholic Church, not any order or publisher. It is wrong and dangerous to consider it as somehow particular to the SSPX as opposed to belonging generally to the Church.

[Anonymous No.16224898]

>>16224885
No, it's not a real quote. It's never been sourced. Ther has never been a bishop by that name.

[Anonymous No.16224910]

>>16224898
What bishop

[Anonymous No.16224937]

>>16224910
Do your own research. The quote is supposedly taken from a letter from Pius IX to a Bishop Brizen. No such Bishop exists, and no such letter exists.

[Anonymous No.16224950]

>>16217468
>The idea that He is humane, or fair to individuals, is a modern conceit. The Old Testament makes it clear on many occasions that the iniquities of the father are visited upon the children.

what the fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous No.16224951]

>>16224937
What is there to research? Even if the quote is false that doesn't change you shouldn't follow the teachings of obvious heretics like pic rel.

[Anonymous No.16224978]

>>16224951
So you will accept lies in order to follow the truth? You offer a totally fabricated quote and then say it doesn't matter? A bad seed cannot produce good fruit. If the teaching you propose is true, why can it only be substantiated by a false quote? Why can't your produce Aquinas or Augustine or Ligouri or any other doctor on this matter? Why do you not have the pronunciation of some council? How can I trust anything you say if you trade in lies?

[Anonymous No.16224984]

/lit/ is the most boring board

[Anonymous No.16224991]

>>16224978
I'm not a sedevacantist because of that quote you moron.

[Anonymous No.16225011]

>>16224991
That you don't care that the quote is a lie is a fruit. A bad fruit. It shows you to be indifferent to deceit. Can you provide a single doctor od the Church in support of your position? Can you find a single passage from Aquinas that lends credibility to your cause? Can you offer anything other than lies and rhetoric? Is there any event in all of scripture which parrallels and prefigures an empty chair?

[Anonymous No.16225021]

>>16217612
"christ the son of god became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the holy ghost in the womb of the virgin mary and born of her yet without sin"

man this sounds like some fantasy shit. do i really have to take this seriously and believe this happened in real life thousands of years ago?

[Anonymous No.16225026]

>>16225011
Saint Robert Bellarmine? There isn't anything that I know of from Aquinas that is relevant to the discussion of sedevacantism.

[Anonymous No.16225030]

>>16225026
And what does Saint Robert Bellarmine say that supports you? Where can it be found?

[Anonymous No.16225038]

>>16225021
Do you really find it more fantastical than the invisble cosmic marbles randomly colliding into each other to spontaneously create the universe as explained by atheistic physics?

[Anonymous No.16225048]

>>16224894
nearly everything you just wrote is a lie, that is dangerous

[Anonymous No.16225050]

>>16225030
De Romano Pontifice Book II, Chapter 30
>Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.

[Anonymous No.16225076]

>>16225048
What part is a lie?

[Anonymous No.16225082]

>>16225050
And what constitutes manifest heresy? If it is nor clear to the Church at large, how can it be called manifest?

[Anonymous No.16225103]

>>16225082
What are you asking exactly?

[Anonymous No.16225120]

>>16225103
St. Bellarmine says that as someone who is a manifest heretic ceases to belonh to the Church, a Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases to be in the Church and therefore ceases to be Pope. What does he mean when he says manifestly a heretic? What is manifest heresy?

[Anonymous No.16225138]

>>16225120
To be willfully and obstinately heretical? Why are you asking what manifest heresy is?

[Anonymous No.16225180]

>>16225138
Because what you've described is not manifest heresy. Manifest heresy means clear and obvious to all. There is no tribunal which can try the Pope. There is no power over him except God. If a Pope's potential heresy is not clear to all, he cannot be treated as being heretical. No Pope yet has been manifestly heretical. St. Bellarmine does not support your abandonment id the See of Peter. As Bellarmine himself describes, in light of a manifestly heretical Pope the Bishops would simply appoint a new Pope. If the Bishops do not see the need to appoint a new Pope, then clearly they do not think the Pope is manifestly a heretic. If the all the Bishops and all the clerfy and all the laity accept the Pope, he is the Pope. Before you can say that the Pope has lost his Papacy, you must first demonstrate to the whole Church that the Pope is clearly and inarguably a heretic.

[Anonymous No.16225223]

>>16225180
Oh okay, holding the Assisi prayer meeting was not heretical. Nor was extolling Islamists for "adoring the one true God." Right?
Can you tell me what this means from your post?
>...you must first demonstrate to the whole Church...

[Anonymous No.16225266]

>>16217455
based AND blessed

[Anonymous No.16225277]

>>16225223
Again, he must be manifestly heretical. You suggestion and vague impkication does not meet the standard of manifest. No bishops sought to elect a new Bishop. I would agree these are scandalous, but there is a wide gulf between scandal and heresy. If the whole Church does not recognize the heresy, it is not manifest.

[Anonymous No.16225289]

If God is real then how come he make spider?

Checkmoot frens

[Anonymous No.16225377]

>>16217576
Lmao, isolated tribes in Africa can either get away with murder cause they didn't know God said it was a big no no or they get sent to hell without being informed that it's a bad thing.
Absolute joke of a religion also kids who die before they even understand what the fuck is going on get a free pass to heaven or don't based on their parents sin or some other arbitrary mumbo jumbo fuckery.

[Anonymous No.16225384]

>>16225277
No, what you're suggesting is stupid and St. Robert Bellarmine taught against it.
Bishops not going out to elect a new guy doesn't mean anything and the whole Church not recognizing that someone is an antipope does not make it untrue. No pronouncement is necessary. You are ipso facto (By that fact) out of the Church if you believe or teach anything contrary to what is dogmatically defined.
>St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: "We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right"
>If the whole Church does not recognize the heresy, it is not manifest.
I hope this is the last time you write something so retarded, may God have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.16225500]

>>16217527
without the "universe" there was no multiplicity either so the "trillion gods" goes out the window straight away. also the pedo thing has no bearing on Catholic doctrines or teaching.
I love how all you salty gaytheists/gaygans make pathetic arguments which have been refuted by Catholic theologians/philosophers years ago and think you are so smart
Get over it, God is The Truth, you have no arguments which can disprove Him (even Kant will admit this)
There is only one question that matters today, have you faith or have you no faith? that is all that matters

[Anonymous No.16226117]

bump

[Anonymous No.16226335]

>>16224898
>>16224937
>>16224978
>>16225011
>>16225030
>>16225082
>>16225120
>>16225180
>>16225277
I just wanna let you know that people like you are what drew me to Christianity in the first place. I haven't yet converted, but the mere knowledge that the Christian community contains men such as yourself, and in no small number, gives me hope. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.16226752]

>>16225384
You outright contradict Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church. He says very plainly the Pope must be a manifest heretic. It is right there in the passage you quoted. You cannot merely cut away the words which are displeasing to you. Perhaps ny understsnding of manifest heresy is not refined enough, but you have not sought to understand it at all. If the Pope is a heretic, but no one knows he is a heretic, then according to your logic there will be no Pope, and yet everyone will think there is a Pope. The whole church will have been deceived. What mockery this makes of Christ's promise. And if only a small number know the Pope is a heretic, how will they act? No one has any authority to judge the Pope; if everyone else believes the heretic to be Pope, and those who know he's a heretic act against him, it will appear to the Church that they are acting against the Pope. Unless the Pope is a manifest heretic, how will anyone prove he is a heretic? If it can't be proven clearly the Pope is a heretic, then how can anyone say he is a heretic? All the antipopes have made their false claims while a true pope reigned. Your reading of Bellarmine contradicts his own words and it contradicts the promise of Christ. God can neither deceive nor be deceived. The Holy Ghost moves the Church. The Pope must be manifestly a heretic in order to loose the Papacy. If you teach otherwise, you teach against the power of the Holy Ghost. If a Pope were secretly a heretic, and this caused him to no longer be the Pope, why would the Holy Ghost not kill him on the spot? Why would God allow the Church to have a false head for so long? It's blasphemy.

[Anonymous No.16227368]

>>16217471
>

[Anonymous No.16227393]

>>16225289
To eat mosquitos.

If you would have said Wasps, however, I would say this was a biting critique of Abrahamic religion, and a firm display of the insurmountability of the Problem of Evil in non-non-dual philosophies.

[Anonymous No.16227418]

>>16217455
>jesus
>philosopher
pack up your shitty religion and get off my board reeeee

[Anonymous No.16228133]

>>16224322
Bump because I really like the way that leather looks and I want to see how it feels and get a Bible with that kind of leather

[Anonymous No.16228309]

>>16226752
Remember Honorius II? There have been over 40 antipopes in the Churches' history. It's also very funny to me that you assert someone is secretly a heretic when things like the Assisi prayer meeting or Lumen Gentium 16 are plain for all to see. btw, manifest means plain and open you fool, someone who is a secret heretic is an occult one. Bellarmine knew what the words he was using meant. You are right however, no one has the authority to judge a Pope, though this is only in regards to a TRUE POPE, something a heretic cannot be.
Notice, Bellarmine asserts that one cannot be both the Pope and a heretic because if that were true then the gates of Hell have prevailed.

[Anonymous No.16228736]

>>16228309
Honorius II was not condemned until after his death, and was not condemned for being a heretic, but for aiding heretics. He is still considered to have been the Pope until his death. Scandal and heresy are distinct. That the Assissi prayer meeting is seen as scandalous by many does not mean that John Paul II was a manifest heretic. Consider, when Peter went with the Jews and ate not with the gentiles, his practice contradicted his own teaching; if he had proclaimed his actions as a new teaching, he would have been a heretic; as it was his actions, and not his teaching, it was scandalous, but not heretical; Paul resisted him, and Peter saw the truth of it; Peter was the Pope the whole time. Lumen Gentium is not heretical, but easily scandalous; if taken strictly and with a thorough understanding of traditional teaching, it does not contradict dogma; it is however written in such a way that one who is unschooled would easily take away from it a false teaching. It is necessarily true that by the passive will of God, all sins are still incorporated into the plan of salvation; the perversions of false religions and false faiths are not random and senseless, but are in fact very particular and usually correspond to some essential element of the true faith; the areas of near agreement are precisely the strongest avenues for the conversion of non-believers, just as the Greeks were won over by the Logos and Sophia. And, as baptism of desire has always been taught, and baptism is the only perfectly essential sacrament, it has always been understood that there is a hypothetical possibility of a truly ignorant soul coming to the true faith, just as the righteous of Israel lived in the faith of Christ, though he was only ever anticipated without understanding and was never known personally or sacramentally; however, what Lumen Gentium leaves out, but does not contradict, is that according to justice and mercy, God cannot be prevented from saving those souls he would save according to all mercy and justice; with Aquinas we can say that if one does not receive the grace of salvation from God, it is necessarily just; therefore, if some man followed the natural religion in the far corners of the world, having never heard the gospel and is never particularly enlightened by God, then he will not be saved and this is just. If Lumen Gentium is considered manifest heresy, then every single Bishop who agreed to it is a heretic; every single Bishop who has been appointed since is not a Bishop, every mass that has been said by any priest who has accepted it was not really a mass; the succession of Peter has failed; the True Church is no longer visible, denying an essential and permanent quality of the Church. You are in schism.

[Anonymous No.16228765]

>>16228309
>>16228736
Might I add:
>Matthew 5
>[21] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

>The Epistle of James, Chapter 3:
>[1] Be ye not many masters, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment. [2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body. [3] For if we put bits into the mouths of horses, that they may obey us, and we turn about their whole body. [4] Behold also ships, whereas they are great, and are driven by strong winds, yet are they turned about with a small helm, whithersoever the force of the governor willeth. [5] Even so the tongue is indeed a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how small a fire kindleth a great wood.

>[6] And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell. [7] For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man: [8] But the tongue no man can tame, an unquiet evil, full of deadly poison. [9] By it we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God. [10] Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

>[11] Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water? [12] Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet. [13] Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. [14] But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. [15] For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.

>[16] For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work. [17] But the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. [18] And the fruit of justice is sown in peace, to them that make peace.

[Anonymous No.16228833]

>>16222301
/this

[Anonymous No.16228885]

>>16228833
Just to be clear, the SSPX cannot be called schismastic. As an order, they have always been in communion with Rome, and Rome has recognized this. The excommunication on the four bishops consecrated by Lefebvre have been lifted, and all sacraments can now be licitly received at SSPX chapels. The group is and has been for some time now canonically irregular. The society has long disputed the manner in which their case has been handled and it has never been fully resolved. However, if one goes to the SSPX (or any priest for that matter), with the idea that they are separate from Rome and goes for that purpose, then the individual becomes schismatic.

[Anonymous No.16228927]

>>16224322
>>16228133

The Bible and the missal are both geniune leather. The missal is newer, though, and has only a couple coats of neatsfoot oil on it so far. It was dry as a bone when I received it. The Bible I've had a couple years at least and it's received coats of neatsfoot over that time and polished with Ballistol more than once.

>>16224894
>It is wrong and dangerous to consider it as somehow particular to the SSPX
I agree, but I don't think anyone here or anyone who uses it actually thinks that. I'm pretty sure I called it the "1962 Roman Caholic missal" in the OP. Its publication was organized by the SSPX, that's all.

[Anonymous No.16229055]

>>16228927
In OP, you called it the SSPX 1962 Roman Catholic Missal. My original point was only that it doesn't seem good to describe it as the SSPX missal. It suggests a distinction between the SSPX 1962 missals as opposed to some other kind of 1962 missal. Certainly we could discuss differences in the Angelus Press versus the Baronius Press 1962 Missal. Also, of course, the SSPX is strongly connected to the Angelus Press. So, I'm not meaning to criticize the SSPX or Angelus Press, or something similar. I have just found after many conversations with many different kinds of people that it is important to maintain certain careful distinctions. As this thread shows, there are many dangerous ideas which like to lurk in suggestion and implication. The Devil cannot invent anything, but rather weaves deceit by false resemblance and inference. It would be good for both the SSPX and the Church for the SSPX to be viewed as an organ of the Church. Manners of writing and speaking which create an sense of distinction or separation between the society and the Church entire can sow seeds of schism and heresy, if not on an institutional scale at least on a personal level. If one is not careful with one's own language, one can discover that ideas and ways of thinking might drift in the night, like a ship without an anchor. I have met many people who believe themselves to be in the Church but who hold ideas which seem to me to be in some way contradictory; this means they remain in the Church only by contradicting themselves, or not following their thinking to its necessary conclusions. It might seem small, and I do not mean to impugn you, but I think these small precautions are very necessary, especially as there seems to be a great surge of interest in Catholicism as traditionally practiced.

[Anonymous No.16229115]

>>16228736
If the Church is reduced to ten people is it no longer visible? Jesus Christ himself asked if he'll even find the faithful when he returns.
>Lumen Gentium is not heretical, but easily scandalous; if taken strictly and with a thorough understanding of traditional teaching, it does not contradict dogma
It literally says they worship the same God as the Christians...
>...the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind...

[Anonymous No.16229231]

>>16229115
There is only one God. Abraham knew and worshiped that God, who is the Christian God. Muslims profess a faith in the God of Abraham. That is, the one God. However, their faith is wrong. They attribute to him false qualities and deny him essential qualities. Their worship is false, but to the extent that they hold God to be the God of Abraham, they give false worship to the One True God.

Consider, to offer sacrifice is a part of worship. We can say of one who gives sacrifices that they worship the one to whom they give sacrifices. Cain worshiped the same God as Abel. But Cain's worship was in vain, it was displeasing to God. It would be false to say he did not worship God. To not allow this distinction would be require one to say that any worship of God is acceptable so long as one worshiped God and not something other than God; that would be false. It is not only necessary to worship God, but to worship him correctly. By accepting false teachers and holding false beliefs about God, Muslims pervert their worship of God, rendering the worship false.

Now, if one follows a natural religion and professes a belief in a singular deity, it very well might be that this is not even a false worship of the True God, but is a worship of something other than God. What separates Islam from natural religions is that they profess a faith in the God of Abraham, and the God of Abraham is the One True God. Are there not those who, on the last day will profess "Lord, Lord," but whom God will not know?

It would seem that you think of these matters through a phenomenological lens, rather than the firm metaphysics of Aquinas. While worship can be examined subjectively, worship itself exists in the object of worship. In both Christianity and Islam, the God of Abraham is the object of worship and adoration. Compare this to idolatry, in which a man offers sacrifices to a statue; we do not consider his worship in terms of what he believes himself to be worshiping, but in terms of the object itself which he worships; he worships the statue, not the false ideas he has of the statue. Likewise, the object of muslim worship is the God of Abraham, who is the One True God.

[Anonymous No.16229233]

>>16228927
Would I be correct in assuming that NRSV is the OUP "pocket" sized one?

[Anonymous No.16229239]

>>16217455

I used to live down the road from an SSPX hideout. Fuck the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.16229243]

>>16229055
>My original point was only that it doesn't seem good to describe it as the SSPX missal.
I understood your original point, and I'm explaining to you that the only one making the mistake you're trying to guard everyone from is you.

>Manners of writing and speaking which create an sense of distinction or separation between the society and the Church entire can sow seeds of schism and heresy
You mean like you're doing now? You just referred to them separately, as if one is not of the other.

>especially as there seems to be a great surge of interest in Catholicism as traditionally practiced.
Yes I agree there are a lot of people seeking God in these times, and they must be protected from sedevacantist or liberal progressive nonsense. But the SSPX is neither. I hope they find the Church and finally help us fulfill the promise of Vatican II by rejecting its needless liturgical reform. I'm not saying the "Ordinary Form" of the Mass is not valid. I'm not saying its sacraments are not valid. I'm saying it was a change for the worse that has been tried and whose existence has made people realize the beauty of the traditional Mass. And that realization will bring the Christification of the world we've waited for.

[Anonymous No.16229251]

>>16229233
Yes, pocket edition. ISBN-13: 978-0195288315 ISBN-10: 0195288319

>>16229239
>blaspheming against the Holy Spirit
yikes.

[Anonymous No.16229257]

>>16229231
Muslims don't worship the one and merciful God. They deny the trinity, they are total heathens. Lumen Gentium is heretical.

[Anonymous No.16229261]

>>16217455
Of course I have, silly OP, I'm an actual human.

[Anonymous No.16229337]

>>16229239
>I used to live down the road from an SSPX hideout
tell us some stories

[Anonymous No.16229351]

>>16229243
As I've said. I like the SSPX. I know several SSPX priests. I know many families who are a part of SSPX apostolates. I think Archbishop Lefevbre was a hero, and I think he will largely be vindicated. If I am honest, I do not fully understand the disagreement between Legrange and deLubac; to me there does not seem to be a contradiction; on this point I would obviously disagree with probably ever supporter of the SSPX, and I must admit most are far more educated than I; all I can say is that I am not yet convinced of those theological arguments. That's all beside the point.

You've said two things, though, that concern me slightly. You say you hope they find the Church. What do you mean by that?

The second is the Christitification of the world; thought we of course must always desire this, we must acknowledge that it will never fully happen. The world will not be perfected until the final judgment. What's more, it's not something we wait for, but must work for, endlessly. We do not deserve it, nor can we earn it. Rather, by living virtuous lives, we allow God to bring it about through us. I can't imagine you disagree with this, but perhaps you can see what I mean when I talk about these small distinctions. There are of course many small inaccuracies we all speak only as a manner of speaking, never actually holding to the inaccuracy but understanding the truth of what is said by charity and context. Online however, we cannot rely on this so much. You and I are not speaking privately, but publicly. Traditionally speaking, what we are doing now would have never been tolerated; neither of us have a dispensation to teach or preach or public; we are not having our statements vetted by anyone with authority; and yet, objectively speaking, we are publishing theology broadly. Recognizing that circumstances change (without accepting modernist error), it would seem good that we engage in this kind of behavior in principle (though perhaps not in practice, depending on our skills and our circumstances), but that we should take great care, even overburdening ourselves with caution, to make sure that false understanding does not spread further than it already has. I'm not sure why you have responded to me in the manner you have.

[Anonymous No.16229384]

>>16229337

The novices occasionally walked into town to scope out office supplies at local shops. I didn't have any interactions with them. Made the local news when one of the more prominent guys made some holocaust denial comments, or something along those lines, I forget what it was exactly.

[Anonymous No.16229436]

>>16229257
I just presented to you an objective argument. You have rejected it without explanation. It's true, they deny the trinity. They deny the incarnation. They deny almost all the articles of faith. They could only pronounce the first half sentence of the Apostle's creed before disagreeing. But they worship the God of Abraham. When we say they do not worship God, it is not because it is not God, but because it is not worship. False worship is not worship. This is why Lumen Gentium says adore. You must leave behind your subjective understanding of worship and instead adopt an objective perspective of worship. There is only one God. Either someone worships something which is not God, calling it God, which is idolatry, or else one worships God. Muslims do not worship an idol. They have not chosen something other than God as their object of worship. They have correctly recognized the God of Abraham to be the One True God. Do you deny that The One True God is the God of Abraham? But, they have false ideas about God. They are in error. What have I said that is untrue?

[Anonymous No.16229480]

>>16229351
I agree with your second paragraph. Through him, with him, and in him.

>You've said two things, though, that concern me slightly. You say you hope they find the Church. What do you mean by that?
Just what it sounds like. Use some of that charity you talked about and assume I meant the Barque of Peter, the mystical body of which Jesus Christ is the head, that path which leads to the true faith, baptism, and the rest of the sacraments. That they receive the grace to be true believers and adopt Christ as the model for their lives. Do not take the less-charitable view as you have repeatedly done already and assume I meant fealty to this-or-that mortal man or earthly office.

[Anonymous No.16229514]

>>16229480
I'm genuinely uncertain about what you mean? You mean you hope the SSPX finds the Church? Or the many people looking for truth today? If the SSPX, it seems to me that this suggests they are currently not with the Church. Now, you have also said you think the SSPX are with the Church and doing very good things, so I assume you don't mean the SSPX. But, again, I'm uncertain, so I asked.

[Anonymous No.16229543]

>>16229514
>You mean you hope the SSPX finds the Church? Or the many people looking for truth today?
The latter.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Anonymous No.16229690]

>>16229543
Not a problem.

To my original point--you and I both appreciate the SSPX. We both appreciate the Tridentine Mass. It would seem that even if we don't agree on every point and interpretation and answer to Vatican II, we agree that God would not allow it unless it had some purpose and that purpose has not yet been fulfilled; that if the liturgical changes are undone, there will in fact be that springtime of the church which so many Bishops hoped. Now, I've met a wide variety of people coming to the traditional mass from all walks of life, arriving with different experiences, understandings, and motivations. I have met some who immediately get caught up in some of the more challenging, and even intellectually perilous conversations around the politics of the Church and certain theological speculations. I have met some who never pursue anything more than personal devotion. One thing I have noticed, however, is that all over the Church there is a great sense of division. We are all so very willing to divide ourselves into camps, and even within those camps there are profound disagreements. There some self-style conservatives who hold the SSPX to be fully schismatic. There are of course many FSSP supporters who have quite a negative view of the SSPX, and discourage people from associating with the SSPX. Then of course, there are many in the SSPX who are very suspicious of anyone outside their circles, who view some of the FSSP as turncoats. My point is that regardless of their strong affiliatiosn with the SSPX, the Angelus Press prints good works that are useful for all Catholics. The 1962 Missal is a great treasure of the Church. There are those who would criticize it for its associations with the SSPX. There are those who would insist upon it for the same reasons. There are those who hold the SSPX to be the sole saviors of the Church, how have made themselves all but sedevacantists. There are even those who hold the SSPX to be "compromised". I would not anyone thinking the SSPX are schismatic, nor would I want someone thinking they are the only bastion of true Catholicism, as though that position can be maintained. I'm sorry if I was too brusque to begin with, but because there are people I know personally for whom I would want to reiterate these points, it seemed good to make the distinction here, were many tend to be more, not less, hyperbolic.

[Anonymous No.16229738]

>>16217455
ITT: schizo sede and tradcath zoomer ramblings

[Anonymous No.16229752]

>>16229436
You don't have an argument. Lumen Gentium is clear heresy. Your whole post is trying to reconcile Vatican II (A robber council) with the traditional faith. Both Cain and Able knew God, the Muslims don't.

[Anonymous No.16229756]

>>16217455
>the SSPX 1962 Roman Catholic Missal.
SSPX is a heretical organization and the 62 missal is invalid because John XXIII had no authority. the only reason benedict XVI started losening up on the Latin Mass/trad stuff was to allow a relief outlet for conservatives so they wouldn't keep digging and find the truth. Pope Pius XII was the last true pope. anything written post-1958 is satanic. the vatican ii sect changed literally everything.

[Anonymous No.16229762]

>>16229752
based

[Anonymous No.16229796]

>>16229738
The early half of the thread was decent, then it suddenly turned to a shitstorm.
There was also an autist about leather, which was a nice twist.

[Anonymous No.16229808]

>>16229752
It's not clear heresy. I've just given you a defense of it which is clear and valid, built on Thomistic metaphysics, in keeping with tradition. I have not contradicted any dogma. You have yet to explain what I have said that is incorrect. It is not logical to merely state that I'm wrong. For the good of my soul, please demonstrate my error to me.

[Anonymous No.16229820]

>>16229756
Ironically, the Catholic Encyclopedia is full of modernism. Look at the entry on the rosary, for example.

[Anonymous No.16229855]

>>16229820
i wouldn't say "full of" but yeah modernism in the church obviously didn't start in the 60's. beats the hell out of catholic answers though lmao

[Anonymous No.16229862]

>>16229690
100% agreed on all points and I understand your caution. Ecclesiastical politics is deep water, especially if one is personally invested, but I find it helpful to remind myself that Satan is the spirit of division, and pride is his sin. When learned Catholics are at each other's throats about what they all hold dear it's time to stop and pray. I'm a cradle Catholic from back in the 80s, deep in the Novus Ordo, just come back to the faith in earnest during this pandemic lockdown. Best I can do is streaming the Mass, and it heartens me to see others also discovering the beauty of ad orientam worship. Like secular life's race hustlers, there are sectarian hustlers who make their living preaching division to their niche. Anyone who addresses the Holy Father by his surname or suggests the Chair of Peter is empty is an automatic block from me. Nice talking to you anon.

[Anonymous No.16229863]

>>16229738
Anyone with a three digit IQ trying to rationlize christianity should read the ladder of devine ascent. Made it impossible to deny the most cucked interpretation is always the correct one. The perfect christian is not a virtuous or sinless one, but a lamb wholly dependent of God, reverting to an atavistic state before consuming the fruit. Cretins are the christian ubermensch. If you want to go to have give yourself a generous lobotomy

[Anonymous No.16229864]

>>16229855
I'm not sure you know what modernism really is. Where is the Church?

[Anonymous No.16229892]

>>16229862
Nice talking to you also Anon. With the Pope's last name thing, I'm inclined to give Archbishop Vigano a pass, simply because he is an Archbishop, but my hackles immediate raise whenever I hear it.

[Anonymous No.16229900]

>>16229864
lol fuck off i'm not getting into a trad-off with you, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16229912]

STOP WORSHIPPING SEMITIC DESERT DEMONS AND THE KIKE ON A STICK.

[Anonymous No.16229933]

>>16229808
>But they worship the God of Abraham.
Saint Thomas would disagree with you so much he might actually punch you in the face for saying this.

[Anonymous No.16229965]

>>16229900
You came here to say the ever pope since Pius XII is an anti-pope, but you don't want to talk about it?

[Anonymous No.16229989]

>>16229965
not with effeminate posters like you. at least make argument instead of pretending to be civil while making passive aggressive posts like a faggot.

[Anonymous No.16229991]

>>16229989
not that guy but wow you suck at making a point.

try speaking clearly and offering a clear argument. use sources if you can.

[Anonymous No.16230001]

>>16229991
my argument is that you're a faggot. the evidence is irrefutable and you've already retroactively debunked your won rebuttals.

[Anonymous No.16230031]

>>16229933
Can you show me where?

[Anonymous No.16230061]

>>16229989
St. Athanasius notes that a schismatic can almost always be spotted by this question--where is the Catholic Church? It's not passive aggressive to say I don't think you know what modernism is. I genuinely don't think you do. I don't think you could recognize it. I have seen Catholic Answers be too soft and be too sentimental and many other things, but I've not actually seen modernism from them. Meanwhile, the Catholic Encyclopedia literally has copious pages of modernism, for example, it's page on the Rosary which caused a precipitous decline in the devotion just as Our Mother was encouraging us to pray it at Fatima.

[Anonymous No.16230104]

>>16230031
A certain section in Summa Contra Gentiles.

[Anonymous No.16230131]

>>16230061
the true church is the people who hold the traditional faith. modernism is the idea that the true faith can be modified to fit in with the world by interpretations of church teachings that supposedly offer a "deeper understanding."

also the fact that you would defend catholis answers just proves that you have no faith. i have literally been banned from their forums for quoting saints.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEUNpQ-H4Hk

[Anonymous No.16230147]

>>16217455
>WAYS OF BEING ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER'S SIN
>By silence
Nah fuck this shit.

[Anonymous No.16230171]

>>16230147
>he's a snitch
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16230188]

>>16230131
oh no, u posted a vaticancatholic video, now all the retards will seethe and ignore you
oh well, u were based, maybe even the most based

[Anonymous No.16230204]

>>16230188
MHFM is the ultimate pleb filter. they have all the appearances of an insane televangelist doomsday cult, but everything they say is accurate. i generally try to avoid posting their stuff directly because it tends to be too "out there" for people to even consider.

[Anonymous No.16230813]

>>16230104
Can you cite it for me, or quote it, or provide a link? The section I have read relating to Islam does not disagree with what I've said. Aquinas does not call them idolaters, but almost as heretics.

[Anonymous No.16230828]

>>16230131
It is quite clear to me that you were banned for your hostility and heresy, not for quoting saints. Strange that you would make their treatment of you a test of my faith. Could you please answer my question--where is the Church? Where do you go for the sacraments?

[Anonymous No.16230866]

>>16230813
yeah, Aquinas is the one that needs to point out they are idolaters, right?

[Anonymous No.16230903]

>>16230828
I posted in a thread of heretics saying that jews could go to heaven that they cannot, which is church teaching, and I quoted St John Chrysostom's homily against the jews. They banned me because the company is run and operated by heretics which you support, so yes, if you support non-catholics, then this is an indication that you do not have the true catholic faith. Furthermore, I already answered your question that the true Church is the people who hold the true faith. You already name-dropped St Athanasius, so i will direct you to his thoughts on the matter.

[Anonymous No.16230915]

>>16230061
>but I've not actually seen modernism from them
i dont like sedes, but fuck this is naive, akin is modernist par excellance

[Anonymous No.16231551]

>>16217611
disillusional whore.

[Anonymous No.16231831]

>>16231551
ok

[Anonymous No.16231873]

>>16231831
First, you take really nice pictures.
Second, you clearly seem to use the NRSV--how do you deal with the perceived flaws in it (especially among 4channers)?

[Anonymous No.16231881]

>>16231873
>First, you take really nice pictures.
Thanks.

>how do you deal with the perceived flaws in it (especially among 4channers)?
Pseuds will complain about omg NRSV REMOVED BIBLE VERSES AND ERASED GENDER.

Retards don't know there's a thing called biblical scholarship that determined those verses were out of place/belonged to other works/were of dubious authorship, and the original text sometimes does not specify a gender where Tynsdale's KJV assigned one 1500 years after the fact. Pic related, for example. NRSV is one of the best (that is: most faithful) translations we have available.

[Anonymous No.16231899]

>>16231881
On the topic of the pictures, that medal with the edges--what is it? I recognize a St. Benedict medal, a Miraculous Medal, but I rarely see non-rounded medals.
>That pic
I wasn't asking about the removal of verses, since they're not usually in other versions either. However, I do know that people often get in a fit about the gender neutrality in some translation areas (which I'm mostly fine with, though there was one Psalm where I disliked it if I remember correctly. Fucked up a messianic prophecy.). It was just surprising to see someone use the NRSV here. Why the regular one with Deuterocanon and not the Catholic Edition, if you don't mind my asking? Is it because you like having the extra Orthodox books or do you prefer the regular one's choices in certain verses?

[Anonymous No.16231932]

>>16231899
>On the topic of the pictures, that medal with the edges--what is it?
It's not a medal, it's an ampoule of water from the grotto at Lourdes; that's why its at the Marian end of the rosary. Made of pewter, I think, and glass. It is technically "non-liturgical holy water." Need to get it blessed. I just made this rosary today.

> Why the regular one with Deuterocanon and not the Catholic Edition, if you don't mind my asking?
I'm a theology student and I wanted as many deuterocanonical books as I could get. Maccabees especially. And desu I like the translation. I grew up with NAB and KJV, and the first one I read as an adult was NIV. NRSV has a literalness that I appreciate more than flowery language.

[Anonymous No.16231937]

>>16231881
oh yeah well my bible has an extra gospel and three additional chapters in john

[Anonymous No.16231940]

>>16231937
cool

[Anonymous No.16232033]

>>16231932
>from the grotto at Lourdes
Nice, I like Lourdes. "Non-liturgical holy water" is also a good way to describe water from places where there were saintly apparitions, I've never heard that term before. You do good work too, I thought it was made by a professional or a business or something. Think about making an Etsy shop or something if you have the time, desire, and need for cash.

>And I like the translation.
I'm partial to it as well, though at times I prefer the KJV or RSV because they sound better. I'm not theologically opposed to the NRSV, it's just a bland translation at times, but that might be me approaching Scripture with the wrong sort of view. Sadly the RSV with Deuterocanon is a pain to find outside of Catholic Editions or the NOAB, but I'm used to the NRSV so I think I should just suck it up desu. Good luck with your studies, and don't catch covid.

[Anonymous No.16232170]

>>16232033
>You do good work too
Thanks friend. It's made from tough grid 750lb paracord, desu with a locking carabiner it could double as a bracelet or carry handle or something. This rosary is very special because the sacramentals were gifts from family (some gone now) over my lifetime. Hope I don't lose it.

>though at times I prefer the KJV or RSV because they sound better
Same, same. I especially miss KJV. Don't read it nearly as often as I should. I miss Psalms, Isaiah, and Revelation especially.

>Good luck with your studies, and don't catch covid.
Thanks friend. Likewise, hope you stay coof-free.

[Anonymous No.16232258]

>>16217980
you realize that that dude isn't even catholic? he's clearly orthodox, so why are you encouraging him to spread heresies?

[Anonymous No.16232261]

>>16217455
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16232396]

>>16221574
There is so much wrong with this post. First of all, you claim there is no salvation outside the faith, which is true, but the vatican ii "church" which you are defending denies this, in fact they declared "infallibly" in Lumen Gentium that
>"...the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind... Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church..."
You must either accept this as infallible, take sedevacantist position, choose a different false sect, or give up on Christ altogether.

Secondly you claim that corrupt popes are still popes. This is true of they are corrupt in a material way, such as by taking bribes, but this is not the same as a pope being a heretic. A heretical pope has no authority, as declared by Paul IV in his apostolic constitution during the council of Trent, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio:
>In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
>(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
which was also confirmed by St Pius V's motu proprio Inter Multiplices:
>And closely following upon the footsteps of Our predecessor of happy memory Paul IV, We renew, in accordance with this motu proprio, the constitution against heretics and schismatics previously issued by the same predecessor Paul, namely the one dated at Rome at St. Peter’s, in the year of our Lord’s Incarnation, February 15, 1559, in the fourth year of his pontificate, and We also confirm it as inviolable and wish and command that it be observed to the letter, according to its contents and wording.
There are many more instances of Saints claiming rightfully that a heretic cannot be pope, because a heretic is not a catholic, and if someone is not a member of the church, they cannot be the head of the church. There is also the fact that there have been many anti-popes throughout history, and in fact the last one before John XXIII also took the name John XXIII.

[Anonymous No.16232452]

>>16232396
This is the problem with people who think they gain a little knowledge and can pass judgment on the Holy Spirit.

There is literally nothing wrong with your first quote. The catechism confirms unbaptized pagans may be saved under certain conditions, and even outside of them given God's infinite mercy. And you have failed to understand that all of Creation is the work of Jesus. Even the wayward musselmen and Jews are on the path to salvation. All roads lead to the one true God. Eventually, even if in perdition, they will discover the error of their ways and repent. Jesus is the beginning and end of all things.

>Secondly...
Donatism was crushed millennia ago.

>There are many more instances...
Then I guess Catholicism isn't for you. Though I hope you reconsider. Buona fortuna...

[Anonymous No.16232469]

>>16232396
Like I said: deny the true faith all you want, but your vain mortal judgment does nothing to diminish the sovereignty of Christ or his Church. Rein in your hubris and take a step back to consider what you are condemning. Are there bad popes? Yes, I said as much. Does that make the Church illegitimate? NO. Absolutely not. I suggest you say some Aves.

[Anonymous No.16232480]

>>16224978
have some St Bellarmine
>The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

>This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope

[Anonymous No.16232556]

>>16232452
>The catechism confirms unbaptized pagans may be saved under certain conditions, and even outside of them given God's infinite mercy.

First of all, the catechism isn't infallible. Second of all, John III 5:
>unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.
You are calling Jesus a liar when you say the unbaptized can receive salvation. There is no salvation outside the church.


>Even the wayward musselmen and Jews are on the path to salvation. All roads lead to the one true God.
Uhhh Matthew VII 13-14:
>Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!


>even if in perdition, they will discover the error of their ways and repent.
Uhhh Matthew XXV 41:
>Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
" 46:
>And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Hell is inescapable and eternal.


>>Secondly...
>Donatism was crushed millennia ago.
So you're saying that Paul IV and St Pius V were both donatists? This is telling because it proves that you don't accept the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church as valid. There are two churches which claim to be the catholic church, one which started in the 1960's, and one which started in 33 AD and continues to this day even if we are less visible and our buildings have been stolen. You are not of this true Catholic Church, you are a member of the Vatican II sect.

>>16232469
I literally just quoted Saints and popes. These are not my judgments, they are the judgments of the Holy Ghost which i am trying to relay to you.
There are bad popes, and there are heretical "popes" who have no authority, one of which you follow. This doesn't defect the Church itself, it creates an anti-church, which you follow blindly. I used to think following it blindly was a virtue myself, but it isn't. You should do some research and you will find that you cannot reconcile the true Catholic Church with the Vatican II sect.

[Anonymous No.16232571]

>>16232556
okay well let me know how leading souls away from salvation works out for you

[Anonymous No.16232582]

>>16232571
explain how i am leading souls away from salvation. go ahead.

[Anonymous No.16232586]

>>16232582
let's say you had a child tomorrow. who will baptize this newborn?

[Anonymous No.16232601]

>>16232586
If i had a child tomorrow i would baptize it myself rather than delay it trying to find a proper non-heretical priest who holds the true catholic faith no question.

[Anonymous No.16232671]

>>16232601
admittedly that was an easy one. baptism is an essential sacrament, anyone can do it. but you cannot partake of the spiritual life by yourself. you must receive the Eucharist from a priest, you must partake of the other sacraments as well. you can't go it alone. it's impossible. and you aren't qualified to vet who is spiritually qualified.