Glad you found us and sorry to ehar about your parish issues. There's a lot of hurt in the Church right now due to several factors and both "sides" are trying to find the best way to heal them. Unfortunately they often end up opposing each other. :(

Sorry to hear about the division. Surely there could be mutual acceptance?

You tha man!

Agreed.

One of my favorites, thanks!

Great! And thank you!

Michael has kept many people Catholic through his arguments & apologetics. He gets many comments to that subject. He’s even talked people out of the radtrad crowd. The authority of Christianity comes from Christ which he has bestowed on the Pope, our symbol & reality of unity.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah I would have a hard time taking such things seriously.

:)

Glad you enjoyed it!

You are welcome!

You as well!

Interesting. What about it could you not live with?

So you're Byzantine?

I was for a few years, and that worked out okay. Now, though, for the last four years, I have been attending a normal RC NO parish in Ohio. I am very involved in parish life, I have made friends, and I am now pretty happy. When I first came here, I prayed earnestly for stability. So far, so good. ​@@eabm1984

I hope you enjoy!

:)

@@DouglasBeaumont I heard that there are 4 requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.[not on who wins the Super Bowl LIX] (2) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. [not on the airplane] (3) He must be specifically intending to bind the entire Church. [must explicitly say that] (4) Pronouncement cannot go against what was handed down in Scripture and Church Tradition. [for instance... Pope can not pronounce that from now on we believe that Jesus is not the Son of God. ]

Close, but #3 is not literally speaking of a chair but rather an office and #4 is more of what follows from infallibility - not a condition of it. From the Catholic encyclopedia: "infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: (a) The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal. (b) Then it is only when in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (c) Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense . . . These are well-recognized formulae by means of which the defining intention may be manifested. (d) Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church, to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck . . . the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible." (www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/infallibility#v-what-teaching-is-infallible-)

Not rude at all. If you mnean the term in the phrase "___shall bruise your head," it is a generic personal demonstrative that points back to a preceding subject (i.e., it is a pronoun that can funciotn as it, he, she, him, her, them, they, etc.).The problem is there are several possible references in the preceding statement ("you," "the woman," "your seed," and "her seed"), so how it is translated depends on which subject the translator thinks it refers back to. "It" might be chosen to avoid having to make a choice.

Ordinary assent is not required if the Pope's opinions go against the Church's historical teachings (e.g., the death penalty). The second scenario has never happened and cannot if Church dogma is infallible.

The Catholic Church asked "Where do babies go who are not baptised, because there was a lot of questioning about it at the time, since we are all born with Original Sin because of Adam and Eve, our original parents, rebellion, and no soul with the stain of sin can enter into Heaven. That is why babies are baptised to wipe out the stain of Original Sin, and then they become an adopted child of God because God sees the mark of His beloved son, Jesus, on the soul. The Church at that time could not answer that question. It said that it 'supposed' that the babies were kept in a place where they did not suffer and were happy until the world ends. Limbo has never been defined as a doctrine of the Faith. It was only a supposition.

@@Anon.5216 wow, that’s really helpful thank you. So you could as a catholic affirm or state that babies go directly to heaven and not be going against catholic teaching?

Limbo is a theological opinion, not dogma or even Church teaching. Even the greatest theologians make mistakes. :)

Dear@@borealopelta7284, I have 2 little ones who died before they were born. I count on their prayers from Heaven, Can it be possible that the Lord Who IS Love loves my little ones less than I do? And, incidentally, before the flood, there were many more innocent people being abused and hurt by the few leaders. Is death by Flood so very bad, when we believe -- we *know* -- that there is Life -- *real* LIFE -- after death? And that the One Who made us out of His Love for us, is the Father and Judge and Good Shepherd over our lives?

No, except for very extreme circumstances. We are not in communion, so it could be an act of schism under normal circumstances to commune in a schismatic church. We do recognize their sacraments as valid because of their apostolic succession, but illicit because of their schism with Rome. Some orthodox would say our sacraments are valid but most might not be so charitable. so in a grave emergency where there is no Catholic Church then it might be ok. But the orthodox priest would probably say it is not ok so you shouldn’t just present yourself for the Eucharist there at an EO Church.

No not at all

So what you're saying is is that a person who dies in a State of Grace can still lose their salvation after death? That makes absolutely no sense and seems theologically incoherent. Also, numerous Eastern Saints wrote and preached about a post mortem purification that takes place. The Orthodox view is irreconcilable, sorry.

Dear@@alphonsustheleast1537, I do not understand. The proposition is that there is post-mortem healing (by God, Who loves them) for souls that would despair (therefore, souls of those who love God, and *care* but that they failed to really *love* Him). The "fire" of Purgatory, which refers to the purging fire found in 1 Corinthians 3:15, is not, and never has been, the "Lake of Fire" of Revelation 19:20. That is explained in the interview. So. How can you say: 1) that someone who died in a state of grace -- meaning, in the love of God -- but still in need of healing, loses salvation? That seems to me to be the exact opposite of the proposition. and 2) that "healing" a soul after death cannot be seen as "cleansing" (purging a soul of the remnants of sin, or that soul making temporal restitution for venial sins) which takes place in Purgatory? Orthodoxy, and even most Protestants, could accept Purgatory if they understood what is really meant by this wonderful teaching!

You believe in pergation, you just call it something else. The Catholic Church is a church that recognizes the same faith in different languages and expressions. All of the early Greek schisms in the first millennium was due to those other churches refusing to reconcile the same faiths throughout different languages and political allegiances.

Imagine that the councils are at an impasse on that teaching, what's to follow?

The Catholic belief in the sinlessness of the Theotokos is expressed by the term "Immaculate Conception", as Michael Lofton explained. As Mary IS the Woman of Genesis 3, who is opposed to the Serpent and never was under the Serpent's spell -- not even for a moment -- we say that she was without any stain of sin -- "immaculate" -- from the first moment of her being -- conception.

If you don’t deny it then you accept it? If you accept it then why would it mean nothing to you?

Your feelings are mistaken.

@DouglasBeaumont feelings perhaps but the core of my observation remains

Dear@@sanskritprayers, no, you are importing a complete misunderstanding of the Real Presence that the Catholic Church has always held to be the core of Christianity -- Jesus is, indeed "God-With-Us" from the moment of His taking on the flesh of sinful Man, until now. And I have only to drive to the Adoration chapel, open 24/7, to look on Him in His utter humility as the Bread of Life that He gave us, to be with us until the end of time. I touch Him when I receive Him in communion at Mass. He is within me, whatever I do. So I do try always to do the Works that He would do -- does do when I am true to Him -- through me. Generations lost that closeness with Jesus, when the Protestant reformers conquered the greedy kings and dukes, and the cowardly bishops, of England and Germany, and imposed a new religion on the people. Yes, there were abuses, and humans who defied the teachings of the Church with simony and nepotism and laziness -- humans who refused to be the martyrs who take up our crosses daily, as the Church has always reminded us that Jesus taught. But the way to correct abuse is not to take matters into your own hands and try to create a more perfect church, not founded by Christ, but still made up of sinful humans. The fault is not in the Protestants of today. You were not taught about the full GIFT of God -- His Gift of HIMSELF.

I think you could be feeling that because they are being defensive in the video. They are trying to defend and also reconcile the two churches understandings. Catholics are always under attack by Protestants and orthodox.

Good to know.

Why would you say that?

How bad is "as they get"? Can I listen to him if I don't watch him? Thorny kind of fellow, eh?

@@DouglasBeaumont they often say this because I defend the magisterium and they are in dissent against it. When you call out dissent then dissenters get angry and try to write you off.

You should watch his videos and go through the documents (including councils) and write notes to see if you actually disagree with what he is saying. He often puts what he is talking about on the screen so we can read it. It also tells us how we can find the actual documents. You probably would have a better understanding of Michael Lofton if you spent some time listening to him and reading the documents.

Dear@CatholicDefender-bp7my, yes, this is a troll. States something, but cannot back it up. Still, doesn't this exchange help with the algorithm? God is allowing our dear Michael Lofton to suffer calumny, along with the pope, for some glorious reason that will be manifest when we get to Heaven. Can you imagine what a blindingly beautiful crown is being prepared for those who suffer as Christ did? (I think Pope Francis reminded Cardinal Fernandez to have patience for the sake of the reward God is preparing in Heaven.) So, like St. Josephine Bakhita about those who were her slavers and tormentors, we should bless people like this troll. And pray for them.