Church consists of those who follow the Apostals doctrine and those that follow the ways of Pentecost there is no "rightful" church. The Bible says that on the day of penticost the Lord filled those in the upper room with is Spirit and became the first church not some denomination. You must be kidding with all this doctrinal rederick this is only a poor attemt to once again confuse people of God into beliving on popal traditions. Show me in the Bible where they worshiped saints, cant find it.
I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger's book Milestones 0:26
You think you won? Dimond pwned you, friend. Now, neither of you are correct (the Catholic Church is a cult, after all) but IF there was a real Catholic Church, Vatican II is an OBVIOUS flip-flop. Gee, I don't have to worry anymore..I don'teven need to be Catholic!
The point was not to bring Protestants in to the Catholic Church, but to foster the ecuminical dialogue that has lead to things such as the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. That document basically says that the Council of Trent no longer has any bearing on what is the Truth of the Cathoic faith regarding justification. The N.O. does not even encourage protestants and heretics to join the true church but rather encourages their leaders to build up their false chruches.
Hello, i've listened a little bit to what you've had to say, and your assumptions are battling what isn't real. Sedevacantists, correctly dethrone a pope, as the Body of Christ, does, automatically, because that pope publicly teaches heresy that has to do with faith and morals. If you would like to know more, you can always ask... If you really want to know, so as to save you very soul from damnation.
fool, go read up St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, and Pope Paul IV's famous Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus" or something like that, they all refer to the case of a heretic pope.
Have you read ANYthing at all? FYI, there have been anti-popes before. Look it up.
Sorry, you're oversimplied the Antiochy problem. Paul rebuked Peter, but that''s all. And it is narrated by Paul. Do you have Peter's version? Do you know it was Peter who won in the end? Peter could never teach error as he is protected directly by the Holy Spirit, as are all Popes?
And further, he even worshipped with the Jews, at a Jewish temple. On Friday at noon (when Christ was crucified). It is taught by many popes that to go to worship even at a Protestant Church, much less a Jewish Temple. It is sin.
Its the big things like this that make (me/us) be drawn from Vatican II.
St. Jerome, one of the Fathers of the Church, says..:
...there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.
But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.
(by the way, my name is Chester, but I'm called Eugene {my middle name})
Despite any misread or misinterpreted quotes, what about this:
Vatican II says that Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists (sorry for any spelling mistakes), etc [basically all the false religions] can receive Communion, and can be saved. Neither are true. To be saved, you must be Catholic, and they would recieve communion to their own punishment.
"If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" Cannon 844 4
To be fair, there are all sorts of "Protestants." Unlike the Catholic Chuch, there is not one unified Protestantism. Therefore, you can't say that "protestants" have trouble with the New Mass.
I never deny that any change was made. For someone who isn't Catholic in the least sense you don't understand that disciplinary and liturgical changes come and go ma'am. This is NOT dogmatic teaching, as I make CLEAR in my videos as is ALSO clear in Catholic teaching. The Tridentine Rite has ALSO changed. Please don't come here acting like a Biblical scholar and a Church History expert.
For someone who claims to be "Fully and Legally Ordained" as a woman pastor you have some gall to come to my page and accuse me of all sorts of things. I suggest you get in touch with good Biblical commentaries and examine your views a bit more carefully before attempting to become the Catholic scholar of the century.
At 1.33 you speak of Cardinal Ottaviani's objections as dating from December 1969. Then you claim that LATER he says he is pleased with Pope Paul's discourses of November 19 and 26 - these occurred in 1969 also!
So his initial approval is actually CHANGED during the course of one month. His objections comes from later, not earlier.
The point about the NOmass being protestant. There are Lutheran churches using the newmass.A better point is that the protestantization of the new mass was a attempt to build a bridge so the protestants can come into the Church the result was the reverse Catholics crossed over.Most of your arguments are based on incorrect assumptions.Your conclusion is correct about the SV but so far not for any of the reasons you give.
When Our Lady appeared at Bayside, she asked for a return to the Tridentine Mass? Mary described Pope John Paul 2 as her pope, whom she formed Herself?
my brother you are doing good, but you need to speak more slowly...since there are some of us who dont use English every day and you will sound more wise.But everything else is on the level. God bless you.
you know what really pisses me off about holy family monastery videos on youtube? they don't let you comment or rate their awful and misleading videos. if they think their position is tenable, why don't they allow for comments and discussions on their videos? pathetic...
Church consists of those who follow the Apostals doctrine and those that follow the ways of Pentecost there is no "rightful" church. The Bible says that on the day of penticost the Lord filled those in the upper room with is Spirit and became the first church not some denomination. You must be kidding with all this doctrinal rederick this is only a poor attemt to once again confuse people of God into beliving on popal traditions. Show me in the Bible where they worshiped saints, cant find it.
walterarnoldiii 5 months ago
Ottaviani said that the New Mass was vague and open to wide interpretation, not that it was invalid or heretical.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
As a Novus Ordo Catholic, When do you have to do your sacrament of penance (confession) and how necessary is it??
amazingmred 2 years ago
I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger's book Milestones 0:26
PapaPiusX 2 years ago
You think you won? Dimond pwned you, friend. Now, neither of you are correct (the Catholic Church is a cult, after all) but IF there was a real Catholic Church, Vatican II is an OBVIOUS flip-flop. Gee, I don't have to worry anymore..I don'teven need to be Catholic!
pennylaneproductions 2 years ago
That is a ridiculous claim Catholicism is not a cult you have no proof for that
it is not a fact!
WizArdOZfan42 2 years ago
The point was not to bring Protestants in to the Catholic Church, but to foster the ecuminical dialogue that has lead to things such as the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. That document basically says that the Council of Trent no longer has any bearing on what is the Truth of the Cathoic faith regarding justification. The N.O. does not even encourage protestants and heretics to join the true church but rather encourages their leaders to build up their false chruches.
wjweigand 3 years ago 5
Hello, i've listened a little bit to what you've had to say, and your assumptions are battling what isn't real. Sedevacantists, correctly dethrone a pope, as the Body of Christ, does, automatically, because that pope publicly teaches heresy that has to do with faith and morals. If you would like to know more, you can always ask... If you really want to know, so as to save you very soul from damnation.
lazyezmerelda 3 years ago
Comment removed
SwordsmanOfFaith 3 years ago
fool, go read up St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, and Pope Paul IV's famous Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus" or something like that, they all refer to the case of a heretic pope.
Have you read ANYthing at all? FYI, there have been anti-popes before. Look it up.
Grieverer 3 years ago
Sorry, you're oversimplied the Antiochy problem. Paul rebuked Peter, but that''s all. And it is narrated by Paul. Do you have Peter's version? Do you know it was Peter who won in the end? Peter could never teach error as he is protected directly by the Holy Spirit, as are all Popes?
voltape 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
beatleswine 2 years ago
Dear @beatleswine : I frienly suggest you to polish your English. Or maybe it is our ideas that are fuzzy?
voltape 2 years ago
LOOK WHO'S TALKING??
You can't even spell! What word is FRIENLY?? I suggest you not comment until you go back to grade school!
beatleswine 2 years ago
Dear @beatleswine:
HA HA HA!!!!
lol
voltape 2 years ago
And further, he even worshipped with the Jews, at a Jewish temple. On Friday at noon (when Christ was crucified). It is taught by many popes that to go to worship even at a Protestant Church, much less a Jewish Temple. It is sin.
Its the big things like this that make (me/us) be drawn from Vatican II.
cet1217 3 years ago
St. Jerome, one of the Fathers of the Church, says..:
...there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.
But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.
rguerrah 3 years ago
absolutely no. I am a practising Roman Catholic and I often visit Evangelic churches and enjoy their services.
voltape 2 years ago
(by the way, my name is Chester, but I'm called Eugene {my middle name})
Despite any misread or misinterpreted quotes, what about this:
Vatican II says that Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists (sorry for any spelling mistakes), etc [basically all the false religions] can receive Communion, and can be saved. Neither are true. To be saved, you must be Catholic, and they would recieve communion to their own punishment.
Pope JP2 kissed the Koran...whats with that?
cont.
cet1217 3 years ago
"If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" Cannon 844 4
xebec775 3 years ago
Comment removed
lazyezmerelda 3 years ago
To be fair, there are all sorts of "Protestants." Unlike the Catholic Chuch, there is not one unified Protestantism. Therefore, you can't say that "protestants" have trouble with the New Mass.
Ayanami555 3 years ago
St. Francis De Sales (17th 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..."
vatican2refuter 3 years ago 2
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
vatican2refuter 3 years ago 2
"Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church,"
You are not the church prelates.
Catholicisgood 3 years ago 4
1945 - "New" Latin ("Pius XII") Psalter introduced
1951 - New Time of Easter Vigil
1954 - Vulgar tongues introduced into Sacraments
1956 - New rubrics of Mass, Divine Office, and Holy Week
1960 - Again new rubrics of Mass and Divine Office
1962 - Sacred Apostolic Roman Canon of Mass changed
1964 - Vulgar tongues introduced into Mass
1967 - Dogmatic form of Mass Consecration changed
1968 - New Order of Ordination for Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons introduced
1969 - New Order Service introduced
hymnsing 3 years ago
I never deny that any change was made. For someone who isn't Catholic in the least sense you don't understand that disciplinary and liturgical changes come and go ma'am. This is NOT dogmatic teaching, as I make CLEAR in my videos as is ALSO clear in Catholic teaching. The Tridentine Rite has ALSO changed. Please don't come here acting like a Biblical scholar and a Church History expert.
gnrhead 3 years ago
For someone who claims to be "Fully and Legally Ordained" as a woman pastor you have some gall to come to my page and accuse me of all sorts of things. I suggest you get in touch with good Biblical commentaries and examine your views a bit more carefully before attempting to become the Catholic scholar of the century.
GOD BLESS
gnrhead 3 years ago
However, thanks for this. The novus ordo is not invalid, and this is an excellent response to the sedevacantist videos.
Awesome.
alfonsoboycie23 3 years ago
At 1.33 you speak of Cardinal Ottaviani's objections as dating from December 1969. Then you claim that LATER he says he is pleased with Pope Paul's discourses of November 19 and 26 - these occurred in 1969 also!
So his initial approval is actually CHANGED during the course of one month. His objections comes from later, not earlier.
alfonsoboycie23 3 years ago
The point about the NOmass being protestant. There are Lutheran churches using the newmass.A better point is that the protestantization of the new mass was a attempt to build a bridge so the protestants can come into the Church the result was the reverse Catholics crossed over.Most of your arguments are based on incorrect assumptions.Your conclusion is correct about the SV but so far not for any of the reasons you give.
TILLABILLYS 3 years ago
When Our Lady appeared at Bayside, she asked for a return to the Tridentine Mass? Mary described Pope John Paul 2 as her pope, whom she formed Herself?
BurtWilson1 3 years ago
my brother you are doing good, but you need to speak more slowly...since there are some of us who dont use English every day and you will sound more wise.But everything else is on the level. God bless you.
darijo203 3 years ago 2
you know what really pisses me off about holy family monastery videos on youtube? they don't let you comment or rate their awful and misleading videos. if they think their position is tenable, why don't they allow for comments and discussions on their videos? pathetic...
vint7107 3 years ago