Obedience to who?

​@@RedWolf5 to God. That's when he would actually be worshipping and loving God as opposed to loving himself, at which point he would cease to be the devil.

true but WE can actually, without imitation, obey the devil. especially when we choose to obey teachings that are contrary to what Christ Himself taught, no matter who the human source of that teaching may be, for we all have free will to say and teach evil, even the pope, if he so chooses (i.e. exercises his free will apart from the Holy Spirit).

Fruits of American media culture

You CONVERTED to this child rape cult? 330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics. Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every single catholic, especially you.

You know that Jesus is a fictional character, right?

​@@twitherspoon8954 I am convinced. Completely destroyed everything I believe because randos comment.🤡

​@@twitherspoon8954 That's laughable! Jesus is God 100% He is The Way the Truth and the Life! Try to prove He is not !!!!!

There is no way out of the dilemma except a return to the sola Scriptura recovered by the true Church during the glorious Reformation. I am almost certain that this so-called "Catholic" youtuber believes in his heart of hearts that Francis is not a true Pope. But were he to admit it publicly, the human-made superstructure of Romanism would collapse. Romanism is far more fractious than the Churches of the Reformation. There are nearly as many "RC Orthodoxies" as there are Roman Catholics. Why? Like the Bible, "the Catechism"/"the Canon Laws" of the RCC must also be interpreted. In their attempt to enforce man-made uniformity, the heedless Romanists replaced a divine book with a human distillate of the same. But unlike the Bible, only very few doctrines in "the Catechism" have ever been infallibly defined (such as the Assumption) so most of its stipulations are mere pius opinions (since they may be wrong). Therefore, literarily every Romanist has his/her private orthodoxy. I know many Romanists who have declared the Pope an anti-Pope or a "Protestant Pope" simply because they disagree with the Pope's NON-DOGMATIC OPINION on some aspect of the "Catechism!" There is far more unity of doctrine between the CLASSICAL forms of the major branches of the Reformed Churches (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) than amongst the confusing array of Romanist contortions. Each RC denomination (Mainline, Montinian, Sedevacantist, SSPV, SSPX, Conclavist, Lefebvrist, Catholic Restoration, Sedeprivationist, Ultramontanist, Semi-traditionalist, Concilarist, Neo-ultramontanist, Novus Ordo Catholic, Catholic Liberal, Extraordinary Formist, Opus Dei, Divine Mercy cultists, etc, etc) seems to make up its own "Catholic Truth" on the go. Ironically, it is easier to know what a Reformed denomination believes than to pin down RCs to anything. I do not (yet) know any Baptists who believe that the President of the Baptist Convention is an unsaved heretic. But there is a vibrant army of zealous RCs online screaming that all Popes since Paul VI (some even add John the XXIII for good measure) are damned heretics and false prophets!! What can be more confusing? I repeat - the Churches of the Reformation agreed on major points of doctrine. Anglicans did not believe that Lutherans were heretics whereas many RC denominations believe the Pope himself to be a heretic. The trick of referring to every non-Roman Church as "Protestant" is fallacious. How can a sect formed in Poland in 1998 by a former Romanist be called "Protestant"? This linguistic farce has gotten so bad that there are now millions of Romanists who actually believe that Pope Francis is "Protestant". But if all the Churches formed by former Methodists are linked back to Methodism as "Protestant" then surely all denominations founded by former Romanists should continue to be linked with Romanism. Nothing stops the Orthodox Church from lumping all non-Orthodox Churches (including the RCC) together and giving them one name - say, "the Heterodox" - and then pointing out that "Heterdodox sects" are doctrinally confused. Baptists can play the same disingenuous linguistic game by lumping every non-Baptist (including Romanists) under one name (e.g. "Paedo-baptists") so as to "prove" that only Baptists are coherent! What people find so attractive about Romanism (namely, its consistency) is an illusion.

Love your insta vids!

Love your content and your prudence, too many conservative voices have become radicalized.

Dude, I love your Sedevacantism Refuted video!

It's not inappropriate to call a Pope by his second name. The problem are the tone and the intentions of those people who use the word 'Bergoglio' as an offence.

Catholics are a child raep cult no matter what you say. 330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics. Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every single catholic.

@@djo-dji6018 and as an outsider, it would be ‘Pope Bergoglio’, no?

I don't even address my former Charismatic pastor by his first name alone. The title shows respect to God because this person acts as a father to an ecclesiasial community.

It is apparently not unusual in Europe to do just in ordinary day-to-day parlance

If it’s not in line with tradition, you don’t have to believe it. The church doesn’t change it’s a Vatican 1 anathema.

For the Church to change for the world literally goes against Scripture.

Exactly 💯

HILARIOUS. 330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics. Your clergy runs the world's largest child rape cult, and you don't think they shoudl be questioned. Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every single catholic. However, you laugh in the face of Jesus.

@@gabismom77 How do you feel about Catholic clergymen who sexually molest children?

Unless of course, the personal attacks are attacking the personal and public scandals committed by clergy. As an extreme example: If someday a gay Pope steps out onto the Loggia and starts kissing his lover in full view of the gathered faithful and the whole world via media. Should the faithful just stand there and express their personal disappointment but it's really his business what he does and since he hasn't bound the faithful to an error of faith and morals I guess we should just do whatever he says.

Blessed Mother is telling us "to be alert and do not be deceived by False Magisterium." Magisterium is Pope, Vicar of Christ, and Bishops united with Him. Therefore False Magisterium means false pope and bishops united with him. This is another confirmation that the one in charge now is the false one and we should not follow him, but follow those Bishops who uphold and teach ages-old Catholic Dogmas and Traditions, because after the passing of Benedict XVI, we do not have True Pope with us now. When the Church is purified after Schism (separating from the false ones), we will have the last Pope in St. Malachy's prophecy -- 'Peter, the Roman, who will guide the Church through the persecutions of the Antichrist and his followers.

He is the Pope, but an objectively bad one. He is a globalist and says apostates like Joe Biden are “in good standing”.

we can rebuke them if they do wrong, just as Paul rebuked Peter. but you are right, we have to remember their authority and respect it. Bishops do not suddenly lose their authority when we disagree with them.

@@MegaVega2007 yes, I wholly agree :)

The ONLY thing that links the cahtolic church to Jesus is if you believe in popes, which was nonsense to start with. If you don't believe in popes, then you're just a child rape cult. If you do believe in popes, you're still a child rape cult that hopes that God loves a series of popes more than God loves children.

​@Ribguy101 wholly agree, 2:24 2:29 too

@@_ready__ staring your trolling already, what is the matter with you. Protestantism is a mental illness

👏👏👏👏👏 This is a great!

@@_ready__ one must be baptized and obey God. A quick look at your previous replies on other videos it seems as though you’re not interested in listening. I’m a faithful catholic. I hold the church teaching. If you’re asking only for the sole purpose of being obnoxious I won’t engage any further.

@@_ready__ Key question is, what do you mean by attain?

@@_ready__ God provides the grace and the means, He paid the price and offers us to journey home with Him until death and should we slip or turn from Him, He again offers and if we agree, comes and picks us up again. This rejection is by sin and reconciliation by repentance and indeed sacramental confession because whether in mercy or judgement, every sin must be brought before God`s tribunal for arbitration. Certainly if one perfectly repents out of purely love fot God and sorrow for offending Him, He will forgive, but not coming to Him through the arbitration means He has established, if one can, shows a contempt for His Kingship and that one is not willing to do what one can in love for Him. Or taken by another metaphor, The Divine Physician operates in His way not simply as however we desire. He will triage you if you come, but a full surgery to remove the tumor fully is necessary. The Physician shall either see us with His attendant to heal you, or at the end to declare you spiritually deceased. Apart from God and His grace, we can do nothing, but we must act accordingly and continually consent, God will not force us to stay with Him against our will, God is no kidnapper. Once in His grace, indeed we can do good, but only because of His grace, not because we are suddenly in our own natures increased. If we knowingly refuse God, we can do nothing as we are apart from Him and His Sacrifice. In short, we are in the desert making our Great Exodus, Christ is the New Moses, and the New Aaron, apart from Him and those He chooses, we die in the spiritual desert. However if your question is regarding a certain Commandment, that is a different matter requiring its own response. Remember, if you hate your brother, you commit murder in your heart. God bless you, through Jesus Christ Our Blesser Lord and Savior, Who is the Divine Justice, Divine Wisdom, and Divine Mercy, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, our Eternal King and Great High Priest. Amen.

@@_ready__ Hey! Why'd you run away from the other thread and start posting your same old errors again as if you didn't get put on the spot? Ready to explain how the scriptures got here or not? 😉

@@_ready__ Again, you ignore the clarification of terms. Why are you capitalizing "ATTAIN"? Your definition is probably different from the Church true definition. I asked you if an unrepentent sinner could go to Heaven and you ran away from that question. You also never told me who it is that told you the books of the Bible are Divinely Inspired.

As a newer convert, I was nearly lead down a path of despair because of all the disparaging commentary on the pope and the Novus Ordo mass, particularly on KZfaq. I have a wonderful and wise priest (convert) and attend a reverent Novus Ordo mass every Sunday. I thank God in my prayers every night for the amazing priests He has placed in my life to learn from and for our pope, our church and the unity of all Christian's 🙏❤

May God bless and guide your discernment, brother. I hope one day celebrate your coming home to the Church. But, whatever happens, may God's blessings be with you. I would like to testify this from my own experience: I have attended Masses of in both the Ordinary ("Novus Ordo") and Extraordinary ("Tridentine", "Latin", or "TLM") Forms. In that experience, I have seen Masses of great beauty and solemnity in both forms. I have also seen uninspiring Masses, though they were still holy by the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, in both forms. It really comes down to the way in which it is celebrated. "Novus Ordo" Masses can have full choirs singing majestic music, the use of incense, and the inclusion of things like saying the Rosary pre-Mass or the St. Michael Prayer after Mass. Nothing prevents such pious practices and others in a "Novus Ordo" Mass. Nor, indeed, are those the only ways that a Mass can be celebrated with solemnity. I hope that you can take heart from this that the Mass being celebrated in most cases is not lacking or to be looked down upon.

@@steelytemplar thank you for sharing your experience. I have kind of come to realize that you can make the novus ordo beautiful and reverent. I think it is harder to make a bad Latin maybe because it has so many guard rails, but I think I now see that the novus ordo just gives people more freedom to express themselves as they see appropriate

Well said, and this is one of my issues as well. We can understand right and wrong from the teachings of the Church and from the Bible, yet when a Pope or Bishop says something that is contradictory to official teachings, then we aren’t allowed to criticize? I understand that they are not speaking infallibly all the time, but they are supposed to know the teachings of the church and even if they aren’t speaking infallibly they still shouldn’t contradict teaching. Also, at what point does a Pope or Bishop say enough things that are contrary to teachings that we are then allowed to say that they should no longer be a part of the Magisterium? I’m sure that laity in the Catholic Church are not allowed to challenge a Pope over what he says, but if the rest of the Magisterium refuses to do so, then what are the laity supposed to do? Just continue to say “The Pope is incorrect about this according to Church teaching, but he’s not speaking infallibly so its all good”?

It seems our option is to sit down a shut up. Or at least that's how we are made to feel. I can only excuse so many airplane interviews before my protestant family is going to start rolling their eyes.

Why we ask a question often matters more than the answer. When progressives begin a discussion about tradition, they’ve already made up their minds on what they’re gong to do. Yet this principle also applies to us I think. When we argue with a single Church leader-instead of looking deeper at Church history, sometimes our minds are made up. There’s a wealth of reading and doctrine to contradict the misguided actions of progressive bishops. Enough to root us against small storms. So in a way “sit down and shut up” is the right course for us., But instead I’d say: “ *read up* -and steer others to the library”. For instance, Regarding same sex marriage issue, a thorough examination of the issue is Unchanging Witness by Gram and Fortston. They’re not Catholic but their research carefully dismantles the recent arguments by progressive Christians about the ancient world.

Yep. My protestant family could not understand why I would convert under the current pope. They constantly come to me with questions about why he said this or that. I can only say "maybe he was mistranslated" so many times.

@@Mrs_Homemaker My brother left the Catholic faith to join a conservative Protestant church. He had never really taken ownership of his Catholic faith so I don't think it was mainly about theological issues. He's strong in his faith for Christ and even agrees with Catholic teachings on things like contraception. But every time I bring up the topic of the Catholic faith, he expresses his concerns about Pope Francis. What am I supposed to say? That the Vicar of Christ, capable of infallible teaching, doesn't need to be a strong defender of orthodoxy?

@@BrewMeister27 Pope Francis isn’t actively teaching heresy though (I’m sure if he did I would know about it), and if he were invalid, he would be teaching heresy. Despite what he does personally, he is not contradicting from his place of authority the teachings of the church. That, if anything, should be a testament to the power of the position.

@@fury_blade9303 I'm not accusing him of openly teaching heresy or being invalid. I'm accusing him of committing the sin of scandal. And that's a very serious sin because it turns people away from the faith. People like my brother. Pope Francis has a habit of making vague, off the cuff remarks. The media then interpret and report them in the most left-wing context. But then Pope Francis never comes out to correct the record. When his "who am I to judge?" comment was reported as approval for gay marriage, he allowed that characterization to stand. He never released a response forcefully condemning the LGBT agenda. And repeated incidences like this have allowed the public to believe the Catholic Church is tolerant of heretical beliefs. And that scandalizes the conservative protestants that would otherwise be interested in the Catholic faith.

I think many Catholics are tired of the Pope talking about Climate Change. At times, he seems more like a politician than a Pope. I certainly miss John Paul 2.

I think a lot of these people are SSPXers or sympathize with the SSPX and have bought into their talking points. We had people at our parish that left for the SSPX and from what I heard, these were the more radical anti-pope Francis people. Our pastor warned people too about leaving and that it’s schism. But they dipped. We recently had a couple that argued with my buddy about the sspx and another priest had to shut them down. He laid it out why they’re wrong on V2, why they’re wrong on the pope, and why they’re wrong on the SSPX. Told them that they don’t have licit sacraments or orders and have no jurisdiction to do anything. That they are truly a schismatic group. I was so proud of him when he did that. Cause some priests just aren’t courageous or knowledgeable enough to do that. So props to him.

@@Jerds the SSPX are not in schism, this is an insidious lie.

The types he's addressing are more in line with the SSPX or even sedevacantists. Those comments are the same rhetoric I would always see (and disseminate myself, mea culpa) in those circles.

I’m a SSPX parishioner, it was my first parish after my conversion from protestantism 8 months ago. I have your same experience, never heard that rhetoric on my parish and less from our priest. We pray for the pope, and he teaches us about the Church and pope’s authority. I think social media and YT is feeding a uncharitable hatred among catholics and creating this dialectical war with labels like “trads”, “radtrad”, “sspx” etc. It’s sad that the fact that mentioning that someone is from the SSPX can trigger a lot of prejudices in peoples minds about a fellow catholic. It’s sad… but I pray that this would end soon, and the Church settles this issue. Maybe getting off social media and just having a coffee with a catholic brother from the “other side” can make people see that there are more reasons to be one.

@@AbdielGonzalez-in4zv that’s very interesting. We had some parishioners leave for the sspx and since then I’ve only met a couple. You’re the only person I’ve seen online who has said this about their parish! Must be unique. Praying for full unity if the church and reconciliation of the Holy See and the Society. Pray for your bishops cause I know they’re divided on this

I agree with you, Trent is comparing apples to oranges, he built a subtle straw man that’s hard to trace but is there.

Are you saying that councils can be a hit or miss thing? That the church was guided in Vatican 1 and not with Vatican 2 with over 2,000 bishops in attendance? And to think that councils were convened by the church those who were supposedly guided were not, and the ones enlightened are these lay youtubers, lay people giving their own intepretation of Vatican 2? These kind of mindset is exactly what Trent is discussing in this video. This is exactly what happens if we think we know better than the magisterium of the church. I Thank God He gave us this ecclesiology, as imperfect it may be. Because without one, we surely would have gone beyond chaos and would have not survived 2,000 years with all the different voices claiming they are right.

@@shepherdson6189 you ignore many facts. You should look into the speech Annibale Bugnini said to the committee that wrote Sacrosantum Concilium then you’ll understand the real issue here. This is not a conspiracy theory the documents exist but those like Trent will never dare to speak about this freely. The 2000 bishops you mentioned were technically duped and many have said over the years that they never imagined Vat-2 would turnout this way.

@@shepherdson6189 I would suggest that you relax and entertain the possibility that the teaching of the Church is more nuanced than you currently understand it. Better to know this now than get shocked when the history of the Church decimates the more gilded image promoted by some. Regarding the hit or miss character of some Councils, I'm not the one saying it. The Church has always taught this. There is a tendency among all groups but especially among non-traditional "conservative" Catholics to avoid nuance when it comes to understanding the levels of Magisterial weight that are invoked. (The Magisterium is also not a group of men, it is a power that is utilized by the holders of the office of bishop in union with the office of the papacy ) As an aside, You do also realize you are citing a lay KZfaqr to reinforce your condemnation of lay KZfaqrs? it's the very people that officiated and participated at Vatican II that stated that it was a "hit or miss" thing because of the deliberate minimal level of authority they in union with the Pope were invoking. “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time. Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken. If, in the end, it will be numbered among the highlights of Church history depends on those who will transform its words into the life of the Church.” Josef Cardinal Ratzinger Principles of Catholic Theology 1987 The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. But since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council. Josef Cardinal Ratzinger Address to Chilean Bishops. July 1988 “John XXIII yearned for a Council that would achieve the renewal of the Church not through condemnations, but using the ‘medicine of mercy.’ By abstaining from reproving error, the Council would by this very means avoid formulating definite teachings that would be binding for all. And in fact, it held consistently to this initial direction.” Giacomo Cardinal Biffi; Memories and Digression of an Italian Cardinal 2007 “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.” Pope Paul VI General Audience January 12 1966 There are many, many more positions and citations by "non-lay KZfaqrs" if you want more evidence. And in the history of Church we have things like Lateran VI decreeing that Jews and Muslims must be forced to wear special garb that will distinguish them from the Christians. The Holy Spirit wasn't behind that. It's a sociologically bad idea even back then. It was universally ignored by the Church.

@@gerry30 There's a big difference between Trent Horn and those I consider as lay youtubers. No doubt he's a lay youtuber himself, a Catholic apologist but the difference is, he's not critical of the Pope, Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo. Trent is educating while other dissenting lay Catholic youtubers creates confusion among the faithfuls by being overly critical of the church leadership, Vatican 2 and the NO placing them in a bad light. It is hurting the body of Christ more than anything else. You're quotes doesn't necessarily mean they give the right nuances about what Vatican 2 is to think it is in error or prone to error. At best they just honestly differentiated Vatican 2 as pastoral while Vatican 1 is dogmatic in nature and binding. Both have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one regarding faith and morals the other regarding Christian response in the secular world. Reading those quotes other than what it, in all honesty, means is a misrepresentation of those persons you quoted because they did not, even in the slightest, indicated that Vatican 2 have erred. The church convened in Vatican 2, wether it is pastoral in nature, we as Catholics have to trust the Church with the promise of guidance promised to her.

I actually wonder if Pope Francis even wants me to bother to evangelize.

@@Candis55 clearly he doesn’t wants us to evangelize, at least not how the saints did.

​@@Candis55I think you are invincible ignorant.People like you make me very sad

The Vatican gardens ceremony was not idol worship and the Pope did not authorize the Anglican liturgy at St. John Lateran.

@@RedWolf5 That is demonstrably false and contradicted by the holy father’s own words

"Knowledge, competence and preeminence." We should do well to remember that those are three stipulations. And it would also be helpful to have the entire quotation, since it helps to put this into better context. "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."

What in particular in Orthodoxy do you find concerning that would require a response?

​@@TheCounselofTrent maybe I can share some videos you can respond to..?

Michael Lofton from Reason and theology is a great resource for a response to Orthodoxy.

Ask them why they haven't had an ecumenical council since the Schism. Oh sure, they have gotten together, but it's always "some parts subject to revision by the local patriarchs", unlike the Pre-Schism councils. What changed?

Check with Michael Lofton as well. The Orthodox are not unified at all in theology. While many Catholics can lean to hard on that it’s all great over here when clearly we have disagreements Catholics as a whole do not disagree on essential areas of doctrine while the Orthodox do like in areas baptism should new converts be re baptized, divorce and re marriage some say no, some say can be divorced and re married multiple times, some say contraception is okay some do not, some have disagreements over the Filoque. The Orthodox faith is fracturing again with Russians vs the Greeks right now. So it’s not all peaches and cream over there either. We have our issues sure, and we should reason them out however it’s not an excuse to leave the Church for a counterfeit faith that acts like everything is just them acting as one over there when they aren’t.

@@horrorhawk3701 OK, let me word the question differently, if you believed that the current Church was contradicting Biblical and past teaching, should you follow past teaching or present ?

@@horrorhawk3701 Utter nonsense. The magisterium is subordinate to Tradition which is subordinate to Scripture. There is no way out of the dilemma except a return to the sola Scriptura recovered by the true Church during the glorious Reformation. Sola Scrriptura means that nothing can be taught as dogma if it is not affirmed in Scripture. I am almost certain that this so-called "Catholic" youtuber believes in his heart of hearts that Francis is not a true Pope. But were he to admit it publicly, the human-made superstructure of Romanism would collapse on his head. Romanism is far more fractious than the Churches of the Reformation. There are nearly as many "RC Orthodoxies" as there are Roman Catholics. Why? Like the Bible, "the Catechism"/"the Canon Laws" of the RCC must also be interpreted. In their attempt to enforce man-made uniformity, the heedless Romanists replaced a divine book with a human distillate of the same. But unlike the Bible, only very few doctrines in "the Catechism" have ever been infallibly defined (such as the Assumption) so most of its stipulations are mere pius opinions (since they may be wrong). Therefore, literarily every Romanist has his/her private orthodoxy. I know many Romanists who have declared the Pope an anti-Pope or a "Protestant Pope" simply because they disagree with the Pope's NON-DOGMATIC OPINION on some aspect of the "Catechism!" There is far more unity of doctrine between the CLASSICAL forms of the major branches of the Reformed Churches (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) than amongst the confusing array of Romanist contortions. Each RC denomination (Mainline, Montinian, Sedevacantist, SSPV, SSPX, Conclavist, Lefebvrist, Catholic Restoration, Sedeprivationist, Ultramontanist, Semi-traditionalist, Concilarist, Neo-ultramontanist, Novus Ordo Catholic, Catholic Liberal, Extraordinary Formist, Opus Dei, Divine Mercy cultists, etc, etc) seems to make up its own "Catholic Truth" on the go. Ironically, it is easier to know what a Reformed denomination believes than to pin down RCs to anything. I do not (yet) know any Baptists who believe that the President of the Baptist Convention is an unsaved heretic. But there is a vibrant army of zealous RCs online screaming that all Popes since Paul VI (some even add John the XXIII for good measure) are damned heretics and false prophets!! What can be more confusing? I repeat - the Churches of the Reformation agreed on major points of doctrine. Anglicans did not believe that Lutherans were heretics whereas many RC denominations believe the Pope himself to be a heretic. The trick of referring to every non-Roman Church as "Protestant" is fallacious. How can a sect formed in Poland in 1998 by a former Romanist be called "Protestant"? This linguistic farce has gotten so bad that there are now millions of Romanists who actually believe that Pope Francis is "Protestant". But if all the Churches formed by former Methodists are linked back to Methodism as "Protestant" then surely all denominations founded by former Romanists should continue to be linked with Romanism. Nothing stops the Orthodox Church from lumping all non-Orthodox Churches (including the RCC) together and giving them one name - say, "the Heterodox" - and then pointing out that "Heterdodox sects" are doctrinally confused. Baptists can play the same disingenuous linguistic game by lumping every non-Baptist (including Romanists) under one name (e.g. "Paedo-baptists") so as to "prove" that only Baptists are coherent! What people find so attractive about Romanism (namely, its consistency) is an illusion.

@@horrorhawk3701 But only Ex Cathedra teachings can be said to be infallible. So if the Pope and the Bishops issued a non ex Cathedra teaching that contradicted past Ex Cathedra teachings we would have a responsibility to follow the past Ex Cathedra teachings rather than the non Ex Cathedra teachings. Also I would say that once a doctrine has been defined in the past Ex Cathedra, then even if a Pope and the Bishops try to redefine it Ex Cathedra then their redefinition is null and void because once something has been defined it cannot be undefined. Because we have more than one Pope through history then present Popes cannot contradict past popes and any attempt to do so must be considered heresy, even if it is a Pope who claims he is speaking Ex Cathedra.

Here’s an older video from Jimmy Akin that tackles the Sunday/Sabbath question: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oNV4nLSkzKq4o2g.html -Kyle

Do you really believe that Vatican II is the cause of faithlessness? If so, then I've got a revisionist history about a bridge to sell to you.

Or ground beef. ; )

It has to do with when the document was written. Prior to the conclave of 2005, he was Joseph Ratzinger, so what he wrote during that time still bears that name. Everything he wrote during his pontificate will say Pope Benedict XVI though. It’s helpful because before he was pope, he could not be writing as the pope. -Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrentThank you for the clarification. This make sense.

“Many cardinals, bishops, and priests are following the road to perdition, and with them, they are taking many more souls. Even less importance is being given to the Holy Eucharist. We should turn the wrath of God away from us by our own efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with a sincere heart, He will pardon you.”

Who are you quoting?

Michael Lofton, the prince of nuance.

@@aceraphael he comes off as smug or prideful to me. I could be wrong but I get the impression he puts on a façade like he's far more brilliant than he really is. But perhaps that's just my own flawed perspective of him.

​@@plogoo1 dk if evryone will be able to digest his attitude. the content is goodand he helped me undo a lot of damage done by TM. for me atleast.

Good point

​@@aceraphaelMichael lofton is amazing. He has helped me so much personally. God bless him.