You make many good points. However, I think that there is yet another position, which one must extend to some Catholics: it is possible to believe firmly in almost all of the teachings and precepts of the Church, but to be in a transitional position in regard to others, i.e. to be in a time of reception of doctrines that presently seem difficult to assert with full confidence. I am in that position. as time passes, I believe them more than I did initially. Succinctly put, I refuse to reject!
@urpaisan "Religious Indifferentism" is a religion in and of itself - & it does not allow 'religious freedom' for any other religion. There is no real 'religious freedom'- every religion is 'at war' with every other religion since they all make the same claim of being true & yet they cannot all be true. 2 advocate a kind of religious freedom that makes it irrelevant which religion 1 professes makes 1an adherent of 'Religious Indifferentism'- a religion just as 'intolerant' as any other religion.
@1rams123 thats horse shit but ye. Only monotheistic faiths such as yours claim that their particular religion is the one absolute religious truth that all humans should follow. Your a joke, diversity breeds development and progress, dogmatic orthodoxy breeds ignorance and intolerance, you my friend are a dying breed...
@wikworld1 Hey wikiword1-- Learn to spell {you're} vs. {your} . "Your a joke"=FAIL quote
Then people can take what you say seriously.
Your quote "diversity breeds development and progress" FAILS to recognize how if you have a pool of FAIL ideas, just because they are all different and breed together doesn't mean they will magically develop better ideas. FAIL TRIPLE FAIL. more failing diversity breeding with more fail equals failtards like you.
@Madamantastico I'm trying to have a nice discussion with 1ram123, don't talk to me unless you have something to contribute to the point of discussion
@1rams123 and as for Christ establishing the catholic church, are u mad? he promoted the church in the spiritual sense of communing with god wherever u are, not as part of a monolithic institute that purposefully kept the whole of Europe spiritually and scientifically ignorant for a thousand years.
@wikworld1 Greetings! Since your concerns seem sincere, and you seem like an intelligent person, you have merited a response from me. I no longer try to respond to all comments.
RE: "he promoted the church in a spiritual sense"
This is debatable. The fact that Jesus gives the power of excommunication to the Church is an indicator that their is only One Church- so it is a visible organization with bounties- not just a spiritual one. the church is after all the BODY of Christ... ..2 b cont..
@1rams123 Your church is constantly changing and dividing, mainly due to the fact that its administrators feel the need to change in order to adapt to the contemporary time period, look at the hundreds of denominations that are around today. In my view that fact alone debases the concept of institutionalised religions, much better to follow the direct teachings of Christ and all the other enlightened prophets, not through a diluted and manipulated form sponsored by a particular institute.
@wikworld1 The catholic church is 1. n e 1 who does not adhere to the dogmas of the faith passed down from antiquity & who is not under the pope has left the church.
Ur right about the hundreds of denominations u are lamenting- but what u fail to see is that the reason there are so many is precisely because people become their own popes when they try "to follow the direct teachings of Christ..." This amounts to making their own denomination. Jesus must have established a visible church & did.
@1rams123 I say it again, Christ did not personally establish the Catholic church, if anyone did it was under the reign of Emperor Constantine 306-312 AD
@wikworld1 I'll tell you what. What criteria are you using to determine if the catholic church exists? I guarantee you this, if you use the criteria truly reflects the realisy of what the Catholic Church is, you will see that the Catholic Church existed well before 306-312 AD, It was at this time that it became the official religion of the empire- but it existed well before.
@1rams123 i guess id say whenever it became like what it is today, an institutionalised form of religion, so in that respect id say that it became that when the empire adopted it as its primary faith, any time before then it was an entirely different entity, surely you would agree with that?
@wikworld1 Actually- no. The only difference between the catholic church b4 Constantine and after Constantine is that b4 Constantine's edit it was in hiding. All the beliefs, organizational structure, hierarchy, & all the other signs of it as an institutionalized religion existed before Constantine- but not so outwardly. B4 Constantine when Christians were being killed, they were unable to have public worship or churches. As an institution, the Catholic Church has always been there underground.
Actually its not changing as it is more like peeling back layers of information.
This quote "follow the direct teachings of Christ and all the other enlightened prophets, not through a diluted and manipulated form sponsored by a particular institute" AGAIN....FAILS FAILS FAILS to see why there is an institute in the first place. Hey... have you ever played baseball? How about baseball in pitch black! That's what interpreting scripture is like without early church fathers.
@wikworld1 RE " purposefully kept the whole of Europe spiritually and scientifically ignorant for a thousand year"
This is simply not true. A simple look at the facts and the most recent scholarship attests against this. The Church made many many significant contributions to the sciences as well as society at large. Let me suggest a book in this regard that would be very insightful to you and is a fascinating read- "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
@1rams123 ok, ill look into that, in the mean time I recommend "The Hermetica" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. Not only does it briefly describe the Catholics insatiable pursuit of hermeticists and bohemians all over Europe, but also describes the hermetic teachings which are being re iterated all over the world today by many modern philosophers! amazing considering this stuff was being practised over 5000 years ago. Imagine were we'd be today if we didn't have that 1000 year dark age period..
@wikworld1 Interesting- I have not read this book- but I would simply point out that the most recent and accurate historical and archeological scholarship to date shows that the title "dark ages" is a misnomer- It was a time of amazing progress. Also, most historians have been reducing the dark ages from 1000 to a mere 300 years- and they are not in total agreement as to which 300 years or so this period is in. I'll look into this book as well. But Thomas E wood's book is a real eye opener.
@1rams123 yeah i understand there isn't a definitive period that people have agreed on, but i do believe that there was some massive shift in power during the 1500's which the renaissance gave birth to, i need to do more research but i understand that the catholic church at the time had many grievances with the renaissance movement, mainly to do with the circulation of knowledge and ideas that contributed to modern western world as we know it, what are your views on that topic?
Hey Wikiworld1, Also, yet another FAIL COMMENT. Again, you have FAILED to recognize the importance the Catholic Church has been for the progress and advancement of science, music, literature, and language. Yes Christ established the Catholic Church duhh that's like asking does Charlie Sheen win or not. don't be a newb.
So if in order to stay with the faith you cannot dissent from any teaching of the faith, then in theory the SSPX and Sedvaticantists is not Catholic of any sort.
Not quite, with the sedevacantists - they do not dissent formally with the teachings of the church - the sedevacantist are technically schismatics, not heretics (most of them anyway) However, with the SSPX you are very misinformed. The SSPX do not decent with the church teachings in any way. They are just resisting the heterodox clergy who are dissenting with the teachings of the Church & trying to remain good Catholics despite the bad state of the church. Rome has acknowledged this also.
@dacatholicbandorgan A person who claims to be Catholic but dissents on ANY formal Church Teaching regarding Faith and Morals is not a FAITHFUL Catholic. They might still be considered a "catholic" in that they were Baptized/Confirmed a Catholic and worship in a Catholic Church. But by no means are they a a Faithful Catholic. In reality, they are CINO Catholics ("Catholics In Name Only"). I think that probably 70% of "catholics" are CINO Catholics. Sad, but true ...
Invincible ignorance or not, those who enter heaven are very few, just as Jesus said. The exception of invincible ignorance is acceptable because Puis XII alluded 2 it. as possible.
However in order for 1 2 be saved, 1 must die in a 'state of grace'- this means that even very few Catholics wll be saved let alone those who are invincibly ignorant.
How one who is invincibly ignorant receives sanctifying grace remains a mystery to me, perhaps by super natural grace of perfect sorrow for sins, idk?
You make many good points. However, I think that there is yet another position, which one must extend to some Catholics: it is possible to believe firmly in almost all of the teachings and precepts of the Church, but to be in a transitional position in regard to others, i.e. to be in a time of reception of doctrines that presently seem difficult to assert with full confidence. I am in that position. as time passes, I believe them more than I did initially. Succinctly put, I refuse to reject!
gbantock 1 day ago
@urpaisan "Religious Indifferentism" is a religion in and of itself - & it does not allow 'religious freedom' for any other religion. There is no real 'religious freedom'- every religion is 'at war' with every other religion since they all make the same claim of being true & yet they cannot all be true. 2 advocate a kind of religious freedom that makes it irrelevant which religion 1 professes makes 1an adherent of 'Religious Indifferentism'- a religion just as 'intolerant' as any other religion.
1rams123 1 year ago
@1rams123 thats horse shit but ye. Only monotheistic faiths such as yours claim that their particular religion is the one absolute religious truth that all humans should follow. Your a joke, diversity breeds development and progress, dogmatic orthodoxy breeds ignorance and intolerance, you my friend are a dying breed...
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 Hey wikiword1-- Learn to spell {you're} vs. {your} . "Your a joke"=FAIL quote
Then people can take what you say seriously.
Your quote "diversity breeds development and progress" FAILS to recognize how if you have a pool of FAIL ideas, just because they are all different and breed together doesn't mean they will magically develop better ideas. FAIL TRIPLE FAIL. more failing diversity breeding with more fail equals failtards like you.
stop failing and learn to WIN
btw, You're a tool.
Madamantastico 9 months ago
@Madamantastico oh right, by the way failtard isn't a word but ye
wikworld1 9 months ago
@Madamantastico I'm trying to have a nice discussion with 1ram123, don't talk to me unless you have something to contribute to the point of discussion
wikworld1 9 months ago
@1rams123 and as for Christ establishing the catholic church, are u mad? he promoted the church in the spiritual sense of communing with god wherever u are, not as part of a monolithic institute that purposefully kept the whole of Europe spiritually and scientifically ignorant for a thousand years.
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 Greetings! Since your concerns seem sincere, and you seem like an intelligent person, you have merited a response from me. I no longer try to respond to all comments.
RE: "he promoted the church in a spiritual sense"
This is debatable. The fact that Jesus gives the power of excommunication to the Church is an indicator that their is only One Church- so it is a visible organization with bounties- not just a spiritual one. the church is after all the BODY of Christ... ..2 b cont..
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123 Your church is constantly changing and dividing, mainly due to the fact that its administrators feel the need to change in order to adapt to the contemporary time period, look at the hundreds of denominations that are around today. In my view that fact alone debases the concept of institutionalised religions, much better to follow the direct teachings of Christ and all the other enlightened prophets, not through a diluted and manipulated form sponsored by a particular institute.
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 The catholic church is 1. n e 1 who does not adhere to the dogmas of the faith passed down from antiquity & who is not under the pope has left the church.
Ur right about the hundreds of denominations u are lamenting- but what u fail to see is that the reason there are so many is precisely because people become their own popes when they try "to follow the direct teachings of Christ..." This amounts to making their own denomination. Jesus must have established a visible church & did.
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123 I say it again, Christ did not personally establish the Catholic church, if anyone did it was under the reign of Emperor Constantine 306-312 AD
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1Seriously, its true, history is my verification
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 I'll tell you what. What criteria are you using to determine if the catholic church exists? I guarantee you this, if you use the criteria truly reflects the realisy of what the Catholic Church is, you will see that the Catholic Church existed well before 306-312 AD, It was at this time that it became the official religion of the empire- but it existed well before.
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123 i guess id say whenever it became like what it is today, an institutionalised form of religion, so in that respect id say that it became that when the empire adopted it as its primary faith, any time before then it was an entirely different entity, surely you would agree with that?
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 Actually- no. The only difference between the catholic church b4 Constantine and after Constantine is that b4 Constantine's edit it was in hiding. All the beliefs, organizational structure, hierarchy, & all the other signs of it as an institutionalized religion existed before Constantine- but not so outwardly. B4 Constantine when Christians were being killed, they were unable to have public worship or churches. As an institution, the Catholic Church has always been there underground.
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123
Nice videos, do you consider Benedict o be a valid pope?
davidemtl 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@wikworld1
Actually its not changing as it is more like peeling back layers of information.
This quote "follow the direct teachings of Christ and all the other enlightened prophets, not through a diluted and manipulated form sponsored by a particular institute" AGAIN....FAILS FAILS FAILS to see why there is an institute in the first place. Hey... have you ever played baseball? How about baseball in pitch black! That's what interpreting scripture is like without early church fathers.
WIN
Madamantastico 9 months ago
@1rams123 ^ above should read * boundaries* not "bounties".
1rams123 9 months ago
@wikworld1 RE " purposefully kept the whole of Europe spiritually and scientifically ignorant for a thousand year"
This is simply not true. A simple look at the facts and the most recent scholarship attests against this. The Church made many many significant contributions to the sciences as well as society at large. Let me suggest a book in this regard that would be very insightful to you and is a fascinating read- "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123 ok, ill look into that, in the mean time I recommend "The Hermetica" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. Not only does it briefly describe the Catholics insatiable pursuit of hermeticists and bohemians all over Europe, but also describes the hermetic teachings which are being re iterated all over the world today by many modern philosophers! amazing considering this stuff was being practised over 5000 years ago. Imagine were we'd be today if we didn't have that 1000 year dark age period..
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 Interesting- I have not read this book- but I would simply point out that the most recent and accurate historical and archeological scholarship to date shows that the title "dark ages" is a misnomer- It was a time of amazing progress. Also, most historians have been reducing the dark ages from 1000 to a mere 300 years- and they are not in total agreement as to which 300 years or so this period is in. I'll look into this book as well. But Thomas E wood's book is a real eye opener.
1rams123 9 months ago
@1rams123 yeah i understand there isn't a definitive period that people have agreed on, but i do believe that there was some massive shift in power during the 1500's which the renaissance gave birth to, i need to do more research but i understand that the catholic church at the time had many grievances with the renaissance movement, mainly to do with the circulation of knowledge and ideas that contributed to modern western world as we know it, what are your views on that topic?
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1
Hey Wikiworld1, Also, yet another FAIL COMMENT. Again, you have FAILED to recognize the importance the Catholic Church has been for the progress and advancement of science, music, literature, and language. Yes Christ established the Catholic Church duhh that's like asking does Charlie Sheen win or not. don't be a newb.
Madamantastico 9 months ago
@Madamantastico my comment is neither a success or a failure, as you so crudely put it, its sbject to relative opinion
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1 *subject
wikworld1 9 months ago
@wikworld1
Your spelling is objectively criticized "sbject"
again,
Fail
Come to the fullness of Truth
Madamantastico 9 months ago
I read that book over 10 years ago. Great stuff! It should be mandatory reading in every parish.
ChristianFirefighter 2 years ago
Read "Catholicism against itself" by OC Lambert.
random331 2 years ago
So if in order to stay with the faith you cannot dissent from any teaching of the faith, then in theory the SSPX and Sedvaticantists is not Catholic of any sort.
dacatholicbandorgan 2 years ago
Not quite, with the sedevacantists - they do not dissent formally with the teachings of the church - the sedevacantist are technically schismatics, not heretics (most of them anyway) However, with the SSPX you are very misinformed. The SSPX do not decent with the church teachings in any way. They are just resisting the heterodox clergy who are dissenting with the teachings of the Church & trying to remain good Catholics despite the bad state of the church. Rome has acknowledged this also.
1rams123 2 years ago
@dacatholicbandorgan A person who claims to be Catholic but dissents on ANY formal Church Teaching regarding Faith and Morals is not a FAITHFUL Catholic. They might still be considered a "catholic" in that they were Baptized/Confirmed a Catholic and worship in a Catholic Church. But by no means are they a a Faithful Catholic. In reality, they are CINO Catholics ("Catholics In Name Only"). I think that probably 70% of "catholics" are CINO Catholics. Sad, but true ...
ChristianFirefighter 2 years ago
You know what has been intriguing me in the past days: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
It seems to me that it is more rigorous than most people realize (with the exception of invincible ignorance of course).
BlackCappa 2 years ago
Invincible ignorance or not, those who enter heaven are very few, just as Jesus said. The exception of invincible ignorance is acceptable because Puis XII alluded 2 it. as possible.
However in order for 1 2 be saved, 1 must die in a 'state of grace'- this means that even very few Catholics wll be saved let alone those who are invincibly ignorant.
How one who is invincibly ignorant receives sanctifying grace remains a mystery to me, perhaps by super natural grace of perfect sorrow for sins, idk?
1rams123 2 years ago
Not only Pope Pius XII, but also Pope Pius IX.
BlackCappa 2 years ago
Best video yet.
sukka113 2 years ago
Yea 515 of katholicks voted for 0bama !
Few katholik kult members even wrote to complain about that dead kennedy fiasco
only 30% of "Bishops" (sic) complained .
(why should they ? ) These poor people
have no idea of what they speak .
I had a guy say that Vatican II now allows heretics to be pope ! This from a kultie !
Good work lets talk ....syr
I will pray a Rosary for you tomorrow.
SAYYOURROSARY 2 years ago