The Bar Is I Assent | Christ The King
Here is a podcast episode where we go into how one needs to assent to ALL Catholic Doctrine, putting it before secular political ideologies and personal preference, in order to engage in Catholic Action and cooperate with others who want the same. Please s...
18 upvotes, no one is able to defend Catholicism...
Very organic...
Atrocities of Catholicism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXy29586xiY
Roman Catholicism Fully Refuted - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1elvOeWe4Y
Is Catholicism True? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVwqyOIwpoo
The easiest way to refute the Catholic perversion:
The head of the Catholic church is called "the pope" ("father" in Italian).
Here's the scripture:
Read the Bible, so you don't fall for these tricks!!!
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
But what I can't figure out is, what would be the true Christianity? Because there are so many problems with the RCC, but how could God allow heresy to be the word most of the world has heard? It makes me think it's all fake, but in my heart I don't believe that's true. Very difficult to untangle
Because you need to take into account all those people, who refuted their own Father - God.
And the devil.
After all.. the greatest trick that the devil ever pulled...
Take a breath and notice that nature takes it away...
Does one need to take or resist wanting to hold onto what nature freely (life) gives (inception) and takes (death)?
a) Holding onto makes one accountable to others...to (((accountants)))
b) Account (Latin computare)...hence many sitting in front of a computer, while being held accountable within a world wide web by few.
Before another can pull; one has to attach (consent) self to another (suggestion)...suggestion tricks/triggers consent.
a) Principle implies "origin; source"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/principle#etymonline_v_19525
b) Wrestling against implies towards an outcome (winning or losing)...while ignoring origin.
c) Reasoning (versus) about suggested implies wrestling against flesh and blood, implication (if/then) implies ones struggle within origin to sustain self.
Spirit/spiro - "to breathe"...try being against breathing by holding onto your breath.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Berlin-take-my-breath-away-lyrics
Just checking this post in case someone has defended Catholicism...
Still nothing.
See you in your next post, Catholic wh*re. I'll be there. Free of charge.
How does a suggested plural (we) not diminish a singulars (one) need? How does one (apart) need we (together)?
What if wanting to consent to others tempts one to ignore perceivable need?
From the christian perspective...only God implies ALL, catholic doctrine implies a dogma shaped by ones within all for each other.
What if each difference (life) needs to resist same origin (inception towards death) while struggling with the wanted temptation to ignore resisting by following each other?
Before aka forward (inception towards death) being (life) implies secular/seco (to divide) matter during singular motion.
Only during singular (all) can there be secular (ones)...singular (god) generates secular (christians aka anointed ones).
Roman Catholic Church supports abortion, vaccines, lockdowns, race mixing, and mass immigration.
Strangely, I upvoted you... I get back to see this post, and my upvote for your comment was gone...
What is going on?
Just to be sure, I currently see you at +2, meaning your automatic one, and one from me just now, because the previous upvote (still at +2) got removed...
I will also make a screenshot, in case this happens again.
Catholicism is STRONGLY anti-abortion. Virtually all pro-life movements are run by Catholics lol.
As for vaccines, lockdowns, race mixing, and mass immigration, the Church hasn't taught that those things are against the Faith, but it also hasn't taught those things must be upheld by the faithful either. Yes, certain people in the Church, unfortunately even the Pope and other bishops support these things, but that doesn't make it "Church teaching". It merely makes it their opinion...
Isn't the Church teaching that the Pope is infallible when it comes to issues of morality? So when the Pope says it is the right thing to take in immigrants or our moral duty to get vaccinated then the Church teaching is...?
No, that's not the teaching. The teaching is that the Pope is infallible when he is solemnly declaring and defining an issue of Faith or morality in an official Magisterial document. This rarely happens. So all those airplane and press interviews where Pope Francis gives his opinion on vaccinations... None of this is binding on the faithful. There is no official Church teaching whatsoever on vaccines. As for migration, that's a bit different, as migration itself is a natural right (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph migrated to Egypt from Judea, for instance, to escape Jesus being murdered by Herod), but still, there is no Church teaching that promotes mass immigration (i.e. the Great Replacement).
Being called "pope" ("father" in Italian) is blaspheming:
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." - Matthew 23:9
Geez... I sure hope you never called you own dad "father" or else you are clearly breaking the rule of Matthew 23:9... (rolls eyes)
Or, you know, perhaps Jesus was saying that there is only one HEAVENLY Father - God the Father - and wasn't saying that you couldn't literally call your own dad "father". And this is why you need a Church to interpret Scripture - because low IQ MORONS like Neo1 will interpret Scripture in stupid ways.
I don't believe the official Magisterial document is required for a teaching to be infallible but understand your point that he was not necessarily making a declaration. Regardless, what you're saying is the head of the faith, when he is directing the faithful, should be ignored when you disagree with him (e.g. when he says it's our moral duty to receive the vaccine)?
Yes, we can freely disagree and ignore if it's not Church teaching. We can consider his opinions, and even give them due respect as head of the Faith, but we don't have to assent if it's not Magisterial teaching. He doesn't even disagree with this. Pope Francis has never formally censured Catholic lay people for not taking the vaccine. He personally endorses it but has left it open to people to choose themselves. And many faithful Catholics I know, myself included, choose not to vaccinate.
Very much a loophole. The Pope was very clear that it was a moral duty to receive the vaccine, it may not have been written into doctrine but he was very clear. So he's not really special? Aside from a very specific instance of issuing doctrine he's just some guy with opinions?
As far as I know the only people ever censured or excommunicated are those who would possibly weaken the Church were they still allowed to associate with it in some way (e.g. high ranking members going to other churches or speaking up directly against the Vatican) so using the fact they didn't censure a huge portion of the members (an action that would hurt the Church by drastically reducing membership) isn't really material
Can you show me Magisterial teaching where he made it clear that the faithful are bound to receive the vaccine under pain of sin?
You are full of shit, bud. Catholic organizations everywhere provide aid to illegal immigrants, promote miscegenation, and are pro vaxx. You’re out of your fucking mind.