/cg/ - Christian General

Mods are actually prots. They always have been.

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

Why? It was a nice containment thread for catholics.

We're everywhere, we can't be contained, not even when you come shit up our own fellowship threads

Attached: serveimage(11).jpg (850x480, 25.59K)

mark 5:9

Why is it the mods, who are self-proclaimed catholics, deleted it then?
Luke 8:30

This is your mind on sola scriptura.

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

Yeah, okay. Not taking the bait this time.

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

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

Is anyone here the OP of the Catholic general thread? None of the mods deleted it, maybe it archived (if it reach the 300 posts limit).

Attached: DdG0CVrUQAAbA4O.jpg (1200x1200, 145.28K)

Proofs now

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

Dude. No. That God exist is matter of natural reason and thus non-circular logic. That God spoke in form of Bible that is by revelation is to be taken by faith but it was faith prooven true by miracles and in no way circualr since by alredy have God as axiom.
Not to mention that what sedememers here do is actual circular logic.

Hey Zig Forums i want to convert back to christianity.
I have been a psudo atheist/nondeist for a while now, infact i still believe the world is largely subjected to the laws of evolution but i'm starting to believe there is a Higher power that created all this.
I was baptised by my family when i was at the age of 6 but i have never read the bible and i don't know any prayers or verses since i was never taught any of them or given a bible to read them, which does not really help.
I am wondering where i should start, just start reading the bible and going to church as often as i get the chance? If so, which bible? I'm fairly sure Jehova's witness bible is a trap/joke but i'm not sure if i should start with old or new testament, evangelic or baptist or even orthodox. Heck i don't even remember what the church i was baptized in practices.

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

The suggestion of this possibility, with also the possibility of it coming later. The only point that matters is that, sometime, a counter-Church will be made. Unless, obviously, if you think that Fulton Sheen is wrong in this point. This doesnt matter much in the discussion.
That, in the End, the Church will be victorious. I stressed that the end-times tribulation is unequaled, so we have to expect to see things we never expected to see.
I said that the word lest doesnt appear in the St. Michael prayer, and you acused me of lying, proceeding then to quote the word "lest" from the bull. You must have got confused…
It's the opposite. The prayer is calling the invincible prince in the case that it has already happened. "[…]These most crafty enemies have filled[…]"
Again, I fail to see how you can't infer that from the words of the prayer itself:
"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions" Those things are in the past, meaning that the prayer is made for a time where those things already happened.
Or maybe low key Magisterium. Maybe some among them changes their minds later and starts ordaining with the valid rite. I think it's quite important to stress that the end-times tribulation is unequaled. This existence of this problem however doesnt disprove the fact that the "new rite" is invalid.
"[…]we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world[…]''
This isn't the equivalent of "we worship the same God". If a person worships Satan as god, confessing thus "one God", because he thinks Satan is God, and worshipped Satan daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world, the same can be said about them, without still saying that we adore the same God.
Funny thing is that I was going to highlight those exact words, but didnt think it was necessary. He says that, though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, and thats why they are infidels.

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

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

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

…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.(Pope Clement XIII)
It's quite linear.
That is not the claim. The "new rite" is invalid because it misses a word required for it to be valid.
It is realy the opinion of ALL the saints?

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

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

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

job 40:7

...

Pretty sure that wasn't the bible, m9.

Begone ChristCom tranny.

KJV Bible? Hopefully i'll be able to find a copy on my locale or ship one in.
Forgot this thing existed. Been relying on torrenting audiovisual lessons and immersing myself into communities that speak that language, but i never found any info for latin because there are so few that speak it now.
Thank you for replying and may God bless you.

Begome ChristCom :DDD
not tranny though

Attached: 27c14a454434d11c034eb3e43a5181873078b21dfc753e19da93d0d1f5c09213.jpg (948x669, 169.05K)

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

Yes. Reason and authority of Church. Just like Justin Martyr and Augustine.
Because faith presupposes reason just like grace presupposes nature and every perfect presupposes something to perfect.
Context m8. Read whole passage from verses 13. And then read this:
Ver. 23. He that discerneth, or who judgeth that he ought to abstain from such meats, if he eat, is self-condemned, because he acts not according to his faith. For whatever a man doth, and is not according to what he believeth he may do, or whatever is against a man's conscience, is sinful in him. It is a mistake of the sense of this place, to pretend that every moral action done by an infidel, must needs be a sin, as when he gives an alms to relieve the necessities of the poor.
Discerneth. That is, distinguisheth between meats, and eateth against his conscience, what he deems unclean.
Of faith. By faith is here understood judgment and conscience: to act against which is always a sin.
Because I am Image of God and Image of God is in me by fact that I have in my soul Mind, Intellect (that is Reason) and Will just as there are Father, his Logos (that is Reason) and their Spirit of Love.
Ver. 8. Lest any man impose upon you. In the Greek, make a prey of you, as thieves that steal things.
There were two sorts of false teachers among them; they who mixed vain errors from heathen philosophy with the principles of the Christian religion, and they who had been Jews, and were for making them retain those rites and customs which the Jews had among them, and were only from their private human traditions.
This alludes to the traditions and observances which the Pharisees had added to the law of Moses, and which Christ had blamed; but which these false apostles wished to introduce amongst the Colossians. The ceremonial laws were the elementary instructions given by God to the world, but we are to attach ourselves to the doctrines of Jesus Christ, from whom alone we expect light and justice, and sanctity.
According to the rudiments of the world: by which some expound vain fallacies and false maxims of the first kind of teachers; others the Jewish ceremonies, which are called weak and poor elements, or rudiments. Gal. iv. 9. This is neither to condemn in general the use of philosophy, which S. Aug. commends, and made use of, nor all traditions delivered by the apostles. See 1 Cor. xi. and 2. Thess. ii. 14.
That's why we who are Image of God use it.

Ecclesiastes 7:26 I have surveyed all things with my mind, to know, and consider, and seek out wisdom and reason: and to know the wickedness of the fool, and the error of the imprudent:
Romans 12:1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

In a discussion, one demands of the other the refutation of their own position, since both claim to proclaim the truth.. I claim that the "new rite" is invalid, since the words necessary for it to be valid aren't complete. Were Pius XII wrong when he said that "the following [words] are essential and so required for validity"? What follows this sentence is:
>grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”
If you say that "ut" is meaningless and not essential for validity, while being included in the group of words that Pius XII said to be essential, then you are saying that Pius XII are wrong. If you say Pius XII were wrong while talking Ex Cathedra, then you are wrong. Therefore, the "new rite" is not valid.

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

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

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

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

I am sure that counter church will come, nay, that it's already there. And that it was here for at least circa 7000 years, since his first member Cain killed the first martyr. And I am more than sure that part of this counter church is sedevacntism. And bishop Sheen would agree with me.
And here is where you are wrong, threefold. First for thinking that it does not mean that: "by this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ". Second by thinking that you can just start magisterium ex nihilo. For you are saying that magisterium is no more and there cannot be Church without it's teaching office for it is written "go and teach all nations". Third by saying against all the saints, that last tribulation will happen secertly, without antichrist, for more than three and half years.
If previous thread exited I would draw you an arrow to the place where you quoted sentence with "lest" in it as part of prayer to Saint Michael. Sadly I cannot.
Arise then, O invincible prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them the victory.
The only way that this prayer could mean that enemies of the Church could destroy her (by for exemple invalid rites) is to say that Michael failed. But invincibles do not lose by definition
ALL Bioshops accepted New Rite. ALL of them. That means two thing - ethier magisterium erred in most important matter (can't happen) or that new rite is legit. And even in most un-possible scenario where all magisterium err it does not matter if some of bishops used old rite again - there still were a time when gates of hell preveld. And this possibly cannot be. Ever.
Sedememers have serious reading problems.
What part of "We believe[…] [in] one God […] ==and worship Him daily"==
can you possibly understand as not equivalent to "we worship the same God"?

...

...

See last part of

Ignoring stupidity of this request (for taking Bible as something authoritative presupposes Faith. And Faith presupposes Reason) I did.
Ecclesiastes 7:26 I have surveyed all things with my mind, to know, and consider, and seek out wisdom and reason: and to know the wickedness of the fool, and the error of the imprudent:
Romans 12:1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.
DRA. Not that it's important since wording is practically the same and meaning is THE same.
Vulgate. From which parts of TR was translated fyi.
Because author of this commentary studied koine Greek
That's why I do not claim my own authority. Nor author of commentary. For he takes authority from the Church, Pillar and Foundation fo Truth.
Oh then I should not listen to Paul. For it is him who in Acts 17:22-28 says that "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " For man cannot seek God on his own ONLY by Reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.
Netheir I should listen to Sirach who in Sacred Writ says: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee". But things that are not to high for me are known by reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.
Nethier I should listen to John. For he name the Revelation apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou. But theology have as it core ratio et fides. Et si ratio ergo philosophia.

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

...

You are the one who said that Humans are not Image of God. It's the same level of wtfery as claim that "David was from tribe of Ephraim" or "Cain is biological son of devil"
But for all seriousnes you are in serious error
Genesis 9:6 Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.
James 3:9 By it [tongue] we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God.
Ignored stupidity of request that evrything have to be "based off the Bible". You cannot have Bible without Reason.
As for 2 First Pope 1:20 I did it latter.
You cannot have REASONable (RATIOnabile, LOGikos) service without REASON (RATIO, LOGOS). It's not that hard to understand unless you literally cannot into basic word building.
Because a)he is a scholar and a priest b)Church said it good and truthful
I am humble enough to know that I am not alpha and omega and mysteries of the Bible are best transferred by mouth of the pastors.
I am no respecter of person but of Bride of Christ.
That's why I am not using KJV it twist Scripture to fit anglican dogma.
>which it is not true in 2 samuel 21:19 DRA archive.fo/BaXfV
Primo - it's not passage in question so it's irrevelant.

Secundo:
Adeodatus, the son of Forrest. So it is rendered in the Latin Vulgate, by giving the interpretation of the Hebrew names, which are Elhanan, the son of Jaare.
We should translate all the proper names, or none; as the present mode is extremely perplexing. Adeodatus might therefore be rendered, "God given;" (Dieudonne, as the French have it, though they will not translate Saltus, but leave Jaare) or, if Adeodatus must remain, as it is sometimes a proper name, why may not Saltus? A mere English reader might suppose that Forrest was a Hebrew name, and , with Swift in jest, maintain the high antiquity of our language.
Regularly proper names should be retained.
But the learned have often chosen to give the import of foreign names, in the language in which they have been writing. See Du Thou's History. Thus Dubois is styled Sylvius; Newman, Neander; &c
An embroiderer. Prot. make this a part of the man's name, "Jaare-oregim." Sept. "the son of Ariorgeim." In 1 Par. xx. no notice is taken of his profession.
That passage will evince that Elhanan is not the same with David, as some would infer from the mention of Goliath's death, but the son of Jair, uncle of Joab, (C. xxxiii. 24.) who was born at Bethlehem, though the verse in Paral. would insinuate less correctly, that the giant's name was Lechem, thus, "Elehanan…slew Lechem, the brother," &c. as the copyist had written ath instead of bith.
Our version has not this mistake: "Adeodatus, the son of Saltus, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath, the Gethite," &c. 1 Par. xx. 5.
"It would be difficult to find a passage more disfigured than the present; and, without the help of the Paral. it would be impossible to make it out."
Kennicott makes a similar remark. Diss. i. and ii. But he believes that the Book of Chronicles, though the latest, and usually the most corrupt, of the Old Testament, is here perfectly correct; and that the passage before us is strangely corrupted, "Jaare Oregim, a Bethlehemite," being placed instead of , …"Jaor slew Lahmi," as he thinks that oregim, "weavers," has been inserted from the line below, p. 79. Josephus (vii. 10.) relates this transaction as follows, "When the king had sent a fresh army against them, Nephan, his relation, displayed the greatest valour. for engaging in a single combat with the bravest man of the Philistines, and killing his antagonist, he caused the rest to turn their backs, and many of the enemy fell in that battle." Thus he evades all the difficulty, adding much out of his own head; and by Nephan, designating Elehanan, the son of his (Joab's) uncle, (C. xxiii. 24.) or Dodo, a word which the Vulg. renders patrui ejus, "his paternal uncle," though it hat a wider signification, and denotes other relations. Hence, as Joab was the nephew of David, this brave man might be in the same degree, and born of one of the children of Isai; or, perhaps, Josephus infers that he was a kinsman of David, because he was of the same city.
Goliath. He might have the same name as his brother, who had been slain by David forty-three years before; or the title of brother may only signify, that this giant resembled the former in size and strength. Prov. xviii. 9.
Beam. See 1 K. xvii. 7.
Primo - it's not passage in question so it's irrevelant.
Secundo:
Go you up to this festival day, which lasted eight days.
I go not with you, nor to be there at the first day, nor in that public manner as you desire. But when the feast was half over, about the fourth day, Jesus went thither in a private manner, yet so that when he arrived, he spoke publicly in the temple.
But why does he ascend to the festival day, when he said he would not? He did not say, I will not ascend, but only, I do not ascend; that is, in your company. S. Chrys. hom. xlvii. in Joan
Or, I do not go up to this festival, viz. the first or second day of the feast, which lasted eight days, and to which you wish me to ascend: but he went afterwards, when the first part of the festival was over. S. Austin, tract. 28. in Joan.

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

Irrelevant to discussion. It does not change the fact he did said in Acts 17:22-28 that "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. " For man cannot seek God on his own ONLY by Reason. And if by Reason then by Philoshopy.
Right there in the Bible, between Wisdom and Isaiah. You should know him, he is one of the most alluded guy in NT.
Greek. And this is title of his work.
"Apokalupsis" mean literally unveiling or revelation. "Ioannou" means John's. "Tou" means something along lines of the. "Theologou" means literally God-Reason-er or scholar of God just like biologou means scholar of life (bios). Seriously though you don't even need to know greek for this one, since it was transliterated into english.

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

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

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

I find strange pleasure in bullying idiots.
But seriously this is last replay to this cesspool of your pseudo arguments
Slight corruption of the text=/=text being false. Especially when we have books of Chronicles and authority of the Church to set it right.
It does. " I go not up". Ascend means "to go up". And He did not say, I will not go up, but only, I do not go up; that is, in your company.
Where o where I do that you vain man? You pharisee who hold to letter see not spirit.
No, you literally cannot.
Logikos: reasonable, rational
3050 logikós (from 3056 /lógos, "reason") – properly, logical because divinely reasonable, i.e. "what is logical to God" (logic working through the divine reasoning known through faith).

The believer grasps "divine reasonableness" (3050 /logikós) by the Lord's inbirthings (gift) of faith – hence the close connection between 3050 (logikós) and faith (4102 /pístis) in Ro 12:1-3 (cf. 1 Pet 1:21, 2:2).

3050 /logikós ("divinely reasonable") is constantly necessary in making acceptable offerings to the Lord – each of which is equally profound to eternity when done in faith ("divine persuasion"). These produce a "seamless" life in which every decision (action) can have profound, eternal meaning, even in earthly "setbacks" or suffering (cf. Mt 13:31,32,17:20 with Ro 8:18).
biblehub.com/greek/3050.htm
C'mon m8 it's basic wordbulding. I know that American education is worse than in Niger but don't embarrass your parents.

Definition of discernment

1 : the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure : skill in discerning
2 : an act of perceiving or discerning something
And to discern is to reason for reason comes ratio - to discern, consider.
Which speaks about comparing thing. And you cannot compare thing without reason for ratio means to discern and value
Again to discern is ratio, reason.
Because 1 Corinthians 4:15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
I will go with apostolic interpretation of words of Christ over protestant fairy tales.
You do know that change of version means absolutely nothing in that case. Nay, it helps me. For in KJV you have even stronger connection between forbidding murder and fact that man, all of man are image of God.
It literally says that man, current man, to whom Paul wrote, are not to cover their head, because those man, current man, are image of God.
>

Attached: aquicklessonofgreek.png (502x678 26.91 KB, 84.39K)

Nonsense. If the counter-church of the end-times spoken about in the prophecies where already in effect since then, the prophecies wouldnt say that it would come in the future.
"Prevail" meaning "definitive victory". This doesn't mean that there can't be crisis in the Magisterium. There were times were all bishops accepted an anti-pope, for example.
Couldn't God do it?
Well, if I did that, it was obviously a mistake. Nevertheless, I said "the word 'lest' doesnt appear in the prayer", wich is a fact, and you called me a liar for saying it.
At any time I said that the Church would be "destroyed". Leo XIII talked that, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, and thats why the help of St Michael is needed. Note that Pope Leo XIII says "Arise then, O invincible prince".
"''it shall not be possible for it [election of a heretic Pope] to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period oftime in the foregoing situation;…”
Pope Paul IV said it was a possibility. At one point, for example, none of the bishops accepted Urban IV as Pope.
>and worship Him daily
He didn't said it this way. "''hanc utique caritatem nos et vos specialius nobis quam ceteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum creatorem seculorum et gubernatorem huius mundi cotidie laudamus et veneramur"
Gregory VII said that muslims claim that there is only one supreme God, and praise this God daily, like christians do. This doesn't mean necessarily that they are right about who this God is. What Gregory VII said would fit in this case also. Either way, diplomatic private letters doesnt have dogmatic value. But scripture is infalible:
"Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)"
So a muslism, who denies that Jesus is the Christ, denies also the Father. How could that mean that this muslim, denying the Father, worship the same God as christians? How can antichrist worship God? Heres what The Cathecism of the Council of Trent says about infidels: […]their thoughts and efforts are continually employed in darkening by falsehood the true faith and in subverting all Christian piety[…]
Exactly. The form of Ordination consists of the words of the preface '''of which the following are essential and so required for
validity. Those exact words, that follows this statement. Meaning that, if those exact words aren't pronounced, the form is incorrect, and the ordination doesnt take place. Also, the words are the most important part of the sacrament'''. You aren't even replying to the points I made here. I will put it in the form of direct questions that are to be answered by "yes" or "no":
>Pope Pius XIII said, Ex Cathedra, that all the words that follows the previous statement are required and essential for the Ordination to be valid
Yes. No way around it.
Yes. No way around it.
Yes. No way around it.
>if the rite is valid even if the word "ut" isnt said, then Pope Pius XIII were wrong when he said that it is essential?
Yes. No way around it. Wich leads to claiming that a infalible teaching is wrong, wich is nonsense.

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

(cont)
And the words which determine the application of this matter are those exact ones. If the "new rite" doesnt have this word, then it does not univocally signify the sacramental effects.
Terrible argument.
'
'"[…]If, then, the Pythian priestess is beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless it be of the same order with those demons those demons which many Christians cast out of persons possessed with them? And this, we may observe, they do without the use of any curious arts of magic, or incantations, but merely by prayer and simple adjurations which the plainest person can use. Because for the most part it is unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making manifest the grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable weakness of demons[…]''" (Origen, Against Celsus)
"But even after the institution of this order, exorcism was not forbidden to the laity, much less to the higher clergy, nor did those who exorcised always use the forms contained in the Book of Exorcisms. Thus the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.26) say expressly that "the exorcist is not ordained", i.e. for the special office of exorcist, but that if anyone' possess the charismatic power, he is to be recognized"
''"[…]we may refer to what Sulpitius Severus relates of St. Martin of Tours (Dial., III (II), 6; P.L., XX, 215), that he was in the habit of casting out demons by prayer alone without having recourse to the imposition of hands or the formulae usually employed by the clergy[…]" (Catholic Encyclopedia)
"''[…]The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apology 23; cf. On Idolatry 11) and Origen (Against Celsus VII.4). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration

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

I forgot this also:

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

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

I meant "the world", obviously.

Yes they are and yes it is.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

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

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