How do you deal with Liberal Catholics

This is mostly a Catholic question - I have no idea how much of an issue or not this is with Orthodox people but you can chime in if you like, for Protestants I feel their churches are already too far gone and plus you guys anyways sort of have an independent vibe anyways, so if people are saying stuff you don't like I think it's easier for you to just go meh and forget about them.

So as of lately I have become almost totally convinced the only thing that makes sense is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means exactly what it means. And adding to that Trent which says that you must be baptized for salvation, and that it must be water. I've done a decent amount of research on it, there is a lot of info for this on the site Cathinfo, both people arguing for and against it. This thread is mostly aimed at people who believe like me - don't mean to get into another debate or something on these points.

I was just reading some 'liberal catholics' reddit account (I know I know) and I mean I just can't fathom the amount of effort they put into this 'ecumenism' and constantly promoting that it's extremely reasonable that no one goes to Hell, quoting Balthazaar, Benedict 16th, JPII, Bishop Barron etc. He goes on to say that people who are rejecting this aren't going with the Magesterium blah blah. I mean I can refute these things easily and he makes quite a few stupid errors when people have brought up past church teaching. It's just that well this person claims to have a MA in Theology, and man they just spend soo much effort spreading this nonsense. The worst part is that the Church hierarchy is more or less supporting this crap.

This just seems like such a weird time. Like I really feel that this is total heresy, what they believe. St. Athanasius knew that Jesus not being God was absolute heresy even before Nicea and even after Nicea when they were trying to play around with all that nonsense. I guess I feel these days are worse because the Church has put out so much garbage and promote so much garbage 'theology' pushing for things otherwise and it has only lead to a complete farce of a faith. Not really sure what I am asking here but wondering what other peoples feelings on this is. Whenever I run into people like that I get this feeling of just strong evil from them. Yet I wish God wouldn't make defending the truth so hard and complex in a way.

Attached: 387787453b9b448e6443d01d2e761f11a1ccd180600086f0a8817c91eee19311.jpg (1167x1600, 603.34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/alphonsusworks12liguuoft
youtube.com/channel/UCzj_jBdoppML-t9DQIEMqrg
catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
df9ixb8c8gy4m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/01/20170307-Letter.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

just dont a weirdo

read the saints doctors, talk to your priest about everything and be obedient to them, and don't read about catholic politics online, and pray for the Church of course

your goal is to become a saint, that's it

Christianity isn't a DIY religion. Whether Catholic or Orthodox, go seek catechesis and put yourself under a priest. It's his job to transmit to you the tradition of the Church, don't let Internet people get to your head. Or, if you're already Catholic, simply talk to your priest about it and listen to him.
And of course, you can directly read the acts and canons and creeds of what you believe to be ecumenical councils. Saints and theologians may say this or that, but it's at ecumenical councils that the teachings of the Church are normalized and defined.

Do not try to argue for or against this or that doctrine until you at least have a solid base to defend it from. Otherwise you will either fall into heterodoxy or embarass yourself.

Haha I've had a priest commit multiple liturgical abuses, confirmed by the Bishop of the Diocese.
I am catholic, I am shocked you could actually read my post and think I am not Catholic. I am literally talking about Ecumenical Councils like Florence. I have a much better grasp of doctrine than you, you seem to be embarrassing yourself right now.
Just goes to show how absolutely naive if not something else you are. I can find many priests in my area who will say it's no issue to have gay partners. You're just… yikes. This board is disgusting. Trash thread mods please

The priests are for God to judge, not you.
And I didn't read the post it was too obvious, some ignorant larper who spends all his time reading trash online, and because he read some random blogposts and council stuff out of context thinks he knows better the 99% of the Church. Again your job is to become a saint, that doesn't require a perfect priest, just study and be obedient to your confessor.

Read the doctors of the Church and saints, don't read stuff talking about how awful stuff is or obscure heresies you dont know enough to understand, the spiritual life is what actually matters, and your priest can't stop your from developing in that.

St. Ignatius, Martyr, says that the priesthood is the most sublime of all created dignities: "The apex of dignities is the priesthood." St. Ephrem calls it an infinite dignity: "The priesthood is an astounding miracle, great, immense, and infinite." St. John Chrysostom says, that though its functions are performed on earth, the priesthood should be numbered among the things of Heaven." According to Cassian, the priest of God is exalted above all earthly sovereignties, and above all celestial heights—–he is inferior only to God. Innocent III says that the priest is placed between God and man; inferior to God, but superior to man. St. Denis calls the priest a Divine man. Hence he has called the priesthood a Divine dignity. In fine, St. Ephrem says that the gift of the sacerdotal dignity surpasses all understanding. For us it is enough to know, that Jesus Christ has said that we should treat his priests as we would his own person: "He tkat heareth you, heareth Me; he tkat despiseth you, desptseth Me." Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that "he who honors a priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a priest, insults Christ." Through respect for the sacerdotal dignity, St. Mary of Oignies used to kiss the ground on which a priest had walked.


Nothing," says St. Ambrose, "is more excellent in this world." It transcends, says St. Bernard, "all the dignities of kings, of emperors, and of Angels." According to St. Ambrose, the dignity of the priest as far exceeds that of kings, as the value of gold surpasses that of lead. The reason is, because the power of kings extends only to temporal goods and to the bodies of men, but the power of the priest extends to spiritual goods and to the human soul. Hence, says St. Clement, "as much as the soul is more noble than the body, so much is the priesthood more excellent than royalty." "Princes," says St. John Chrysostom, "have the power of binding, but they bind only the bodies, while the priest binds the souls." The kings of the earth glory in honoring priests: "It is a mark of a good prince," says pope St. Marcellinus, "to honor the priests of God." "They willingly," says Peter de Blois, "bend their knee before the priest of God; they kiss his hands, and with bowed down head receIve his benediction." "The sacerdotal dignity," says St. Chrysostom, "effaces the royal dignity; hence the king inclines his head under the hand of the priest to receive his blessing."

In the OP you sound like you might be someone who's looking into converting to Catholicism. If you're already Catholic, I'm really curious as to why you would still need to reach this or that conclusion about what "no salvation outside the Church" means. Your catechesis or religious upbringing didn't simply define what it means?

What's up with the random aggressiveness? What did I say to "embarass" myself exactly? I didn't attack you, why are you mad? Please forgive me if I have said something offensive, that was not my intent.

… You have a priest, yes? You go to church and confess to a certian someone who gives you a penance and/or spiritual direction, yes? Or do you just go to Mass every Sunday to receive communion and immediately leave, without ever confessing?
I'm not Catholic but I know several Catholic priests and they're all pretty orthodox on the things you have mentionned. Where do you live where the state of pastors in Catholic churches is so catastrophic?

So when my priest says that gay sex is fine what should I do? You're such a gross larper. It's your responsibility not to listen to nonsense from a priest or a Bishop. You are just a baby in the faith.
When priests enourage you to have homosexual sex, yes they can. There are several priests who do. Guess what actually there are several priests who will sodomize you as well. But that's spiritually beneficial to you right?

Yes many priests in this day and age are preaching modernism and ecumenism.
The Greek Orthodox archdiocese manual says don’t try to make converts… which is apostasy basically.

Just goes to show how little you know of this topic then. MODS PLEASE DELETE THREAD. >I'm not Catholic
LOL, I do not want to talk to non catholics about this. Yikes. MODS please delete thread.

MODS please Delete

Listen, if all priests or bishops you could possibly contact are poisoned wells, and your catechesis or religious upbringing was garbage, surely the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what the ecumenical councils have said about salvation outside the Church could help you.
I will not insist further. Please forgive me for offending you, brother.


But you said:
Calm down, man.

If you know doctrine better then everyone you should know one should obedient in all things except positive sin, but it's fairly easy to find a priest who isn't like that. Despite all the memes not all priests are homosexual or pro-homosexual, I've never ran into one and it's fairly easy to find a very good priest unless you live in a rural area.

But St. Teresa specifically says even if the priest seems incoherent/absrud and giving you bad advice unless it is positively sin you should follow it, and if you do have you can have 100% faith it's God's will

Yeah this board is shit. Everyone just wants to virtue signal about how holy they are. Try and make a little joke and everyone freaks out and calls you a bad Christian. I relate more to the average /r9k/ robot than these faggots. If you want decent conversation post in the Catholic general, it's really the only thread worth half a shit.

It's almost as if you came here to seek attention or something.
But remember, God loves you, user, and so do I.

Guy you're replying to isn't OP

My mistake, but he could've fooled me.

Yeah it was a mistake considering how awful the Orthodox posts was, please no Orthodox people, big mistake.
Please don't talk to me about Catholic dogma, I have no need to talk to an Orthodox Person about it, YIKES.

I literally said I can find multiple easily. People are saying you must obey your priest, they cannot harm you spiritually. That is an utter bold faced disgusting filthy lie. In addition, should you listen to your Bishop when he tells you Jesus is not God, like so many Bishops doing the Arian Controversy? Oh oh what then?

Didn't know St. Teresa is infallible or God. Anyways please what are you trying to accomplish here? Literally nothing.


Yeah when Orthodox people who have literally no idea about anything wrong, yeah it's 100% off topic. What sort of nonsense is this, thread is about something specific. Literally saying then that a priest can tell me to be gay and that's fine. Oh well just not gay, but anything else is fine. Disgusting people, only trying to lead people to sin.

You should try and read a bit more.

MODS PLEASE DELETE THREAD

Was it fairly easy to find a priest or bishop who wasn't an Arian at a point in time? Guess what, believing Jesus isn't God is a big deal. But you seem to think otherwise. That's disgusting.

Not OP and this is exactly what I'm talking about. You people always do this underhanded EPIC BURN XDDDDD and then end the post with some canned "I love you" or "I'm not angry at you, I just want you to stop sinning :(" bullshit. It's winnie the pooh annoying just talk like normal people it's not hard

And again I said chime in on the actual çontent of the post, not stupid false statements like a Priest can never hinder your spiritual growth. Disgusting.

That's why I'm telling you to look directly to where Catholic dogma is defined… I'm pretty sure that the Catholic ecumenical councils and the CCC are sufficient to show the proper Catholic doctrine on the subject. The "liberal" interpretation tends to come from other sources than these.

You have said you do not want me to continue replying so I will not say more.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make yeah it's not good if other priests are arian but so long as you can find one who isn't you shouldn't treat them different because other priests are teaching heresy.

People spending all their time online just makes them weirdos personally and theologically, the saints are consistent with submission being necessary to develop in the spiritual life so just find a priest whose somewhat reliable and submit to them.

Again
St. John Chrysostom says, that though its functions are performed on earth, the priesthood should be numbered among the things of Heaven." According to Cassian, the priest of God is exalted above all earthly sovereignties, and above all celestial heights—–he is inferior only to God. Innocent III says that the priest is placed between God and man; inferior to God, but superior to man. St. Denis calls the priest a Divine man. Hence he has called the priesthood a Divine dignity. In fine, St. Ephrem says that the gift of the sacerdotal dignity surpasses all understanding. For us it is enough to know, that Jesus Christ has said that we should treat his priests as we would his own person: "He tkat heareth you, heareth Me; he tkat despiseth you, desptseth Me." Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that "he who honors a priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a priest, insults Christ." Through respect for the sacerdotal dignity, St. Mary of Oignies used to kiss the ground on which a priest had walked.


This is from a Saint and Doctor of the Church
archive.org/details/alphonsusworks12liguuoft
read the rest here and don't read edgy weirdo stuff online

The priesthood is a divine office, them sinning doesn't take away from that. If you don't revere Priests, you don't revere Christ.

St. John Chrysostom says a lot of things about the Jews but literally every priest I will find will tell me that what he said is wrong. I've had people literally said that he was mistaken and those things aren't true. Seriously I realize you guys have no idea what I'm taling about.


This is nonsense. A priest can err and err badly. The vast majority of Priests may have been Arian and one point. According to you someone should just be an arian cause their priest is an Arian. Absolutely disgusting and filthy. Your naively on this matter is totally showing. All you can do is strawman and strawman. YIKES

Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that "he who honors a priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a priest, insults Christ."

He also said this which you dislike, quit being a weirdo and get off the internet.

So when my Priest tells me that St. John Chrysostom is not reliable, I should honor him by believing that? See no answer to being an Arian. Shows how little you know, anyways enjoy being a terrible person. Seems you like it.

Please take your own advice and get off the internet you freak

Correcting or pointing out a Priest who errs is not disrespecting them. However you disrespect a Priest by preaching they are infallible and to worship them. Priests commit severe errors all the time. Like I said basically every priest in my area will say that St. John Chrysostom is flat out wrong when it comes to the Jews. Many will say Jews do not have to convert to be saved. Quite a few are fine with homosexual acts. There's a parish where people gay kiss after communion.

What else are they preaching which is heresy? Quit being a freak weirdo and please get off this board, get off the internet, never use the internet again.

For everything but positive sin, and your pol jew hatred isn't a good excuse not too, how you feel about the jews isn't what determines if you get into heaven or not, it's communion and submission to the roman pontiff.

I just gave an example of St John Chrysostom. So it's fine to believe that other people do not have to convert to be saved? Is it fine to believe that the eucharist is just a symbol? You're a heretic for sure now.

Haha actually many priests here vehemently deny this. So I won't listen to you when you say this, since it's going against what Priests say. They say you do not have to submit to the roman pontiff. Jews don't submit and they are justified by following Judaism.

Heresy is positive sin :^)

You don't even understand the liberal theologies you claim to hate so much.

NO ONE maintains non-Catholics go to heaven, not even the most liberal.
They just have a very expansive view of what the Church is, and think God will extraordinarily give everyone nice sanctifying Grace, this isn't actually heresy just not terribly realistic and yeah it isn't in line with what the saints taught. Someone who claimed all people before death by an extraordinary Grace were put into a state of sanctifying Grace still wouldn't be teaching there is salvation outside the Church.

I think they are incorrect yet, but they still teach extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they just have a very optimistic view of the ecclesiam part. (And they don't make this very clear when they talk about this either but it is fundamental to their ideas).

They believe that you can die as a non Catholic, that you can die professing you hate the Catholic church with all your heart and soul.
It's just claiming, oh yes but they are actually Catholic in the invisible church.

"Oh we aren't denying it, we just make the definitions so bizarre it doesn't make any sense".

Yes it is heresy. Trent states that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that Baptism is used with real and natural water.

You think I don't think this? Obviously they don't straight up say we don't believe this. But people believe I can work my whole life to convert people to Islam, convert hundreds of people, and my dying breath can be I hate the Catholic Church with all my heart and soul, and still go to heaven. But oh… outside the church there is no salvation, we still preach that! It's totally meaningless. When you define a "catholic" as being anybody who openly rejects the Catholic faith, and thinks baptism is disgusting, yeah sure I can proclaim that only Kangaroos go to Heaven too, but by Kangaroos I mean certain humans.

Now get off the internet weirdo

Catholics are a Jewish proxy, just like Islam.

Hail the Aesir, Hail Victory!
youtube.com/channel/UCzj_jBdoppML-t9DQIEMqrg

According to you it's fine to believe that Jesus isn't God, you're an Arian heretic. Get off the internet weirdo. Hey if your Priest was an Arian during the Arian Controversy, you should be an Arian too! Heresy is not a sin!

To be Catholic means to be in the state of sanctifying Grace, which we know can be had without water baptism because of St. Dismas as well as the teaching of the doctors. They just stretch this to apply to everyone which isn't realistic. But those who do die in a state of Grace, die Catholic. (and the saints generally said those who extraordinarily were put in a state of Grace received revelation about Christ/the Church and accepted it which I go along with) so they'd even have Catholic ideas.

It's possible for God to do that to everyone, but like I said it's not realistic. Teaching that isn't heresy though.

Wrong, shows how little you know. Church dogma is higher than any doctor. If anyone says Baptism is not necessary for salvation, let them be anathema. St. Dismas was before the church started, which was instituted when Jesus' side was pierced. He went to the Limbo of the fathers (PARADISE), he was justified via circumcision.

Trent infallibly declares you must use natural water for baptism. We only have ONE BAPTISM. And you MUST be baptized for salvation. It is heresy.

Get of the internet weirdo. Stop spreading your heresy of which you know so little about. What a weirdo. And please be an Arian because your priest was. Oh well even if all the priests in your city are Arians, you should be an Arian too, othewise you dishonor Christ! Hahah, get off the internet, please.

...

...

You literally are preaching heresy saying Baptism is optional

blog posts and youtube videos don't make you a canon lawyer

Heresy to Roman Catholics, maybe. What's the basis of this claim of "no salvation outside of literal baptism" in the words of Christ?

Aww sorry sweetie. I guess you have no response anymore. Quit with your heresy, heretics go to hell.

Muh muh muh Trent is a blog post! You literally said that you don't need to be baptized to be saved.

John 3:5 - The church defines this to be true and natural water, and not a metaphor. I understand if you're not Catholic you may have a different interpretation, but if your question is what is the basis, is that + the infallible Church teaching on the interpretation of that line.

Canon law uses very technical language, it's not meant for lay people to read.

do you know what the phrase baptism is free means?

People aren't expected to figure out their religion reading the canons of the Church, we are expected to submit to the roman pontiff in which the Truth is guaranteed by Christ.

Catholicism isn't just sola scriptura with more documents

That is, not necessary unto salvation.
Priests literally say you do not have to submit to the roman pontiff externally in any meaningful sense to be saved
Again you're saying if your Priest is an Arian you should be an Arian. Hahaha sorry sweetie this is going very poorly for you.

In addition a Priest, Bishop or Pope can tell you to sin. How are you find out if it's a sin then? Can't read any church documents according to you! If a priest tells me to use birth control and that's fine, um… I guess I gotta do it then! I can't just read a church document saying birth control is bad… cause it's "technical language" and "I'm not a canon lawyer". You clearly have no idea what you're talking about now. Hahah it's sweet you're saying free, it literally says not necessary unto salvation. You are saying that baptism is not necessary unto salvation. Anathema sit.

What about that time Pope Francis told the boy who's departed father was an atheist that the father is in heaven?

catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

There are absolutely liberal Catholics who believe that. I'm not defending it but this is a reality.

Btw this is a problem in all denominations. Liberal infiltration of the church is not a new thing at all.

Attached: FT_18.08.30_USCatholics_policies.png (310x493, 25.03K)

This is EWTN's translation, it's even more clear. It means optional.


Yeah cause this person is some bizarre Priest Worshipper. The epitome of the catholic depiction of the synagogue, completely blind. There is no faith and reason for this person, it's blindly following a Priest. You can't even read anything to determine if your Priest is saying something wrong to you. Actually Priests telling couples that they can use contraception is not a rare thing at all. According to this person you should then do it if your Priest says it's okay - you're not even allowed to read anything on it, since we aren't 'sola scriptura' haha. This thread was good in the end because it made me realize I don't need to worry, it's actually very easy to refute these people. They're the ones having to jump through hoops to defend their heresy.

It just seems absurd from a metaphysical standpoint that to accept God and thus be saved, you NEED to have been materially submerged in water thrice by another. A more metaphysically logical conclusion would be to combine the broader context of Christ's teachings on salvation being granted to all who truly and simply have faith in Him, and the baptism of water could be interpreted in some other way (water from birth or simply metaphorical.)
For the record, I take no hard stance on the issue. I advocate for baptism in every possible situation, but is a man really damned if he finds God but dies unexpectedly before he is physically baptized?

Also to be fair, Pope Francis didn't definitely say that the parent was in Heaven, but he did give a generic God doesn't abandon people, making him think at least he can hope for it or something. But yeah again that poster is bizarre trying to think that I don't know they claim to hold up EENS. When you make terms meaningless I can uphold any doctrine. Like look what they deny next, oh yeah you don't need to be baptized to be saved. They are habitual twisters of everything.

Attached: image (3).jpg (956x960, 62.98K)

Are you orthodox? Cause catholics don't believe in the three times thing.
Yes because it's all about God's providence. Are you Prot or Orthodox? Well another teaching that Catholics have run away from preaching is Predestination, which is dogma. Everything is under God's providence. People too often have this conception that the world is just happening and God sorts of intervenes sometimes, but you know, sometimes he is busy too! Oh shucks well you couldn't get there on time. No rather, all of our lives are like God writing a book. Are you gonna tell JK Rowling, oh if only Harry could do that, but he wasn't able to. That's not how it works with God. Another error is this idea of "radical free will". Well when people say that it always has some weird notion. Yes God does allow us to err, but only - and only - if a better good can come out of it, and if not, we cannot do it. Our free will is a lot more limited than people think it is. As an example, I mean I might think I have free will to slash someones tires, but if God doesn't permit that I just can't. So my point is, while it may seem like why do I need this to be saved, it's because it's part of God's providence. If you are part of his elect, you will be in a situation where you can and will get baptized. It shows that it's totally a free gift - that we cannot baptize ourselves, and that everything is in God's Providence. It took me a while meditating on Predestination (single Catholic predestination) before it made sense to me and felt intuitive almost, at least to a level.

It's not a wonder many Catholics don't even know we believe in Predestination as Dogma, and this mumbo jumbo heresy that Baptism is Optional or baptism is the "ordinary way" of salvation and so on.

The Church teaching is so clear. These aren't even complicated statements. And I know this part isn't related to you since you're not Catholic, but yeah all future church teaching has to be read in light of previous teaching so that it doesn't contradict. If anyone says that it's not real water but a metaphor, anathema, anyone says baptism is optional, anathema.

:^)

Another way to look at it is this. Say I'm a habitual sinner - and while I frequently go for confession, I also have repeatedly committed this or certain sins, hundreds if not thousands of times in my life. Say I go to confession, and then a day after I suddenly die, before sinning again. I get to go to heaven. Is that unfair? What if instead of dying that day, I live and sin the next day, and die while I am sinning in fact, I go to hell. Is that unfair? I usually go for confession anyways, so is it unfair that God took my life before I could go for confession? Knowning that I repeatedly sin (despite trying not to, not saying I have the sin planned out already - because that would be a sin in itself) - is it unfair if I die before I sin again and go to heaven knowing I'd probably sin anyways?

I hope you get the point I'm trying to illustrate - I don't live a minute longer or shorter than when God wants me to live. My life is a story written by him (primarily, yes I do co-operate with his Grace and do have free will - free will limited to what He permits me to do), but if if I am part of the elect, I will be able to do what I need before I die. Every time we sin we should know as well that we run the risk of dying while sinning even (actually in the Imitation of Christ this exact thing is mentioned) and then you won't get your chance to confess.

The point of all these things is to show that God is the author of our lives. No one can accidentally die in the eyes of God. If you are part of his elect Good will infallibly save you. Your question was what if that person doesn't get to be baptized. But what if they get baptized and sin and then die - is that unfair? I mean clearly that must happen to many people. In fact it would be better if they were never baptized, since their punishment would be less, and so on.

BASED

Attached: e3de277d2204373012a14dece31dcec6977a31f014553cf5845e5dd11498d726.jpg (676x451, 37.14K)

Orthodox.
Why (in your belief) did God create rational souls whom feel and think with the sole purpose of subjecting them to eternal torment? Predestination implies God is the author of suffering, it implies He created wicked creatures (which again is impossible, God cannot be the author of an evil) for the sole purpose of tormenting them, how is that good?
That is contradictory with omnibenevolence. Predestination is nonsensical.

Your first example is illogical to me, as all who maintain a spirit of repentance and acceptance of Christ as God are saved. I don't think you go to eternal damnation for sinning once before getting to confess, because we are not saved by confession, but through faith and love of God. If every sinner were condemned, we would all be damned.
Should add that, in the Orthodox view, Hell is not a dungeon of torment akin to Dante's Inferno, but is instead a constant state of misery for those whom in life rejected God and now whose souls are eternally deprived of proper connection with God; which causes a suffering like fire (like Gehenna). Those whom accept Christ experience theosis, which is a uniting with God which is eternal.

Yes, Christ will remove the lampstand of false priests.

The Arian crisis was one example of this, also the KGB took over the official Orthodox church in Russia and replaced clergy with their heretical puppet informers. This is pretty commonplace in history.

This is another stumbling block for most people, but it comes relatively natural to me too (and another thing totally abandoned by the Church, causing many people to err). Hell is a beautiful display to his Saints and to God himself - for it shows his Justice. First of all we have to establish why Hell must be eternal, but that is simple. If I told you the punishment for murdering someone was imprisonment for 5 seconds - would that be a big deal to you at all? Considering 5 seconds is nothing compared to the average person's life, it's no punishment at all. I'd murder and kill and steal if that was the only punishment (not really but you know). But compared to infinite, any finite period of time is completely negligible. In fact 5 seconds compared to 100 years is MORE than 1 billion billion years compared to infinity. For any meaningful punishment, it must be eternal.

God didn't create wicked creatures, but they chose to be wicked. And this is something you have to meditate on, but you can just sort of tell there are some people, at least if they died as they were right now, I mean they're going to Hell (more or less), just because of the sheer hate in their heart for the Church, Christ, love of Sodomy, they wish to promote it, they constantly attack the church and subvert it every chance they get and they think haha like the religious people are the fools etc. I mean the Psalms, even was reading Deuteronomy today, there's always this idea about the fools who will get their justice. You know people have this innate almost core desire to see justice. We can't stand to feel if someone just gets away with it. These people who "believe" there is no God really feel they can do whatever and "get away with it". Now God keeps giving them opportunities to turn their life around, but for the people who don't, it will be sweet beautiful justice to see their punishment. I think a big issue why people find this hard is most people don't believe they are deserving of Hell themselves. The more you see what sin is and meditate on it, you will be more seeing that Hell is beautiful and just and we deserve it and we have the free gift of faith and access to the sacraments etc. But yeah these are mysteries, but I think if you meditate on them they become more accessible. To the modern eyes they view they are "good people" and everyone is a "good person" and so these just seem inaccessible to them.

>for the sole purpose of tormenting them
Again, it's like God writes a book. I guess you could say it's something static in a way, your judgement is your judgement, nothing changes in Heaven, since there is no time, no change. The purpose is beauty - it is for the Glory of God for the people, who were given the option time and time again to be good but didn't, to see justice. Like if you're reading a book, there are character who could have been good but they chose evil, a good book the conclusion is that they get justice. God writes the world like a book. I mean he literally made the universe through his word (Logos).
Okay yeah I guess well maybe that's another reason why I don't get really with the EO view of things. Although I guess I have heard conflicting things. But I guess you know the Catholic view on things.
Yeah I'm aware of this but I don't see how it's any different really from the Catholic view. I mean in the end we don't really know what happens other than I mean Hell is suffering (except for Limbo but that's another story). And we believe you have your body in Hell. What goes on in Hell I think isn't really relevant. If you don't believe that a single mortal sin sends you to Hell then yeah my examples won't make sense, but it just seems very OSAS to me too then. In fact I would argue that doctrine makes it easier to sin then, because let's be honest, after repenting 350 times for a sin, I think I could say I am safe that I have a spirit for repentance (and I can genuinely be disgusted - hate my sin, but we are weak, we relapse all the time). But if I feel oh yeah, well I have a spirit of repentance, I'll be saved, I mean yeah it would make it even harder for me to resist sin. It's easier to resist sin thinking that it literally sends me to Hell (if I die before I confess) - and even then I/we (Catholics) still sin. Imagine if I thought otherwise - it would be worse.

Right - also scripture infallibly prophecies a great apostasy. Clearly if this is the final attack of the church, it will have to be a greater attack / worse than the Arian Crisis. If the majority of Priests/Bishops were Arian heretics back then, it could only get worse. And like our Lord said, we should read the signs of the times. Nowadays more than other times we should be vigilant and not blindly follow anyone. God gave us reason for a reason. We are commanded to test every spirit, we are commanded to beware of false prophets etc.

Prots: Everyone but me is going to hell.
Caths: Everyone is going to hell.
Orthodox: Everyone but me is going to heaven.

Yes. Christ will remove the lampstand of the false priests.

I don't know if we're in the end times or simply a transient period of mass apostasy.

You're definitely right about reason. God gave it to us as a gift to be able to discern heresy from truth.

Then why are they damned? If you say they chose it, then that is not predestination. Predestination implies they were born to be condemned to Hell, meaning they were made to be condemned, meaning they must have been made wicked, which contradicts the fact that God is not the author of wickedness.
The more correct understanding seems to be that God has created a creature that in the privation and separation of God may be damned by his own choice, but to imply that God made creatures solely to damn them to torment eternal is illogical and rather heretical.
I would normally respond to your whole post but I'm tired tonight. Forgive me.

No that's not Catholic predestination. They choose Hell, but the elect are infallibly willed to heaven. Predestination/Calvinism is that both are predestined.

So then can the non-elect choose to accept God and be saved?
If not, then yours is practically no different from Calvinistic predestination.

I think your position is called 'feeneyism'

It's called following Church Dogma. (I am well aware of the so called position). Nowhere is there any new Dogma that says you do not have to be baptized, or that you do not need water to be baptized, or there is anything other than one baptism.

It's very clear to see why Modernists want to attack this dogma though. No EENS, no church basically. Everything becomes 'optional' - no evangelization (that's what we basically have). E Michael Jones says himself that literally he got a Jew to go to Notre Dame to ask for baptism, and they literally sent the Jew back saying Jews don't have to be baptized or convert. Heard similar stories with Muslims wanting to get baptized and being told they should stay as Muslims.

If you can start playing with dogma so amazingly clear as this, there is no reason why they won't start saying gays can be married too and so on. The motivation for not believing this consistent church teaching is clear - and the fruits are clear too. Honestly this teaching is a lot more clear than what St. Athanasius had to defend during the Arian Crisis, especially pre Nicea, but even after Nicea all the Arians tried to insist that Arianism was compatible with the Nicean creed. Heretics love to try and twist things. This seems to be exactly what is going on now.

Yes, I wish I could just go around converting people to Orthodoxy full time. That would be great.

If you aren't aware the popular feenyist colony St. Benedict Center openly accepted baptism of desire so your whole religon is basically you
df9ixb8c8gy4m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/01/20170307-Letter.pdf

from their doctrinal statement

Attached: bap.PNG (620x159, 91.4K)

If you read that carefully (and I have already read it) Andre Martin doesn't say they don't need baptism. He said he will not say that they do not need baptism. And the last time is literally repeating what the letter he's replying to told him to assert.

And it doesn't matter - read the whole letter, he said nothing 'unorthodox' or obviously so, but they still told them to stop calling themselves catholic. The whole thing is not in good faith - this same diocese has literally no issue with Fr. James Martin, and in fact he's heavily promoted by the Pope.

It's all word games they are playing. He literally complied to everything that they asked of him, at least in their words, but they still reject him but don't say what specifically he has to reject. Why is this so important to this diocese and not Fr James Martin or anything else. Why did Fr Feeney never have to recant any of his statements? This whole thing is a total joke.

If there is no EENS then there is no Catholic religion. NO ONE can say that gay marriage cannot be accepted in the future, cause statements can be re-interpreted any way you like. This EENS was defined over 3 times infallibly, but now they're saying all it means is -> If you believe Jesus is God -> IF you believe the Catholic Church was made a requirement by him for salvation -> And if you refuse -> Then you can't be saved.

LOL, it covers literally zero people. Tell me one human person who believes all of this and doesn't join the church. That's literally what the JP2 catechism says. There is literally no one that fits that category. They have essentially made that dogma nonsense. I can easily teach that we uphold that a man and woman is a sacramental marriage, but with new profound understanding of the dignity of man and the relation, this only refers to spiritual gender, not biological sex. Since there can be no conflict between reason and faith, as science and reason tells us, the union between a spiritual man and woman can indeed be shared fully by people of the same biological sex. There is no conflict between this understanding and previous church tradition. The church is a living institution that continues to develop doctrine.

Now once again, for the love of God, get off the internet you weirdo. Leave the internet.

Because they aren't Catholic. If you are not in communion with the Seat of St. Peter, you are not part of the Catholic Church. Period.


Because, unlike you or your sect, he is in communion with the Church. Though he is Catholic, he is a Catholic preaching false doctrine and may be judged as such, but this does not give you the authority to say whether or he is Catholic.


It's not word games, you're either canonized or not.


What is "invincible ignorance" and what of the example of St. Dismas? You ignore the things you do not like.


No, you cannot.

And that's an evil mark on Notre Dame (if it happened), but not enough to say the Seat is Vacant, or that Vatican II does not apply.

Friend, if you're actually Catholic, you sin against Charity talking like this. Knock it off.

Unironical larping about stone-hard catholicism. I switch the sh*tposting ironical attitude with serious approach. It's fun and sometimes even effective. Moreover saying all things I say in a grave manner would make me look like a complete sperg. People can chew it up better thiss way

Unrelated to the thread, but i see that you are keep spamming this and i knew that it was bullshit.
So i made a 3 seconds google search

Can we make this a copypasta?

Attached: 0D77D1AC-BDB2-428B-B444-DC3F2F41C4EE.jpeg (750x718, 280.52K)

It is related to the thread I think. OP says Orthodox can chime in. Here is the source. Anyway I’m not trying to derail this just providing the source you’re looking for.

Back to you Catholics.

Attached: 7162F8B6-C211-415A-A2AC-4B5B0D5AB1C3.jpeg (720x1280, 224.36K)

Knock it off yourself, and please go see a priest for confession. Learn to speak better please, I lovingly ask you.

Feeny never recanted and was completely inline with the church when he died. Stop spreading lies, but I guess that's what you do.
I already explained this to you heretic. Repent and become catholic, you protestant heretic.
Haha what a strawman from a heretic non-Catholic. No one ever said that you heretic. Now repent and stop spreading lies.

Invincible ignorance is not salvific and St. Thomas Aquinas and many other saints have said that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and that if someone was truly ignorant God would provide them with the knowledge of it.
Haha but they can have an "implicit desire" to be part of the church, and invincibly ignorant that what they are doing is wrong - according to you - so they can be very Catholic, just like a Muslim can be part of the Catholic Church, and an Eastern Orthodox can be part of the Catholic church. Or are you now denying your own doctrine? Hahahaha

Someone excommunicated even (none of them have been excommunicated, and are valid practicing Catholics - for example Brother Andre is a valid Catholic and has not been excommunicated). He is open about his beliefs and is not excommunicated.

Furthermore any Muslim can be part of the Catholic church, and so can Eastern Orthodox people, so definitely an excommunicated person even can be part of the Catholic Church. Period.

Now stop reddit spacing and get back to leddit, prot.

Again if you didn't understand, which I already explained to you, since you're a heretic protestant, St. Dismas was before the church started. Baptism wasn't a requirement before the Church started. Does a heretic like you even know when the church was born? IT was after Jesus' death, when his side was pierced. Laws of Baptism and the Sacraments are AFTER THE CHURCH started. The sacraments are essential to salvation - TRENT. There were no sacraments of the CHURCH prior to the CHURCH being started. What a dunce, repent from your heresy. All heretics go to hell.

There are books defending Feeny and has the Obstat of a Bishop, published after Feeny's death. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Trent makes it clear
Baptism is essential for salvation and it is by water. You guys think you can twist meanings to mean literally everything is optional.

half of the thread is you ranting
take your medication and stop spamming

Attached: autism.png (1521x525, 105.71K)

No argument. Friend please don't accuse people of mental illnesses. Seek confession please.

your behavior is the only counter-argument needed against you at this point, you know
making a thread to spam and rant by yourself, insulting or wishing harm upon people who don't agree with you or even who give you neutral advice, etc.
I haven't reported you for the sake of charity, but please stop spamming, it's getting unbearable. How old are you even? You sound like an excited 14 years old kid who really wants to convert to Catholicism. If this is not the impression you want to give, then stop doing everything you possibly can to give this impression.

FWIW, I'm the Orthodox you originally told to piss off, and I'll give an Orthodox perspective. Baptism is necessary for salvation. "Unbeatable ignorance" or whatever it's called is nonsense and betrays both what the Lord Himself says about salvation, as well as what the proper understanding of the sacraments is. It's also nonsense to say that apostolic succession can be found outside of the Church.
However, catechumens can be saved, because they were heading toward baptism and what cut them in their track wasn't their rejection of grace, but rather death, which is our enemy and is out of our control. So Christ comes to reach them halfway through. This is proven by that we have saints who died while still catechumens, and of course that catechumens are allowed a funeral service.

Invincible Ignorance, and we have the appellation that those outside the Church shouldn't be judged, and they in turn, from their ignorance of the Truth Faith, will be judged according to the Law in their hearts.

What you need to decide, is what does the "law in their hearts" mean. If they were de-facto damned, the Gospel would tell us as such, and it quite simply does not.

Do not put words in my mouth. You do not argue in good faith, and you're quite clearly going through a manic episode during this entire thread.

When Paul speaks of the "law in their hearts", he is praising the Gentile converts for listening to the inner call for righteousness that is in every person's heart and that called them to the Church, in contrast with the Jews who already had the Law of Moses to indicate the truth to them. He is not claiming that Gentiles outside the Church can be saved.

Meanwhile…

The only instance where it is said that someone can be saved without canonically being under an Orthodox bishop is in Mark 9:38-41:
But even then this is about those who, although they are not under a canonical bishop, believe correctly about Who Jesus is. What happens if someone tries to use the name of Jesus without believing correctly about Who He is? See Acts 9:11-17:

Heretics are in the same basket as Jews. They are not accounted as being sheeps of the Lord. Therefore the only exceptions we find are those who believe correctly about Christ without being under a canonical bishop (per Mark) and those who receive the rite of the catechumenate but then die before their Baptism can happen (per tradition). Nothing here about invincible ignorance (sorry for saying "unbeatable ignorance", English's not my first language lol).

I usually don't derail threads but I don't mind discussing this with you since OP shat up his own thread anyway.

14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. 16This will come to pass on that day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel.

I don't see what you're saying anywhere in the actual text. What St. Paul says of those "who sinned without the law, perishing without the law" (in Rom. 2-12) is distinct from Rom. 2:2-14, wherein they shall be judged according to the Law in their hearts.

I too, am not claiming that those outside the Church can be saved, but the Catholics define Heaven as the Church Triumphant, so obviously we have different definitions of what the Church is.


Meanwhile, the inconvenient Thief re-appears again. Bearing the marks of his Crucifixion, having no other proof of his baptism than the profession of his mouth and the tears of his eyes. Yet, unlike either of us both, we know he is in Heaven.


Orthodox? Are you an Orthodox? Funny, I thought Catholics were supposed to be the incorrigible Pharisees.

So both you and OP are going to insult me in the same thread? And here I thought I might have a peaceful discussion for once. Forget about it. Have a nice day.

Oh i see it now, it's le great apostasy

Oh boy, do I got some news for you! You'll never believe what this guy did, corrupt hierarchies and false prophets hate him!

Attached: photo-1458593140930-1f9049c952c1.jpg (1000x1333, 130.79K)

I didn't insult you, I pointed out that a common epithet applied to Catholicism could in turn apply to the Orthodox if they define salvation as "being in communion with an Orthodox Bishop". We both do the same thing.

Except the early church according to the Apostles and according to scripture that is correct. In other cases there is baptism of desire and baptism of blood for the catechumen and martyrs respectively.

What colour is your fedora?