>>22967 That's the idea. >>22973 >My advice would be to convert them and then send them here or to other Christian image boards to ask their questions. That's a fine proposal, but as you already noted, there needs to be a reliable place with a lively community of christians and mostly clean from the usual misirection and distraction attacks. Having one or more of such places full of grace would be of much help. An other possible way of action, would be to individuate some specific places needing the proclamation of the gospel more than others. Take from example when Jesus had lunch with sinners and other dejects of society, that would be interesting to try to emulate on online communities. >Once again he went out along the sea. All the crowd came to him and he taught them. As he passed by, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him. >While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners sat with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him. >Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” >Jesus heard this and said to them, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Then there are also the advices Jesus gave to his disciples when he sent them to spread the gospel. > Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus, “Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. >Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. >As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ >Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give. >Do not take gold or silver or copper for your belts; >no sack for the journey, or a second tunic, or sandals, or walking stick. The laborer deserves his keep. >Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave. >As you enter a house, wish it peace. >If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. >Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. >Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matthew 10:5-15

>>22991 The first passage was Mark 2:13-17

>>22987 >church mass, or to go talk with a priest I did this. I thought they were saying the Tridentine mass. It was certainly in Latin. Okay, it's a 1964 mass. Then I start reading the Papal Encyclicals and... it's a forbidden mass. (Pope Pius V). Talk to the priest, get taught out of a good Catechism book, then in practice and what they never mentioned is their endless Mary worship, and how they discarded the sacraments of penance for a magic piece of brown cloth which is pure heresy. Well, that's sure easy! All you have to do is go to mass 9 Saturday's in a row and you go straight to heaven. No sacraments or repentance needed because the Blessed Virgin gives you a short cut for worshiping her at mass. That is not Catholic. But I had to change when I heard that Bergoglio, who some believe to be Pope, ordered them all to say things forbidden by the Council of Trent: that the Novus Ordo mass is valid, that it can be said in English, and that the Eurcharist can be taken in the hand. The Council of Trent says they're an anathema for that, and I have to shun them. >>22989 >Create your own congregation if you have to. I am not an apostle. Christ ordained the apostles. One cannot ordain themselves.

>>22984 >>22994 As already said >If you need the will of God to be written down, as if it was a guidebook with instructions to follow, you have not converted to Christ yet. >Every real christian knows what they have to do. Take your time, continue searching, or, just stay around a christian community and learn by context. Going to mass is that, to learn about christianity, inside a community. Surely though, your first mass being inside a traditionalist sedevacantist parish (as it looks like) is quite an unlikely as an unfortunate event. Try to reflect on what God was trying to tell you by that event. That's also one way to pray. This discussion is not about converting people right here though, it's about christians finding a common goal to strive towards together, and to find unity in the shared goal and shared mission as christians.

>>22991 >Take from example when Jesus had lunch with sinners and other dejects of society, that would be interesting to try to emulate on online communities. 4chans /r9k/ would be a good place to start. I like to go there every once in a while and help people out by being positive and giving advice.

>>22982 >Pray to God, and you will know what is the plan of God for your life. Every person receives from God something to do, everyone according to their capacity, some receive little goals, some bigger goals, but always something they can accomplish, by the same gifts they received from God as to prepare them for their part in the plan of God. Thanks for these words, anon. They're what I needed to hear right now.

>>22996 Christ gave us his teachings, which were written down by the apostles and are the Gospels. Saying that we don't need the gospels if we've converted to Christ... that makes no sense to me at all. Sounds nice, but logically it makes no sense at all. The FSSP are not Sedevacantist. If we can't convert each other and come to agreement, how can you expect better of the pagans? Physician, cure thyself.

>>23002 You are not christian (yet), stop pretending to be. This discussion is for christians, please stop interfering with it by trying to sow discord and confusion.

So much wasted energy, man. Give it a rest and chill out, everyone. This religion just won't last another 1000 years and everyone knows but is afraid to admit it. We either Nuke ourselves and seize to exist while Jesus never comes or humanity moves on to something else. My hope is on the latter. Jesus taught us a lot and ushered in a new age, let's stand on his shoulders and reach new heights. Stop trying to revive the past so much and put your potential into building a better future.

>>23009 >Stop trying to revive the past so much But how else can I be le based trad and revolt against the modern world like all the cool memes say??

>>22994 >I am not an apostle. Christ ordained the apostles. One cannot ordain themselves. Apostle literally just means ambassador in the original Greek. Paul never met Jesus during his earthly ministry nor was he ordained by the Twelve. He had a transformative personal encounter with the resurrected Christ and was recognized as an apostle through his post-conversion words and deeds. It's impairing to attach mystical weight to terms that were commonplace expressions in the first century AD but were treated as untranslated special titles by later authors out of respect and admiration.

>>23007 You've gotten a little better. Perhaps my short prayer for you was answered! Or perhaps you've learned from the Mods and Jannies.

>>23011 Christ gave his apostles the ability to forgive sins and breath the Holy Ghost into them. yes, ambassadors also, sent to preach in His name. But they were empowered by the Lord, and filled with the Holy Spirit, and one, Simon Peter, was told by God the Father Almighty that Jesus Christ was his one and only son. I wouldn't presume to put myself on such a level, or that I can perform a Holy Mass, forgive sins in the name of Christ. "Just means ambassador"? They were chosen by the Lord our God.

>>23009 >Stop trying to revive the past so much and put your potential into building a better future. i am, its called the thousand year kingdom.

>>22941 Yes, you're right ofc. But as humanity has learned so many, many times before...it only takes one side to start a war. My simple prayer atm is that all of them with leave. This board is in serious need of healing, and trying to mend fences while bombs are dropping around you isn't generally going to work out well. The topic ITT is mending relationships between the major branches of Christianity right? Simultaneously dealing with the usual suspects -- particularly ones so demonically-inspired -- certainly hinders that process. Just like Nehemiah & his men, there were two different tools to be weilded. The Admins/Mods need to wield the sword better so the rest of us can better wield the trowels.

>>23009 >This religion just won't last another 1000 years and everyone knows but is afraid to admit it. >"Terms subject to change." I desire to find humor in knowing you'll be flabbergasted by the Truth when you meet Him, but my Christianity compels me to desire your salvation beforehand instead. As does humility over my own guilt & sin! :^) Two words, Anon: Give it a rest and chill out, bro. Your life won't last another 100 years and everyone knows it. You'll meet God face to face soon enough, as will we all. Accept salvation while it's still called 'today'.

Matthew 12:25 25 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. The issue is really that "Christianity" is divided into a thousand religions. It cannot stand and it is falling. The very meaning of "Christian" has become muddied. It once meant the acceptance of the Nicene creed. Even the definition of Christian has been lost. So the charge of "stop infighting and go get the pagans and convert them to... something" seems to be misplaced. Convert them to Christianity! Okay, what's Christianity? It's what a billion people think it is, there's no one definition.

>>23016 so, the only conclusion you can gather >the apostles and those validly ordained through succession alone have the right to confer grace via the Holy Spirit >all the churches of the world have forsaken their faith in God >we are all condemned because no one has the right to forgive sins anymore >Christians are not chosen by God to follow Him >nobody has the Holy Spirit

>>23064 >>the apostles and those validly ordained through succession alone have the right to confer grace via the Holy Spirit >all the churches of the world have forsaken their faith in God >we are all condemned because no one has the right to forgive sins anymore >Christians are not chosen by God to follow Him >nobody has the Holy Spirit I don't see how you got that out of the post you were responding to. Grace Catholics believe in different kinds of grace: there's the grace of belief, and sanctifying grace which cleans you of the stain of sin. Grace of belief comes straight from God when you are ready to accept Him as your God, Creator and Lord. Sanctifying grace cleans one from sin and comes from one of three sacraments: baptism, penance, or last unction. In the Catholic belief, Christian baptism replaces Jewish circumcision and Christian confirmation replaces Jewish Baptism. Which is why protestants get confused as to whey Catholic baptize babies shortly after birth and have no knowledge of Christian teachings. To be confirmed requires Christian teaching, but I digress. Anyone, even a pagan, can baptize if their intent is to mark the Soul as belonging to God. Most protestant denomiations are accepted as baptized as the Protestants baptized them. The Mormons specifically aren't and there are others. But only a Bishop can give the sacrament of confirmation. The bishop can quiz those to be confirmed about the faith: the required prayers, the commandments, etc but they usually leave that up to the Priest who taught the catechism. yes, all the Churches of the world have forsaken their faith in God It's not the first time the Church of the Lord was forsaken by their faith in God. Christ came because the Jews replaced the Law of Moses and the Torah with their man made Talmud. Catholics replaced the Bible and papal encyclicals with the Summa Theologica and Marion Apperitions. And protestants replaced the Bible and The Church with the man made writings of Luther, Calivin, King Henry the Head chopper of wives, etc. It's not enough to just believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. not if you blow off some of his teachings you don't like e.g. Matthew 16 & John 21 because you don't want to be a "Papist" and you want to believe what you want instead. We are condemned because no one has the right to forgive sins anymore Christ delegated that right to the apostles. Once forgiven, even the devil can't bring it up again. Catholic do believe in purgatory, where souls who are forgiven their sins are still punished e.g. Mrs. Claymore forgives you for breaking her window when you were playing baseball; you were repentant and promised to be more careful in the future, but YOU still have to pay for the window. What happens because there is no one to give the sacrement? I don't know. Someone here said scripture says that in the end times, it's acceptable just to be baptized. I found that remarkable at the time, but I want to read it in my own Bible. Since I reject the false Gospel of Aquinas, mortal sins are really grave: adultery, Murder, theft, bearing false witness, not honoring your mother and father, or not loving your neighbor. Matthew 19 16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. You choose God because God gave you free will' You have free will. YOU choose to follow God. A young man asked Christ what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. The Lord quoted the 7 commandments - the ones that cover "Love thy neighbor". Young man said he did this, so Christ invited the young man to give up his possession and follow him. The young man decided not to. The young man was invited to be a disciple, a priest. To that, he had to give up worldly processions. He chose not to. He had, by keeping the Law of Moses in the last 7 commandments would be promised heaven. This idea that God has chosen you so you are free to sin, I saw that in a Pentecostal fellow. Not everyone has the Holy Spirit Correct. The Lord breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, those that had already accepted him and would be martyred for him. Not everyone. Each leader of the one of the thousands of Protestant denominations believes they have the Holy Spirit, yet they all preach something different, so that can't be! The God the Holy Spirit has one truth! Not thousands of different and conflicting truths. Best the un-ordained can hope for is grace.

>>>23059 >Even the definition of Christian has been lost Implying that definition is subject to the whims or behaviors of men or devils. >"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." [1] That is the 'definition' of a Christian, plain & simple. You can keep sperging out like some kind of /b/-tard about the truth; God will allow you to. But the judgement for rejecting the glorious gift of salvation will lie squarely in your own lap friend. 1. https://www.biblehub.com/john/10-27.htm (BSB)

>>23070 Thank you for proving my point that Protestant have corrupted even the definition of Christian. The real definition is one that follows the Nicene Creed: First Council of Nicaea (325) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] END QUOTE The problem with your definition is that it says nothing about God the Father Almighty, that Jesus Christ was his only Son, and nothing about God the Holy Spirit. thus, this definition denies the Holy Triune God, the Trinity. Jesus Christ would never deny the Father, so this scripture is out of context. >You can keep sperging out like some kind of /b/-tard about the truth; God will allow you to. Thanks for that. I now understand you better. >But the judgement for rejecting the glorious gift of salvation will lie squarely in your own lap friend. Salvation goes to those that accept Jesus Christ, and by that is meant his word. You cannot deny Matt 16 & John 21 and then claim to "follow Christ". Reject his church and you reject Jesus Christ.

>>23074 >You cannot deny Matt 16 & John 21 and then claim to "follow Christ". This has been responded to ad nauseam in the slapfight thread. No one is "denying" Matthew 16 or John 21 - they simply don't mean what you claim they do. No rational reading of those verses would support that mountain of a claim. The only reason that interpretation appears correct to you is because you were primed by the RCC. I don't think anyone, who was not first prejudiced, would read those verses with fresh eyes and conclude the RCC has sole authority to save, forgive sins, and interpret the Bible. Such an interpretation completely supplants Christ and the rest of the Bible. >"This book is what God has said. And in it, he said you have to obey our organization. Yes, these verses right here. Yes, that's what these verses mean. You don't think so? Well, that's because only we've been given the grace to understand them. It says that too. So even though God gave us his words in this book, there's no point in you reading it because you can't understand it without us. Just do whatever we say." "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29 KJV

>>23066 >YOU choose to follow God. "because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined, these also He called; and whom He called, these also He justified; and whom He justified, these also He glorified." Romans 8:29-30 Was Paul wrong? >Not everyone has the Holy Spirit Correct. The Lord breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, those that had already accepted him and would be martyred for him. Not everyone. Each leader of the one of the thousands of Protestant denominations believes they have the Holy Spirit, yet they all preach something different, so that can't be! The God the Holy Spirit has one truth! Not thousands of different and conflicting truths. Best the un-ordained can hope for is grace. >yes, all the Churches of the world have forsaken their faith in God >I don't see how you got that out of the post you were responding to. Because from the approach you've expressed in this thread: >not everyone has the Holy Spirit >the Holy Spirit is only effectively conferred via the laying on of hands in ordination through a legitimate line of apostolic succession >if you are ordained and espouse heretical positions, your ability to forgive sins / perform the sacraments / ordain others to do so is null and void >practically every church is in error >therefore the extant communication of the Holy Spirit is on the cusp of extinction >the end result being a Christendom (if you can call it that) which has been forsaken by God (as there are none can legitimately baptize, nor confirm, nor celebrate Mass, nor marry, nor ordain, nor reconcile, nor give last rites) Am I wrong? Not that I necessarily disagree with your conclusion given the present state of the world, but are these not the facts that we have to face if your doomer traditionalism is the truth in good faith? You admit that grace through faith may yet save if not only through Purgatory, but has God left Christians to live in the humiliation and disgrace of our sins in these days?

>>23084 >Was Paul wrong? No, but your concept of predestination being a free pass to reject the word of God is wrong. Yes, you get free choice. Yes, God knows what you will choose. God is the Alpha and the Omega. Knows everything, including how you will chose. You still have to choose God.

>>23084 >Am I wrong? Sounds like you know more than God, and can read my mind. Well, who am I to say that an all knowing mind reader is wrong? in fact, it seems clear you are quite able to carry on your discussion without me, and assign me all kinds of blame. >>if you are ordained and espouse heretical positions, your ability to forgive sins / perform the sacraments / ordain others to do so is null and void I guess I didn't say that even heretical priest (or a wicked priest, for that matter) could give the sacraments, but because of their belief in heresy, they won't. Glad you corrected me. Carry on.

>>23085 >No, but your concept of predestination being a free pass to reject the word of God is wrong. Where did I say that we get a free pass? You are just reading your own assumptions into my post. Protestant predestination calls us to sanctification in recognition of the fact that we have been saved by grace through faith by the atonement of Christ alone. We obey God in our lives as a continual witness of His faithfulness towards us. Once saved always saved antinomianism is a modernistic deviation. >Yes, you get free choice. Yes, God knows what you will choose. God is the Alpha and the Omega. Knows everything, including how you will chose. You still have to choose God. Knowing hypotheticals is not true knowledge. Everything that happens is by the will of God. Even all the hairs of your head are accounted for (Matthew 10:30). He has accomplish all things which He desires (Isaiah 46:10). >>23086 >in fact, it seems clear you are quite able to carry on your discussion without me, and assign me all kinds of blame. You bring this blame on yourself. >I guess I didn't say that even heretical priest (or a wicked priest, for that matter) could give the sacraments, but because of their belief in heresy, they won't. By this logic Anglicans and Lutherans have valid apostolic succession and Protestantism is legitimate, and you undermine your position of Catholic supremacy.

>>23089 >Where did I say that we get a free pass? I know. Arguing with a protestant is like arguing with smoke, because they can play the old indian shell game. And here you are, twisting my words, making them look like direct quotes, playing the pharasee game trying to trip me up. >You bring this blame on yourself No, you are falsely quoting me. That's false witness. YOU don't need me around to do that. The bishops that caved to Henry's death threats were valid Bishops even if heretics. But all the Bishops King Henry named after those bishops were false, and all the priests named by those bishops were false. Luther had the same problem. He can't name bishops because he wasn't even a bishop himself, he was a monk. The stink in the Catholic Church is that Archbishop Lefebvre made new Bishops in defiance of the Pope when that pope became an anathema.. Lefebvre could name valid Bishops. The Sedes say that many of the FSSP priests are not really priest because their bishops were not properly formed or that the sacrament of ordination of the priests was invalid. Thus, they may be valid priests, but if they don't give the sacrement of penance because of their heretical beliefs in the Gospel of Aquinas, they're of no use.

>>23092 >The bishops that caved to Henry's death threats were valid Bishops even if heretics. But all the Bishops King Henry named after those bishops were false, and all the priests named by those bishops were false. Why? Bishops have the authority to ordain bishops and priests. Henry didn't ordain bishops himself. Luther may not have had the authority to name bishops himself, but the Catholic bishops of Scandinavia had the right to ordain. And they became Protestant without such great controversy as in England and Germany, with their episcopate adopting Lutheran theology and continuing to operate in the same manner as they did prior. Lastly the Old Catholic churches, which disputed the result of the First Vatican Council in 1870, without any external political interference, fit your definition to a T. And lo, the Anglican, Scandinavian Lutheran, and Old Catholic churches are in full communion and have performed interchurch ordinations to secure their case for apostolic succession. So either heresy renders this line of succession void, or they are legitimate but inoperative.

>>23095 >Henry didn't ordain bishops himself. First, I didn't say that. Again, you misquote me. I said King Henry NAMED the bishops. He left it to the bishops who turned heretical rather than be martyred to do the ordaining. I mean, why do you do this? You deliberately twist my words and then tell me these things that are ludicrous. Is it so you can clip the post with your lies about what I said and ridicule the Catholic? "Look at the wicked things that Catholics Believe!" And of course Henry NAMED the bishops. Not a single one was Catholic. Odds of that being random is very improbable. You argue like a pharasee. You argue in bad faith, trying to trip me up. Done with you and your lies about what I said. You put nothing on the table as part of your faith, just go after me like a bad cop with a rubber hose. The one thing you did convince me is that Protestants have no shame in defending their faith by braking the commandments of God, which is exactly what the pharasees did before Pontius Pilate when they lied about what Christ said. I am no Christ of course, least you run off and say that I claim to be Christ. Tho shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Oh, bishops ordained people that bribed for the office or got the ordination by cooersion are not bishops. The Chinese Commies named the Bishops too. Not one is valid. I could cite the Papal encyclicals on that, but there aren't any Catholics here.

>>23097 >>23098 Just because Henry named the bishops, doesn't make the ordination invalid. The Byzantine emperor named the Patriarchs of Constantinople before 1054. The Catholic Holy Roman Emperors named bishops in Spain and Germany. Secular princes have that authority. >Oh, bishops ordained people that bribed for the office or got the ordination by cooersion are not bishops You can't retroactively revoke someone having been ordained a bishop unless you have the ability to time travel. Nullification is only effective from the time onwards from which a pattern of error evidences that they are a heretic. You also presume that none of the ordinations were done in good faith, and lastly ignore that Henry's Catholic daughter Mary I was able to intercede for the Henrician episcopate before the Pope: >On 30 November 1554, Cardinal Pole spoke to both houses of Parliament, absolving the members of Parliament "with the whole realm and dominions thereof, from all heresy and schism".[210] Afterwards, bishops absolved diocesan clergy, and they in turn absolved parishioners.[211] On 26 December, the Privy Council introduced legislation repealing the religious legislation of Henry VIII's reign and implementing the reunion with Rome. This bill was passed as the Second Statute of Repeal.[212] >As papal legate, Pole possessed authority over both his Province of Canterbury and the Province of York, which allowed him to oversee the Counter-Reformation throughout all of England.[219] He re-installed images, vestment and plate in churches. Around 2,000 married clergy were separated from their wives, but the majority of these were allowed to continue their work as priests.[218][220]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation#Marian_Restoration If you actually look at the Papal encyclicals you wave around blindly yet have never cited you would see that the question of the validity of the Anglican line of succession is not premised on Henry's exercise of supremacy but rather because it adopted Protestant theology on the Mass (Apostolicae curae, 1896). Your polemics are deficient in their substance. Lastly, neither does your rhetoric address the counter-examples of the Scandnavian Lutherans (which the 1896 papal bull does) or the Old Catholics (the validity of whose ordinations has not been seriously questioned by the Vatican).

>>23107 >Just because Henry named the bishops, doesn't make the ordination invalid. Catholics believe that it does. Rich and powerful putting their second sons in high religious positions was a problem, So there were councils that voided it. Apostolic succession stopped when king Henry pirated the Church from the Vicar of Christ.

>>23107 >If you actually look at the Papal encyclicals you wave around blindly yet have never cited I was looking for common ground, the Bible. You rejected the Bible i.e. Matt 16 & John 21. Why on earth would a protty, who seems to reject even the early Christian Church under the first, Pope Peter, accept a Papal Encyclical as a premise? I assumed you wouldn't. Now you're chiding me for not accepting Encyclicals after you already rejected the words of Christ in Matt 16 and John 21.

>>23107 >Lastly, neither does your rhetoric address the counter-examples of the Scandnavian Lutherans (which the 1896 papal bull does) From Pope Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae 36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. How you get that they're valid ordinations out of that is as big a mystery as rejecting Matthew 16.

>>23116 >>23117 >>23128 Please ignore this troll. He argues in bad faith and will just waste your time.

>>23132 Please ignore this troll. He argues in bad faith and will just waste your time.

>>23132 How was that bad faith? You said the ordinations could be valid for Anglicans. I said there were councils that said that they weren't valid. You complained I didn't cite the Catholics sources. I explained why would I do that you would deny the Church Councils just as easily as you denied Matthew 16 in the first place. Then you said that the 1896 papal bull said otherwise. But not only did Apostolicae Curae not say that Anglican ordinations were okay, it said they were all bad. I even quoted the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1896) that you seemed to be referencing. Pope Leo XIII didn't change the prior Papal Encyclicals that put Protestants out of the Church. For that, you call me a troll and ask that I be ignored? I find that funny! Why? Because NO ONE is going to change their minds. Or admit it, anyway. Catholic belief is that a protestant, properly baptized with the right intent, matter and rite, could go to heaven if they never commit a mortal sin. They will spend time in purgatory as they don't have any way to remove venial sin e.g. attending mass and receiving the priest's blessing. Otherwise, all protestants who committed a mortal sin are damned. Not passing judgment, just explaining the faith here. Catholics believe all that die with a mortal sin on their soul are damned. Catholic rites of penance and extreme unction can remove those mortal sins. But protestants can't get them. And knowing of the Catholic faith and not converting is a mortal sin

>>23142 >Catholic belief is that a protestant, properly baptized with the right intent, matter and rite, could go to heaven if they never commit a mortal sin ... and never learned of the Catholic Church. I left that out. Mortal sins require the knowledge that they are a sin. If you don't know of the Catholic Church, i.e. that the Bible's Matthew 16 establishes a Church and none of the Protestant Churches could be that Church because no Vicar of Christ, no Chair of Saint Peter, no chain back to Saint Peter.... then no mortal sin. Mortal sin requires that you know of the sin, that you commit the sin even though your know it's a sin (intent) and that the sin is grave, like rejecting the Words of Christ and The Church of Christ.

>>23107 >neither does your rhetoric address the counter-examples of the Scandnavian Lutherans (which the 1896 papal bull does) I've been going over Pope Leo XIII 1896 Apostolicae Curae and I didn't see it on a first reading. Popes tend to be ... verbose... so I did a search on "Luth" and "Scan" but they don't appear. Doesn't appear in Satis Cognitum, Insignes, or Fidentem Piumque Animum either. It doesn't make any reference. Perhaps the wrong year? I doubt it. So, this appears to be misinformed. The Catholics don't consider any protestant ordiations to be valid. Unless you're including Bergoglio and Wojtyła to be real popes. By the council of Trent, they're not even Catholics, and a while a Pope can be any ordained priest or bishop, they have to be Catholic. ( I think they made a monk a priest once... that's in the back of my mind, so maybe even ordained as a deacon?) The rites of ordination were changed by the Protestants. I'm going to venture out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt that any of the protestant religions include an oath of obedience to the Pope.

Pray for the unity of christians by the truth which comes only from God, and not unity by the sinful averageness of humanity.

>>22934 >What's the deal with christian infighting Why did Christ rebuke pharisees so much? They set themselves up between God and man and led many to hell with them. >>22942 Meanwhile, Rome has more gold than the Jews.

Any christian wasting time fighting other christians, is being helpful to the enemy of the Lord Christ, and helpful to the enemy of the church established by the Lord Christ on earth, that is, christians attacking other christians are helpful to satan. That said, the church of christ has been attacked since the very start, but evil will not win over it, because evil can't win against God, and God is the protection and foundation by faith and grace of the real church of christ. So be strong in faith in the only true God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ on earth to guide and free humanity from evil, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. Do God's will, live the gift of life God has granted to humanity out of his goodness, ignore the attacks of evil on the church of the Lord Jesus, since those attacks from the enemy are and will always be worthless and will always fail to ever defeat either of God or his church. God blesses always everyone, may more people listen God and be sanctified by his Word.

The most annoying Atheists are those who left religion because their relatives were douchebags, but instead of at least trying to come back (unless it's heretic), they decide to act smug about it. You also have those who take moments from Old Testament out of context (which would apply to Jews and Muslims) and call God asshole for what he did while in reality God did have reasons. Also, if anyone complains about why God gave us free will, there is a reason why, but we all know that there are free will doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

>>23681 I think the best way to deal with problems by simply ignoring differences between each other and by stopping calling each other degenerates and heretics over something stupid we did. One man wrote somewhere that we should be spiritually connected to Jesus and just materially as I remember. Maybe I remembered it wrong, but he knows what he meant.

>>22949 Months late, but Catholics do define mortal sin. It has to be an action which: 1) involves a grave matter 2)is done with full knowledge of the severity of the act 3)is done under one's full control If and only if all three conditions are met, it is a mortal sin. What is defined as grave matter comes from the enumerated commandments from Jesus.

The devil needs to draw people away from Christ, and the most effective way he can think of is to hide his wolves in sheep's clothing.

>>23681 Go and look at the modern Quakers on youtube. Go and look at anything said by an Anglican/CofE bishop in the last 20 years. Take a look at what modern methodists are up to. The only reason I don't go around calling these people evil is because it's not effective as a strategy to go around calling these people evil. If you managed to make one final push to try to save even one of the CofE schools, the teachers' union would try to obstruct or sooner close down or sue you. Churchill fought most of Europe over lesser grievances than this. His grandson invites in all the mohammedians and believes in worse things than nothing. These people sometimes, sometimes only rarely, openly state that they want to see you hurt or that they want to see you killed - mainly that they want to see you shut-up forcibly. You can't commune with them. You can't convert them. Their way is the law and your way is an illegal anachronism. If Protestantism isn't dead and doesn't deserve to be called as much and to their faces no less, then how should we go about arranging for 10 as likeminded as us to be present in the same room in one place together? We're scattered on the wind and lost like diaspora. So I don't believe the quakers when they say that we need meetings. Seclusion is what I ask for and am occassionally given, and I'm glad whenever it is to have had any.

The simple truth is, at the end of the day: Christ is everywhere, as is his father, as is his spirit. You can be Christian when you are rich and when you are homeless, with an untouched stone as an altar or a church. It does not matter the circumstance or the denomination. God makes the call, Jesus saves, you have your life to live according to what is sensible. You grow and as you grow you grow your faith.

>>23143 Thanks, Pete/Pietr/Pierre holy man I thought I was going to hell, but then I don't see or intend the rejection of Catholicism as a sin. I know they're there for sure, but then it looks like a ritual larp and their confessional looks like an excuse to steal some more of my paving slabs. I'd never want into there, and I'd be without God if that's all there had been presented before me. My entry point was Svedenborgsen, who was absolutely not a prophet by the way just a laymen preacher huffing some more burning bush, followed by the quakers and their long time ago insistence on doctrinal correctitude. Modern quakers are trash mind you it's the plain variety similar to the Amish you're going to want. You'd take the Amish over a Catholic anyday - you know you would, and it doesn't help to get jealous or pout or to declare you won because you're the only one who gets to interpret the rules. Let the Pope think that perhaps, but he's lost whole fleets of ships to "God said I'm right" before. You do understand that even if America is a republic and not a monarchy that their bloodlines and origins go backwards into monarchist family trees and to kinglier times, right? They are about as damned as the Sultanate of Belize is holy. I'd go further while I'm blustering actually; I'd say that for anything you can not render 100% proveable, "swearing no oath" applies. I'll argue with the quakers as well if what I haven't got is certainty, the non-violent element being one such example. It overlooks the passages covering the need to pay reciprocity. Saint Nicholas beat the heathens with a fist. The quakers just argue with it because Jesus wouldn't do it. I don't agree with simply letting other mortal men fight in your place.

>>22934 The conflict between different christian branches and denominations is mostly pointless, and result from political divides more than ideology. Each individual has their own relationship with God, and any 2 christians from not just the same denomination, but the same church community will probably disagree on major points. All religions are like this, not just Christianity. For new converts, don't obsess about what "the Best" book or practice is, just follow the general guidelines. You can always read and compare different versions if you want. Anyone who says having Bibles from other denominations is a sin is an idiot. Christianity is about knowledge, not ignorance. The same for prayer and church services. The real conflict christians face is atheism in all it's forms. The rejection of God leads to narcissism and hubris, which is the orginal concept of evil (it was Lucifer's sin after all). Without God there is no real belief in morality, and all evils can be justified. Look at the over 1 billion people who have died the last century as a result of socialism and communism. Other religions at least believe in something. Even Muslims can be allies against atheists. The problem with pagans was that they believed in superstitions and used human sacrifice and cannibalism to solve simple problems. This is why pagans converted to Christianity, they realized burying their children alive to help a wall stand was stupid, not fear of colonizers. Neo-pagans who blame war and genocide on Christianity don't know anything about history. The new age "I'm spiritual but not religious" people who like crystals and sage are the new actual Pagans, they just don't realize it, but at least they don't eat their children. They are borderline atheist, but can probably be educated and converted more easily than actual atheists. Most satanists just had bad experiences with Christian communities and are lashing out, or are atheists and think they are being edgy. The "real" Satanists who believe in Satan and murder people are probably the last real pagans left. tldr Don't worry about what Christianity is best, the real enemy is atheism. Even other religions can be allies in that fight.