David Bell

Christ is King!!!

@matthewdmarsden Got you brother.

I write two posts about the Passion of the Christ and lose over 40 followers. I’ll take it.

@McBrideLawNYC Good work on this Joe. As a Southern Baptist for decades learning the truth about Mary has been a real blessing, and an important part of coming into full communion with the Church.

MARY BIRTHED JESUS AND NO ONE ELSE. Papias of Hierapolis was a disciple of the Apostle St. John. The man who took Mary into his own home after the crucifixion. If she had other sons, St. John would’ve known them personally. Papias learned from St. John, and wrote this between 100-110 A.D. He lists four Marys in the Gospel with the precision of a trial lawyer. Mary of Cleophas is the mother of James, Simon, Thaddeus, and Joseph. Those are the so-called “brothers of the Lord.” Different woman. Different husband. Different sons. Case closed.

@PillihJ1147 @Primrose771646 @Ggg70671750 @rendragkaan @EggGnome Got you back. Happy Easter!!

@Primrose771646 @Ggg70671750 @DavidCMBell @rendragkaan @EggGnome Got them all ✅

Friends that follow back ⭐️ @Ggg70671750 @DavidCMBell @rendragkaan @EggGnome

@Primrose771646 @Ggg70671750 @rendragkaan @EggGnome Wow!!! Thank you very much. Just followed as many back as X would allow. Will follow all back as soon as I'm allowed. God bless you all.

Thank You Lord Jesus Christ for this Friday, this Good Friday.

@narendramodi Amen. Thank you!! May Christ our King guide and protect us all and bring all to unity of faith in Him.

Good Friday reminds us of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. May this day further deepen the values of harmony, compassion and forgiveness. May brotherhood and hope guide us all.

@MaroneyBoyleG @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM Blessings to you brother!!! TGIF today more than ever.

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM -gation of said Canon. In any event, thank you for taking the time to reply. Have a very blessed Good Friday and God bless you and yours.

On Catholics praying with Non-Catholics: Code of Canon Law 1917: Canon 1258 § 1. It is not lawful for the faithful in any manner to assist actively at or to take part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics. § 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for a grave reason approved by the bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion [of the faith] or scandal.

@poperespecter1 @MattGaspers He showed his colours when he wouldn't stand up for Catholic doctrine nor the religious freedom of @CarriePrejean1. Now the Bishop mocks the Pope. Just a woke nightmare.

@MattGaspers Bishop Barron knows better. Why he is joining with a non-Catholic to attack a Catholic is beyond me.

The notion of a resurgent Marcionism is absurd. If there’s a “resurgence” of anything, it’s the original heresy of the Judaizers (Acts 15) — which, thanks be to God, more and more Christians are recognizing and rejecting.

@LadyFaceIII @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM But you could be right. :)

@TheStaad Finding the same thing!!

I used to go through phases when I felt hungry for God. I’d go to church several weeks in a row and read the Bible every day, and then the enthusiasm would always eventually fade, bringing the phase to an end Since becoming Catholic two years ago, my love and enthusiasm for the faith has only steadily grown. I’m more on fire for the faith today than I was on day one If this is a phase, it’s by far the longest and most enduring one yet I don’t think it is, though I pray it never ends

1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@TaylorRMarshall Isn’t there a more recent Code? From the 1980’s I believe? What does it say?

Actually 1983 makes you the uninformed. 1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@4doorImperial @TaylorRMarshall Same as before. Idiot

@uncensoredjose @TaylorRMarshall John Paul II begs to differ with you.

@TaylorRMarshall The logic was coherent. One true Church. Participating in false worship implies equivalence. Equivalence implies indifferentism. Indifferentism is heresy.

1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@DavidCMBell asking this in good faith: do you know what the words "canon" or "law" mean

1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM Code of Canon Law 1917: Canon 1258, illiterate ass.

1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM Yeah, that's the Church's position: it's canon law, not Marshall's personal view. (Not suggesting that he disagrees with canon law)

1983 Code of Canon Law addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM Lol. Dude .. he just quoted Cannon law. It’s not his opinion. Smh. He quotes the One, True, Holy, Apostolic Church. Submit.

T strict prohibition in Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is no longer the governing law for the Catholic Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (promulgated by Pope John Paul II) replaced and abrogated the 1917 Code, including its specific rules on communicatio in sacris* (sharing in sacred things/rites). Key Changes Post-Vatican II The Second Vatican Council (especially the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964) introduced a shift in emphasis toward ecumenism, the pursuit of Christian unity through dialogue, cooperation, and prayer, while maintaining core distinctions. It states that Catholics and "separated brethren" (other baptized Christians) share real bonds through baptism and faith in Christ. In certain circumstances, such as prayers for unity or ecumenical gatherings, it is "allowable, indeed desirable" for Catholics to join in prayer with them. Such common prayer is seen as an effective means of grace and a sign of existing ties, though it is not to be used indiscriminately. The Council distinguishes: - Common prayer (e.g., reciting the Our Father together, joint prayers for shared intentions, or ecumenical services) Often encouraged when it expresses genuine bonds without implying false unity or indifferentism (the idea that all religions/denominations are equally true). - Full "worship in common" (communicatio in sacris), especially active participation in non-Catholic liturgical rites or sacraments - Generally forbidden, as it risks scandal, error, or suggesting equivalence of faiths. Witness to the Church's unity "very generally forbids" this. The 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism** (issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) provides practical guidance. It promotes "spiritual ecumenism," including common prayer, while setting limits. Catholics may attend non-Catholic Christian services and participate in shared elements like hymns, responses, or Scripture readings (but not sacraments like Communion in most cases). Ecumenical prayer services are encouraged when properly planned with mutual respect. 1983 Code of Canon Law The 1983 Code addresses related issues differently: - Canon 844 regulates sacramental sharing (e.g., limited possibilities for Catholics to receive certain sacraments from Eastern Orthodox priests under specific conditions, or vice versa; stricter limits with Protestants due to differences in valid orders and doctrine). It emphasizes avoiding danger of error or indifferentism. - Canon 1365 provides for a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in sacred rites, preserving the principle against illicit Communicatio in sacris. Passive presence (e.g., attending a non-Catholic wedding or funeral for family/civil reasons) remains tolerable in many cases, provided there is no active participation in rites that contradict Catholic faith and no scandal or risk to one's Some Catholics, particularly those attached to the pre-Vatican II tradition (e.g., certain sedevacantist or SSPX-linked views), argue that the older prohibition in Canon 1258 remains binding in principle because it reflects divine law and perennial teaching against active participation in false worship. They see post-Vatican II developments as a harmful relaxation that risks indifferentism. Mainstream Catholic teaching and law, however, hold that the Council and 1983 Code represent a legitimate development in pastoral application without altering the underlying faith (no salvation outside the Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the fullness of the means of salvation, etc.). - Permitted/Encouraged: Praying together with other Christians (e.g., Lord's Prayer), participating in ecumenical prayer services. - Not Permitted: Actively joining in non-Catholic sacramental worship - Non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.): Even more caution applies under Nostra Aetateand related norms, dialogue yes; joint worship that blurs distinctions, no.

@DavidCMBell @TaylorRMarshall @FredSimonTLM Dude, he just quoted canon law. In what version of reality could that constitute Taylor Marshall's position and not "the church's [sic] official position."?