As I move on in life, this feeling keeps happening as the stresses of work and being an adult pile on me.
Where you can't feel the Holy Spirit, and feel like you've done something, maybe recently or in the past, that has made God leave you to suffer
How do you get through it?
Other urls found in this thread:
catholictreasury.info
ewtn.com
novusordowatch.org
radioaryan.com
youtube.com
holyromancatholicchurch.org
twitter.com
Go to confession and repent from your sins than start praying the rosary on the daily. You'll feel like God never left you because you will always be close to Him.
Then all you have to do is turn towards him. God never abandons us, we just tend to lose ourselves in the world and its troubles and forget that He's there.
This vain hope is exactly what Luther pursued harder than anyone, and found nothing at the end.
Christianity is not about ritual, it's about grace.
Faith alone doesn't get you that grace bud. God tells us to pray the Rosary. Just because you believe in the tradition of a man named Luther doesn't give you the right to derail a thread.
When does God tell us to pray the Rosary? are you adding to the scripture?
God existed before the scripture, He existed while the scripture was being canonized by the Catholic church, and He has continued to exist in the seventeen centuries after the Bible was formally compiled. Christ left the world a Church, not a book. You don't get to decide how to interpret scripture.
That doesn't answer the question
You think the magisterium is what inspires your mind when you read scripture
Catholics think the magesterium is God acting through his Church who also taught scripture is inspired that we have to submit to
you guys disagree we get it this thread isn't the place for it
God has been telling us to pray the Rosary since the Rosary has existed, so for the past eight centuries.
As for the second question, no.
Where? How did He tell us?
In 1569 through Pope Pius V.
ewtn.com
And you understand this to be special revelation from God?
I understand it to be the authoritative teaching of the Church Christ founded.
I already explained can you not read we have different views of how God teaches
You think God primarily teaches through your reading of scripture.
We think God founded an institution, he didn't write a book, and through that institution things can be taught that we think are free from error. The idea of scripture existing at all is a product of that magisterium (teaching authority).
Though I'm also Catholic he is wrong, it has never been taught dogmatically we should pray the Rosary, it's possible for a Catholic to reject it and all it's visions but I think it would be stupid for them too.
Many Popes have with some degree of authority taught we should pray the rosary though, just not infallibly so.
but you two stop fighting this isn't the place for this we know you disagree, have some modesty
only asking questions.
Just for clarification I do not, nor do any non-charismatic protestants, believe that I have special illumination beyond what the text indicates, and only claim that my reading is truth as far as it is aligned with scripture. This is the point of sola scriptura, not relativism.
The Holy Queen, Mother Mary, has. The Vatican has declared Our Lady of Fatima approved since the 1930s. Since then Popes have urged people pray the rosary daily. Wether or not lukewarms ignore it or prots spit on it, I will continue to pray the rosary daily and urge christians to do the same.
Yep, that's idolatry
Mary didn't give us the Rosary for her own glory, but rather as a tool for Christians to meditate on the life of Jesus. Why is meditating on the life of Jesus idolatry?
You should defienetly make room for God in your life. You don't have to pray a rosary like everyone is saying but you can just pray normally and read the bible. If you have a break at work you can use that time to read the bible a bit. On your way home from work or while your working if you are allowed you can have worship music playing or a recording of a church sermon.
Jesus and his apostiles didn't pray like that.
Idolatry.
I don't understand this whole Fatima thing. Russia already has the Orthodox Church.
What does it mean?
It's the Whore of Babylon whispering to its followers to "convert" Russia.
It's the Grand Inquisitor… agreed.
A church that fell to Communism. The whole point of the consecration was to prevent the spread of communism. Communism is the "error of russia" our Lady warned us about. Now communism has spread all over the world and infects ever facet of our way of life.
Ding ding ding, your Whore of Babylon Church also fell to communism.
Francis just made a communist from El Salvador saint.
Holy Russia was stabbed in the back by revolutionaries while the Tsar and his armies were stuck in a world war.
The underground church had millions of members and they often went to their deaths for Christ.
what? where? when?
who? if you mean St. Romero, he wasn't a communist.
oh, so it's a weirdo pseudo christian nationalist thing going on.
Vatican II.
the Church didn't fall into communism but the Empire did. Minor, yet extremely important difference.
It fell, and then "restored" by Stalin staffing it full of KGB.
what does Vatican II have to do with communism? or you that nutjob that claimed vatican II caused contraception too?
did you stub your toe today? vatican II. girlfriend leave you? vatican II.
Vatican II introduced the insanity of communism into the church, with the welcome of all religions and pure heresy.
Just like the "Holy Roman Empire" was "restored" by Leo III :^)
Romero was a communist who told anti-communist soldiers to disobey their orders and let socialist revolutionaries take over. He probably caused the deaths of several many people.
Liberation theology is heresy.
Vatican II is an uncontrolled dumpster fire that keeps on giving.
novusordowatch.org
Indeed.
Both church are shams.
proofs? if i remember correctly, he was assassinated conducting Mass for going on the radio and reporting "missing persons" live on air
he didn't espouse liberation theology as we know it today, he was murdered before it became a progressive inroad into the Church
Denying the Seat of St. Peter will only lead you to a dumpster fire, an eternal one.
The Seat of Peter is in Antioch.
What the holy winnie the pooh does it have to do with Rome?
the seat of peter is in rome, and has been for over 2,000 years. speaking to a deaf man is difficult, as Sirarch tells us.
Wrong.
radioaryan.com
Novus Ordo is an uncontrolled dumpster fire.
youtube.com
Peter was also Bishop of Antioch. Why isn't that the rock of Peter?
Literally what did she mean by this?
Yes it's true that russians didn't create communism, but it was Russia that spread it..she isn't blaming the russian people, but the revolutionary state that DID spread and impose her errors in eastern europe, that's my interpreation.
How could something imposed by totalitarian force be an error?
If what happened in Russia happened in Germany or Spain you would probably have the same thing with communists filling the churches with informers and agents. There would be an underground Catholic church et cetera. Just like there was an underground, legitimate Orthodox church under the USSR.
Also secular democracy is just as repugnant as Marxism. It is a Tower of Babel built without God.
You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the (((perpetrators))).
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The totalitarian force of communism is the error, bud. You are right, liberal democracy is just as bad. Both would never exist if Martin Luther hadn't chimped out and kept his arrogance in check.
nice
Peter's direct successor was always in Rome, if you really think Antioch is the real Seat, why do you not go the other direction and argue for Antiochian supremacy in the larperDox communion?
What's wrong with the first among equals interpretation?
In fact any other interpretation would suggest Christ is not the head of the church.
"Christ is the head of the Church"
(Ephesians 5:23)
and the "head of the Body"
(Colossians 1:18).
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
-Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604 AD)
“The Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.”
-Pope Gregory VII (1015/1028 – 1085 AD)
Dr. Raphael Johnson is a professional researcher and former university professor. He is a priest and historian of the Russian Orthodox church. I would not link a source here that is not top notch.
I agree about Luther.
What I meant about totalitarianism is that it was used against Russians so it's difficult to blame them for "spreading" communism. Nobody had a choice under that totalitarian regime.
The Holy See of St Peter has always kept Primacy, but you also have to understand that the pope is also the servant of servants. The bishop of Bishops. While the East was fracturing into various heresies, Rome kept them in line and maintained order. Rome helped Define a lot of the things that we believe today.
Jesus chose st. Peter because out of all of the 12 Saint Peter was the most fit to lead. Peter himself was a successful businessman and a natural leader, it came with the territory of being a fisherman.
Saint Pope Gregory the Great said that because the See of Constantinople was trying to usurp St Peter's Authority. Successful armies can't have two leaders, and the See of Constantinople was trying to be that second leader.
Which eventually lead to their schism and the continued schism to this day (see Moscow-Constantinople drama)
Like Vatican II?
St. Paul also saved Peter from judaizing heresy. I don't see how his success in business makes him worthy of being a dictator over the other apostles. Christians are taught to not be of this world anyway.
Also Peter was Bishop of Antioch before Rome… why not Antioch?
Christ is the only head of the Church.
Was St. Gregory the Great lying there? What's your point?
Also just look at the track record of the Vatican up to Francis. I mean Francis is just a clown.
Welcome back, my son.
First of all, it's completely democratic! If you actually look the term itself, it comes from Roman forms of governments (and even later on, to modern democratic philosophy).
For a bunch of guys who like to finger-wag Latins for "roman paganism" (perhaps, not you, but certainly others), the Orthodox have no issue with using Roman Political theory, seems kind of hypocritical.
As for your quotes, nobody denies that Christ is the supernatural, invisible, supreme Head of the True Church, but Christ Himself declared that He would build a Church, and it would be upon Cephas. As to the function of Christ's Church, and Cephas, both would be "given the power to loosen and bind on Heaven and Earth". One working in concert with the other. Primacy. A servant given the keys, it will make sense if one ponders on it.
As for the apparent disconnect between your quotes, you should do a bit more reading. A "universal bishop", would be a Bishop whom is Bishop over all, the Pope is the big red stamp on matters of the Church, but the Pope in Rome is not, at the same time, Bishop of other places.
Surely he is doing himself a disservice then. Are slavs even aryan? The Germans, the Russians, didn't they fight a war or something?
Vatican II is not heretical.
Then you must realize Christ made a mistake when He gave His Church and Cephas the authority to bind and loosen things on Heaven and Earth, right?
Because there cannot be more than one "seat", and there cannot be one "seat" in more than two places, otherwise the Church would be exposed to power plays (more than She already was, anyway).
Then pray for him, if you feel this way.
Having a council of bishops come together to hash out an issue is how the church of the first 1000 years worked, like it or not.
Why Rome particularly? Why there? Did they just draw straws? Why not Antioch?
If you don't think Vatican II changed doctrine, you need to take another look.
My church told me the same thing. Apparently if I reject Vatican II for being modernist heresy destroying the church, I am now in schism according to them.
Here's a handy primer to how they messed up:
holyromancatholicchurch.org
Why Rome and why not Antioch? Still haven't answered the question.
And in that very book, Jesus engaged in gay orgies with his gay jewish students.
Nice, nice, christian fren.
enjoy having no religion
>(((Soviet Union)))
Pick one.
God has never left you, you've distanced yourself from Him.
What an excelent microcosm of this hellhole of a board
Someone meekly asking for help and in comes sectarian sh!tflinging instantly
Good job people