Topic: Traditional Catholicism

[JonathanSantiago]

According to traditional Catholics (mostly sedevacantists ) the Vatican 2 church is a false church. All the Vatican 2 popes are antipopes. I agree with traditional Catholicism that the Roman Catholic Church lost so much with the change of the mass. The current mass is very bland in comparison etc. But something bothers me about traditional Catholics . Traditional Catholics believe that there isn't salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and since the current Roman Catholic Church is false that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. That's right Orthodox christians are condemned to hell , protestants are condemned to hell. Vatican 2 Catholics are condemned to hell. And of course every person of all other religions are condemned to hell by default , atheists and nonbeliever included of course. This doctrine bothers me because isn't fair.  Most  people don't choose were when and which religion to be born. What's the Orthodox Church take of this doctrine? Do the Orthodox Church believe that all non orthodox will be condemned to hell by default ? For something most people don't have control ?

[AlioshaKaramazov]

From what I've seen while being a traditional RC, not all traditional Catholics believe in a Feeneyite version of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" where everyone outside of their little sect is condemned to Hell no matter what (that is, some are saved through invincible ignorance or Baptism of Desire/Blood). As for the Orthodox, they'll be able to give you a better answer, but I think they too see the Orthodox Church as the Ark of Salvation outside of which there's no, well, salvation. But it doesn't seem to be a rigorist version of "EENS" either.

[coptic orthodox boy]

According to traditional Catholics (mostly sedevacantists ) the Vatican 2 church is a false church. All the Vatican 2 popes are antipopes. I agree with traditional Catholicism that the Roman Catholic Church lost so much with the change of the mass. The current mass is very bland in comparison etc. But something bothers me about traditional Catholics . Traditional Catholics believe that there isn't salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and since the current Roman Catholic Church is false that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. That's right Orthodox christians are condemned to hell , protestants are condemned to hell. Vatican 2 Catholics are condemned to hell. And of course every person of all other religions are condemned to hell by default , atheists and nonbeliever included of course. This doctrine bothers me because isn't fair.  Most  people don't choose were when and which religion to be born. What's the Orthodox Church take of this doctrine? Do the Orthodox Church believe that all non orthodox will be condemned to hell by default ? For something most people don't have control ?

I'm no expert on the subject but it seems to me that Orthodoxy isn't exactly clear what happens to those outside the Orthodox church.  Some appear to believe something similar to the traditional Catholic stance above while others argue for universal salvation.

Something that has always left me somewhat dumbfounded is that some (if not all) of the popes post Vatican Two seem to revere the traditions and liturgy of Orthodox/Eastern Rite Catholics while systematically suppressing the Latin (specifically liturgical) traditions of the West. 

[Porter ODoran]

Something that has always left me somewhat dumbfounded is that some (if not all) of the popes post Vatican Two seem to revere the traditions and liturgy of Orthodox/Eastern Rite Catholics while systematically suppressing the Latin (specifically liturgical) traditions of the West.

Think of it as unconscious penance.

[Rohzek]

According to traditional Catholics (mostly sedevacantists ) the Vatican 2 church is a false church. All the Vatican 2 popes are antipopes. I agree with traditional Catholicism that the Roman Catholic Church lost so much with the change of the mass. The current mass is very bland in comparison etc. But something bothers me about traditional Catholics . Traditional Catholics believe that there isn't salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and since the current Roman Catholic Church is false that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. That's right Orthodox christians are condemned to hell , protestants are condemned to hell. Vatican 2 Catholics are condemned to hell. And of course every person of all other religions are condemned to hell by default , atheists and nonbeliever included of course. This doctrine bothers me because isn't fair.  Most  people don't choose were when and which religion to be born. What's the Orthodox Church take of this doctrine? Do the Orthodox Church believe that all non orthodox will be condemned to hell by default ? For something most people don't have control ?

As Coptic has already mention, there is no unified official Orthodox position on this matter, at that I am aware of.

[Porter ODoran]

... that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. ...

Welcome to Christian fundamentalism.

[sedevacantist]

According to traditional Catholics (mostly sedevacantists ) the Vatican 2 church is a false church. All the Vatican 2 popes are antipopes. I agree with traditional Catholicism that the Roman Catholic Church lost so much with the change of the mass. The current mass is very bland in comparison etc. But something bothers me about traditional Catholics . Traditional Catholics believe that there isn't salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and since the current Roman Catholic Church is false that means almost every person in the world will be condemned to hell by default. That's right Orthodox christians are condemned to hell , protestants are condemned to hell. Vatican 2 Catholics are condemned to hell. And of course every person of all other religions are condemned to hell by default , atheists and nonbeliever included of course. This doctrine bothers me because isn't fair.  Most  people don't choose were when and which religion to be born. What's the Orthodox Church take of this doctrine? Do the Orthodox Church believe that all non orthodox will be condemned to hell by default ? For something most people don't have control ?

so I assume you don't agree with the bible and the following Church fathers? you are aware the bible teaches few are saved?

St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "No man can find
salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have
everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can
sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and
the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation
except in the Catholic Church."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): "The holy universal Church teaches that it is
not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of
Her will not be saved."


St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only
pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the
Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."


This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the
3rd century, and is found his Letter LXXII, Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis,
and in Latin reads: “Salus extra ecclesiam non est”. The axiom is often used as shorthand
for the doctrine, upheld by the the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church is
absolutely necessary for salvation ("one true faith"). The theological basis for this
doctrine is founded on the beliefs that (1) Jesus Christ personally established the one
Church; and (2) the Church serves as the means by which the graces won by Christ are
communicated to believers.
Some of the most pertinent Roman Catholic expressions of this doctrine are: the
profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the profession of faith of the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215), the bull Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the
profession of faith of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside
the Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different terms by the
ordinary magisterium

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit
terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to
be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that
believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off
obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the
Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic”,
he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is
such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10 sq.). The doctrine is
summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Today's pluralistic and godless society creates an environment of indifference in matters
of religion in order to achieve a false and empty unity and liberty. It is said that everyone
must be allowed to believe as they see fit and do what makes them happy. The
implication is that God is not very concerned about whether one believes in what is true,
for all will be saved as long as they are "nice." Some come to this conclusion by asserting
that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a
denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective
truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality
of the order established by God – one must believe all and everything that the Catholic
Church teaches to be saved.
This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false, that only the Catholic
Church contains the entire deposit of Truth given to the Apostles by Christ, and that this
entire deposit – not a majority of it or a part of it – is necessary for salvation. Although
these truths are denied and scorned by today's world, they are fully in accord with
common sense and the constant teaching of the Church. Christ gave to the Apostles the
entire deposit of faith ("The Holy Ghost will teach you all things" John 14:26), told
them to pass it on to the world ("Going therefore, teach ye all nations" Matt. 28:19),
and threatened damnation for those who did not believe them ("He who believes not
will be condemned" Mark 16:16). He would not have condemned to hell the disbelievers
if either it was not important to believe all that the Apostles taught or if He was not
certain that the Apostles were teaching the truth ("He that heareth you heareth Me"
Luke 10:16). The Apostles themselves knew that all who believed in any way different
from their infallible teaching would perish – "But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema" (Gal. 1:.

[Porter ODoran]

^ Wow, I'd think you'd want to join the Catholic church post-haste.

[The young fogey]

Something that has always left me somewhat dumbfounded is that some (if not all) of the popes post Vatican Two seem to revere the traditions and liturgy of Orthodox/Eastern Rite Catholics while systematically suppressing the Latin (specifically liturgical) traditions of the West.

I noticed that 30 years ago. This weird self-hating streak (trash your own traditions) is not based on our doctrine, and you're right; it's hypocritical. Some of it dates to when ecumenism was fashionable, right after the council. Some of it's exoticism (the same things are bad when Westerners do them but cool when exotic foreigners do them; "see how educated and open-minded I am") so you had the bizarre phenomenon of Catholic liberals playing with icons, etc., while sometimes ignoring real Eastern Catholics, such as Ukrainians, who weren't playing games but really worshipping pretty much as they'd always done.

[Vanhyo]

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): "The holy universal Church teaches that it is
not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of
Her will not be saved."

And how do sedevacantists worship God ?

[The young fogey]

Sedevacantists are in an interesting ecclesiastical no-man's-land like uncanonical Orthodox such as the Kyiv Patriarchate, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, and the Greek Old Calendarists. In theory the sedevacantists aren't a separate church, so I hesitate to call them non-Catholic, but in practice they are; by not being under our lawful bishops they are not in good standing with the church. Only God knows how guilty each person is of wrongdoing. The sedevacantist scenario can happen; we're not even close. Not liking the Pope personally or the Pope being foolish doesn't vacate the See of Peter.

How do they worship God? Like every group outside the church but still having the Mass.

[Vanhyo]

How do they worship God? Like every group outside the church but still having the Mass.

They have 2 options
- stay Home
- visit CMRI mass

Staying home = no worship

Visiting CMRI mass will be worship through phony apostolic orders, if this make any sense, since the sedevacantist religion tells us the the gates of hell have defeated Rome and the Pope, and the apostolic succession in there have ceased, therefore they resort to take the apostolic succession from "old catholic" in order to validate their own religion.

In other words, worship/mass with fake priesthood

So, Mr Sedevacantis is condemned by his own copy/paste macro.

[michaelus]

How do they worship God? Like every group outside the church but still having the Mass.

Some groups will say stay home and read the missal and pray 15 decades of the Rosary
Others will go to Old Catholic or sometimes even Easter Catholic masses.

[Sharbel]

Some groups will say stay home and read the missal and pray 15 decades of the Rosary
Others will go to Old Catholic or sometimes even Easter Catholic masses.

Indeed, we are visited every now and then by some of these, who have no qualms about telling our pastor that they are confident that his Holy Orders are valid, unlike of those Novus Ordo Romans... 

[The young fogey]

I can't imagine real sedevacantists going to real or fake Old Catholics. Old Catholics are just a quaint version of Catholic liberalism.

[Alpha60]

I can't imagine real sedevacantists going to real or fake Old Catholics. Old Catholics are just a quaint version of Catholic liberalism.

Not the PNCC.

[The young fogey]

The PNCC started as radically liberal (founding Prime Bishop Franciszek Hodur, whose writings about God don't sound even Protestant; rather, Unitarian and Masonic) disguised as conservative Polish practice in the parishes, and they're not Old Catholic anymore. The would-be Union of Scranton is its own thing. I still see them as a quaint version of Catholic liberalism; it doesn't make any sense.

[Alpha60]

The PNCC started as radically liberal (founding Prime Bishop Franciszek Hodur, whose writings about God don't sound even Protestant; rather, Unitarian and Masonic) disguised as conservative Polish practice in the parishes, and they're not Old Catholic anymore. The would-be Union of Scranton is its own thing. I still see them as a quaint version of Catholic liberalism; it doesn't make any sense.

It makes more sense than Papal infallibility, or Papal supremacy, which are not evinced by the historical record of the Church.

The leaders of Nicene Christianity in the 4th century were Ss. Pope Alexander, Pope Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Ambrose, and Patriarch John Chrysostom.   The Archbishop of Rome, who was not yet styled as Pope, sided with the Nicenes, and one of them sheltered St. Athanasius, but none attended the ecumenical councils in person, and among Latin speaking Christians, St. Ambrose is far more important as an advocate for Nicene Christianity in the face of continuing Arianism during the reign of Theodosius; the continual vigil he held in his cathedral, with his loyal flock, to prevent it from being handed over to the Arians, where antiphonal hymns were sung "in the manner of the Greeks" "lest the comgregation perish from soulless monotony" (the extremely conservative Old Roman chant was monotone, before various Greek-inspired reforms, such as those of Pope St. Gregory the Great, and low masses were still sung monotonously until the 11th century or so, when the trend to pray them silently took hold), was the defining struggle of Latin Christianity against Arianism in the fourth century, an event without Papal participation or assistance.  The event is also traditionally regarded as the birthplace of Ambrosian Chant and the Ambrosian liturgical rite.

The Roman church in the fourth century was one of five leading churches; it had distinctive, comservative rituals (recall St. Ambrose counseling St. Augustine "When in Rome, do as the Romans"), and it did not embrace Arianism, but it also managed largely to keep itself out of the bitter fight which seized hold of the Greek speaking world.   After the fall of the Western Empire, during the reign of the Arian Ostrogoths, for example, in Ravenna, where an Orthodox-Catholic-Nicene baptistry and an Arian baptistry still survive, it was much more on the front lines, and the Roman Popes of that era were more directly involved.  But in the fourth century, the Roman archbishops contented themselves to cheering St. Athanasius, Ambrose et al along from the sidelines, and did not, for example, depose or attempt to depose the Arian anti-Popes of Alexandria who sought to usurp St. Athanasius, despite this ostensibly, according to the modern day Roman Catholic church, being their power.

I propose that if the Roman archbishops had the power to depose anti-Pope George of Alexandria, they were negligent in not doing so, but since they are largely enumerated as saints by the Orthodox church, it would be impious to accuse them of negligence; ergo they did what they could, which was limited, but it did entail keeping their metropolis free from Arianism. 

In the Fifth Century, the actions of St. Celestine in aiding St. Cyril are the first case of a Roman Archbishoop getting more heavily involved in an ecumenical council.  Archbishop Leo, who my communion does not regard as a saint for obvious reasons, was also heavily involved at Chalcedon, but would have preferred the council had not happened; he was also the first Bishop of Rome to claim the formerly Pagan title Pontifex Maximus.  The Roman archbishops began to be called Papem, or Pope, like their Alexandrian counterparts, in the Sixth century.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, the most important Bishop of Rome since St. Clement, when the Patriarch of Constantinople added Ecumenical as a prefix to their title, warned that any bishop claiming universal jurisdiction was a precursor to the anti-Christ.  It is difficult to reconcile the teachings of St. Gregory, who was previously a Nuncio to Constantinople, and before that, I believe, a deputy to the Nuncio, who contributed so much to the liturgy (Gregorian Chant, the Mass of the Presanctified, the current version of the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgy, replacing older versions derived from that of St. Severus), with those of the post-schism Catholic church on Papal authority.

[Vanhyo]

who was not yet styled as Pope,

This sounds to me like a wild conspiracy

[Vanhyo]

Some groups will say stay home and read the missal and pray 15 decades of the Rosary
Others will go to Old Catholic or sometimes even Easter Catholic masses.

Indeed, we are visited every now and then by some of these, who have no qualms about telling our pastor that they are confident that his Holy Orders are valid, unlike of those Novus Ordo Romans... 

But I suppose your pastors don't believe that the seat is empty, so if u 2 don't share the same faith, why are you giving them communion ?

[Alpha60]

who was not yet styled as Pope,

This sounds to me like a wild conspiracy

Its a matter of fact.  Until the 6th century, only the Patriarch of Alexandria was styled as Papem, meaning "Father" or "Pope", a tradition in the Egyptian Church dating from the 2nd century.  The Bishop of Rome was the Bishop of Rome, considered by all to be an archbishop and patriarch of the West.  The Patriarch of Constantinople did not adopt "Ecumemical" until around 600 AD, thus receiving the scorn of Pope St. Gregory of Rome.

It is also not entirely clear when the word Patriarch became de rigeur for Antioch and Jerusalem, and Comstantinople for that matter; these were always archbishops, and were regarded as the leading, autocephalous bishops.  Virtually from their inception, the Archbishop of Cyprus, the Catholicos of the East, and the Catholicoi of Armenia and Georgia had autocephaly as well, but Ethiopia, which, like Armenia and Georgia, converted primarily in the 4th century, was not autocephalous with its own Patriarch until 1958.

Now, in all of these cases, it makes sense, save one, in that there was a language barrier from the beginning (the Church of the East spoke Syriac, the Armenians spoke Armenian, and the Georgians spoke Georgian).  What I don't quite grasp is why Cyprus always had autocephalous status; perhaps travel to Cyprus was a bother vs. travel between Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, requiring sailing across the deep blue Mediterranean vs. sailing along the coast.

Rome managed to have the largest territory, especially after Archbishop Victor changed the language of the Roman Church from Greek to Latin.  He, like Pope Leo, also unsuccessfully tried to claim Papal supremacy, but was ignored or rebuffed by the other regional Patriarchs.

[Vanhyo]

Pope=papa=father=отец

It is how we address ministers in the priesthood

So to say the bishop of Rome wasn't addressed in such manner by the ordinary folks till the forth century sounds to me like a Protestant conspiracy argument.

The Bishop of Rome was the Bishop of Rome, considered by all to be an archbishop and patriarch

What do you think a "patriarch" is ? It is chief father of the family.

A later developments began to distinguish between the two titles, but they seem to be essentially the same

[The young fogey]

The Orthodox commemorate pre-schism Popes as Popes.

[minasoliman]

Is the title "Pope" really relevant to this discussion.  I think both Orthodox and Catholics agree there's nothing "supremacist" about calling someone "Pope".  Unless I'm mistaken here.

[Sharbel]

Indeed, we are visited every now and then by some of these, who have no qualms about telling our pastor that they are confident that his Holy Orders are valid, unlike of those Novus Ordo Romans... 

But I suppose your pastors don't believe that the seat is empty, so if u 2 don't share the same faith, why are you giving them communion ?

Because it's not like they all wear a badge stating their sedevacantism or wear it on their sleeves.

[Alpha60]

Is the title "Pope" really relevant to this discussion.  I think both Orthodox and Catholics agree there's nothing "supremacist" about calling someone "Pope".  Unless I'm mistaken here.

I agree on this point.  I just prefer to stress the historical point that the only archbishops formally called Papem in the Fourth Century were the Popes of Alexandria and all Africa, such as Sts. Peter, Alexander and Athanasius the Apostolic.

[augustin717]

There is no "papem" .

[Čtec]

Traditional Catholics have fiery faith and are honest with themselves, with the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church and the Fathers, Doctors as they would often call them, and that is that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church.
This is hard to believe in, because Christian Unity has failed greatly.

[juliogb]

Visiting CMRI mass will be worship through phony apostolic orders, if this make any sense, since the sedevacantist religion tells us the the gates of hell have defeated Rome and the Pope, and the apostolic succession in there have ceased, therefore they resort to take the apostolic succession from "old catholic" in order to validate their own religion.

Do they really defend the idea that the gates of hell really defeated true catholiciscm (even for a while), or they use some sort of ''invisible true roman church'' kind of argument?

[Volnutt]

How do they worship God? Like every group outside the church but still having the Mass.

They have 2 options
- stay Home
- visit CMRI mass

Staying home = no worship

Visiting CMRI mass will be worship through phony apostolic orders, if this make any sense, since the sedevacantist religion tells us the the gates of hell have defeated Rome and the Pope, and the apostolic succession in there have ceased, therefore they resort to take the apostolic succession from "old catholic" in order to validate their own religion.

In other words, worship/mass with fake priesthood

So, Mr Sedevacantis is condemned by his own copy/paste macro.

Pretty sure the Catholic Church since Vatican I was clear that Old Catholics still have valid orders, just not licit ones (they "filled out all the proper forms," as it were). So a CMRI or otherwise independent priest could still say, by Catholic logic, that he has valid ordination from an Old Catholic bishop (or a Thục or Lefebvre line bishop) and the licitness comes from his own correct faith.

Still kind of janky imo, but it's not quite the same as just laying hands on yourself.

[sedevacantist]

Visiting CMRI mass will be worship through phony apostolic orders, if this make any sense, since the sedevacantist religion tells us the the gates of hell have defeated Rome and the Pope, and the apostolic succession in there have ceased, therefore they resort to take the apostolic succession from "old catholic" in order to validate their own religion.

Do they really defend the idea that the gates of hell really defeated true catholiciscm (even for a while), or they use some sort of ''invisible true roman church'' kind of argument?

o, indefectibility (the promise of Christ
 to always be with His Church, and that the
gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain
essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that
at least a remnant
 of the
Church will exist until the end of the world, and
that a true pope will never authoritatively teach
error to the entire Church.  It does not ex
clude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had
numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a co
unterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the
true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely
what is predicted
 to occur in
the last days and what happene
d during the Arian crisis. 
Further, it should be noted that the Church has
defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which
Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!
Pope Vigilius,
Second Council of Constantinople
, 553:
“... we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said
the
gates of Hell will not prevail against it
(by these we understand the death-dealing
tongues of heretics)
...”
2
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Chur
ch built upon a rock, that is Christ, and
upon
Peter
... because by
the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics
 which
lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”
3
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful,
and put to
silence the dread folly of heretics, fittin
gly referred to as the gates of Hell.”
4
 (
Intro. To
Catena Aurea
.)
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Here
tics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a
heretic could never be a pope.  Th
e gates of Hell (heretics) coul
d never have authority over the
Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose th
e heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them
as popes, even though they can clearl
y be proven to be manifest heretics.
Pope Innocent III,
Eius exemplo
, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess
the one Church,
not of heretics
,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no
one is saved.”
5
St. Francis De Sales (17
th
 century), Doctor of the Church,
The Catholic Controversy
, pp.
305-306:  "
Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls
ipso facto
 from his
dignity and out of the Church
..."
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church th
at can be quoted which is contrary to the fact
that there is presently a counterfeit sect which ha
s reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant
in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presid
ed over by antipopes wh
o have falsely posed as
popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect
is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic
Church officially endorses false religions and fals
e doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean
that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.

[Volnutt]

This copypasta routine of yours is really annoying to read (and possibly copyright illegal). Wound you mind at the very least reformatting it after you post?

[sedevacantist]

This copypasta routine of yours is really annoying to read (and possibly copyright illegal). Wound you mind at the very least reformatting it after you post?

for some reason when I copy and paste from this document it never comes out correctly, it would take me too much time to correct each line

[Volnutt]

This copypasta routine of yours is really annoying to read (and possibly copyright illegal). Wound you mind at the very least reformatting it after you post?

for some reason when I copy and paste from this document it never comes out correctly, it would take me too much time to correct each line

Then you should put it in a blog or a Google doc or on Pastebin and copy from that.

[Asteriktos]

This copypasta routine of yours is really annoying to read (and possibly copyright illegal). Wound you mind at the very least reformatting it after you post?

for some reason when I copy and paste from this document it never comes out correctly, it would take me too much time to correct each line

That just about sums up 95% of apologetics, regardless of school, religion, or century.

[Mor Ephrem]

This copypasta routine of yours is really annoying to read (and possibly copyright illegal). Wound you mind at the very least reformatting it after you post?

for some reason when I copy and paste from this document it never comes out correctly, it would take me too much time to correct each line

That just about sums up 95% of apologetics, regardless of school, religion, or century.

Zing!

[juliogb]

Maybe I am seeing too much, but those justifications for sedevacantism, kinda remembers landmarkism, there is pure roman catholic church somewhere in history that never changed and it is hidden today, or something like that.

[sedevacantist]

Maybe I am seeing too much, but those justifications for sedevacantism, kinda remembers landmarkism, there is pure roman catholic church somewhere in history that never changed and it is hidden today, or something like that.

No,it's quite simple, The Catholic Church has the same faith from all times, with Vatican 2 there is a different faith,they don't hold  the Catholic faith, it's unpleasant but it's just a fact..they can call themselves Catholic all they want but they are impostures, freemasons, it's hard to believe there are not others here who have figured this out.

[Mor Ephrem]

Maybe I am seeing too much, but those justifications for sedevacantism, kinda remembers landmarkism, there is pure roman catholic church somewhere in history that never changed and it is hidden today, or something like that.

No,it's quite simple, The Catholic Church has the same faith from all times, with Vatican 2 there is a different faith,they don't hold  the Catholic faith, it's unpleasant but it's just a fact..they can call themselves Catholic all they want but they are impostures, freemasons, it's hard to believe there are not others here who have figured this out.

The Catholic Church indeed has the same faith from the beginning until now.  The problem for you is that neither the "Vatican II" sect nor your own is Catholic in any theologically meaningful way. 

[biro]

Freemasons? More of this secret cult conspiracy stuff?

[sedevacantist]

Maybe I am seeing too much, but those justifications for sedevacantism, kinda remembers landmarkism, there is pure roman catholic church somewhere in history that never changed and it is hidden today, or something like that.

No,it's quite simple, The Catholic Church has the same faith from all times, with Vatican 2 there is a different faith,they don't hold  the Catholic faith, it's unpleasant but it's just a fact..they can call themselves Catholic all they want but they are impostures, freemasons, it's hard to believe there are not others here who have figured this out.

the problem for you is you're not Catholic, you're in big trouble, wake up and study a little more instead of posting nonsense

The Catholic Church indeed has the same faith from the beginning until now.  The problem for you is that neither the "Vatican II" sect nor your own is Catholic in any theologically meaningful way.

[sedevacantist]

Freemasons? More of this secret cult conspiracy stuff?

I'm assuming you're still in highschool, if you respond nicely I will go through the trouble of teaching you young man.

[biro]

Freemasons? More of this secret cult conspiracy stuff?

I'm assuming you're still in highschool, if you respond nicely I will go through the trouble of teaching you young man.

I am not a man. I am 44. I have been to college and graduate school.

How about you stop?

[sedevacantist]

Freemasons? More of this secret cult conspiracy stuff?

I'm assuming you're still in highschool, if you respond nicely I will go through the trouble of teaching you young man.

I am not a man. I am 44. I have been to college and graduate school.

How about you stop?

stop what? I'm your age, for you to make such an ignorant comment as if the Freemasons are not a secret society that is the work of the devil is bewildering, if you don't know what you are talking about why post at all.

Pope Leo XIII, In Ipso (# 1), March 3, 1891: “Nevertheless, it grieves us to
think that the enemies of the Church, joined in most wicked
conspiracy, scheme to weaken and even, if possible, utterly wipe
out that wondrous edifice which God Himself has erected as a
refuge for the human race.”


I guess That pope is some conspiracy nut according to you?

The Luciferian secret society, the Carbonari,
known as the Alta Vendita, wrote a set of Permanent Instructions, or Code of Rules,
which appeared in Italy in 1818. It stated:
“... It becomes the duty of the secret societies to make the first advance to the
Church, and to the pope, with the object of conquering both. The work for
which we gird ourselves is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor a year. It
may last for many years, perhaps a century... What we must ask for, what
we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is
a pope according to our wants. We require a pope for ourselves, if such a
pope were possible. With such a one we shall march more securely to the
storming of the Church, than with all the little books of our French and English
brothers.” 5
The same Freemasonic document made this striking prediction:
“ In a hundred years time... bishops and priests will think they are
marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they
will be following our flag... The reforms will have to be brought about in
the name of obedience.” 6
These organizations and the individuals who belong to them are agents which the
Devil uses to attack the true Church of Christ.
Ephesians 6:12- “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
against the spirits of wickedness in high places.”

[biro]

Freemasons? More of this secret cult conspiracy stuff?

I'm assuming you're still in highschool, if you respond nicely I will go through the trouble of teaching you young man.

I am not a man. I am 44. I have been to college and graduate school.

How about you stop?

stop what? I'm your age, for you to make such an ignorant comment as if the Freemasons are not a secret society that is the work of the devil is bewildering, if you don't know what you are talking about why post at all.

Pope Leo XIII, In Ipso (# 1), March 3, 1891: “Nevertheless, it grieves us to
think that the enemies of the Church, joined in most wicked
conspiracy, scheme to weaken and even, if possible, utterly wipe
out that wondrous edifice which God Himself has erected as a
refuge for the human race.”


I guess That pope is some conspiracy nut according to you?

The Luciferian secret society, the Carbonari,
known as the Alta Vendita, wrote a set of Permanent Instructions, or Code of Rules,
which appeared in Italy in 1818. It stated:
“... It becomes the duty of the secret societies to make the first advance to the
Church, and to the pope, with the object of conquering both. The work for
which we gird ourselves is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor a year. It
may last for many years, perhaps a century... What we must ask for, what
we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is
a pope according to our wants. We require a pope for ourselves, if such a
pope were possible. With such a one we shall march more securely to the
storming of the Church, than with all the little books of our French and English
brothers.” 5
The same Freemasonic document made this striking prediction:
“ In a hundred years time... bishops and priests will think they are
marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they
will be following our flag... The reforms will have to be brought about in
the name of obedience.” 6
These organizations and the individuals who belong to them are agents which the
Devil uses to attack the true Church of Christ.
Ephesians 6:12- “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
against the spirits of wickedness in high places.”

You "assume[d] (I) was still in high school."

Well, you're going on Ignore.