Brandon 🦂

@john275426 @StMichael71 EENS is a dogma. To deny it is to deny Jesus Christ.

@exRhenum @StMichael71 Please stop with the feeneyism

Marcel Lefebrve signed all documents of Vatican II. If Lefebrve signed them even though they taught heresy, he was not reliably orthodox. If we assume he was reliably orthodox, then Lefebrve would not have signed them unless VII did not teach heresy, under at least one reading.

@EthanR49424541 @an_image_bearer @Naxalt_Revenge The Vatican 2 religion is NOT Catholicism.

@exRhenum @an_image_bearer @Naxalt_Revenge "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church" - CCC 847 Sounds like non-christians can be saved not just non-catholics according to your infallible church

If you believe in evolution you deny the dogma of original sin. Death came into the world because of original sin (Romans 5:12). Evolution teaches that death is the means of perfecting a species. People who express belief in evolution don't believe in the miracle of creation.

@Primal_Thrive Wholesome bro

You need to be Hobbymaxxing - physical - mental/intellectual - creative hobby to dedicate some time to. I picked calligraphy. What I like about it is that it is extremely meditative, subtle form of art, learning curve (it is not easy), and you need minimal tools.

@FreeIrishman7 @GreetingsPaulYT @AhernHerbe8277 @CatholicArena @Franclineirish1 😭😭

@GreetingsPaulYT @AhernHerbe8277 @CatholicArena @Franclineirish1

BREAKING 🇺🇸 Bishop Robert Barron has spoken out against criticism of his appearance at last week's White House Easter Lunch: 'In regard to the event at the White House, I had absolutely no control over what the other ministers said. My own contribution was focused on Jesus and the events of Holy Week--and I prayed for the country and that the President would govern according to God's will. To draw the conclusion that I am some mindless supporter of the MAGA movement is a calumny'

@Catholic_bro Important to remember that the Vatican 2 religion embraces paganism also.

The Catholic Church’s triumph over paganism is so complete that the very place where Christians were once fed to lions is now the same place where the Pope freely carries the Cross

@Underthemantle @TradCatTaylor 💯

@jurgenbolscher De meeste mensen zijn niet serieus bro.

Het is echt ongekend bizar dat gewoon letterlijk niemand in de politiek of media praat over het feit dat deze man een mossad-agent is. Het interesseert mensen gewoon oprecht niet, links noemt hem liever een 'fAsCiSt' en rechts negeert het volledig. Hoe kán dat?

@Premios_C_Etayo Bomba de verdad

El laicismo no es otra cosa que la adoración de Lucifer a través de la masonería.

@Premios_C_Etayo No despreciamos lo suficiente a Martín Lutero tío

Martín Lutero afirmaba que "Jesucristo había cometido adulterio y era un fornicador". Se cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición...

@Premios_C_Etayo @elhigadodmarita Juan Calvino era una rata.

Juan Calvino de origen judío fue quien alentó con entusiasmo el préstamo de dinero con intereses -después de haber sido condenada la usura por el Concilio de Nicea en el 325-.

@FischerKing64 This book is abominable and filled with heresy. You shouldn't promote this.

On Easter adult converts to Catholicism are baptized/confirmed before their respective congregations. This follows a process of learning and discernment. The trilogy of books from Pope Benedict XVI discussing the gospels is good reading at this time for cradle/converts alike.

The Vatican 2 religion is NOT the Catholic Church. So it doesn't matter whether they accept the new rite or not. This is what you don't get. Your entire claim (which is shaky to begin with) rests on whether or not Paul VI was an antipope. That's a ridiculous thing to stake your salvation on. Also, AC by Pope Leo XIII is a matter of divine law. See: x.com/exRhenum/statu…

@exRhenum @seeprvillen @pringle_patrice

You don't know what you're talking about. These paragraphs taken directly from Apostolicae Curae completely refute your position: Paragraph 33: "The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what it is by the institution of Christ that belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament." Paragraph 36: "It is for this reason that in the letter to the Archbishop of Paris, as far back as last year, We gave instructions that this case should be examined anew, so that there might be no room for even the slightest doubt about the weight of Our judgment. For this reason, let those who teach or write on the matter of the Anglican Ordinal recognize that it is not a question of a human law or of a custom that can be changed, but of a divine law which is the same for all. For this reason, the Church has never changed, and cannot change, her judgment on this point. This was done after a most careful and long investigation, during which everything that could possibly be said in favor of the Anglican rite was most fully discussed and considered. We ourselves have not omitted any means to arrive at a full and clear knowledge of the truth; and this not only for the sake of the cause itself, but also because of the greatness of the interests involved." Paragraph 38: "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. It remains for Us to say that, even as We have entered upon the elucidation of this grave question in the name and in the love of the Great Shepherd, in the same way We exhort those who desire and seek with a sincere heart the possession of a hierarchy and of Holy Orders to return to the one sheepfold of Christ. For unto those who now burn with a more ardent love of piety and more deeply meditate on the Scriptures and are more instant in prayer, the voice of Christ, the Shepherd, will surely be heard, saying: 'Other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice.'" Notice how Pope Leo XIII mentions in paragraph 36 that it is a matter of DIVINE LAW. Even if Paul VI were a valid Pope (he wasn't), it would still be a blatant contradiction.

@exRhenum @TheRealLogosT @pringle_patrice Incorrect. Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII judged Anglican orders invalid but that does not apply to the Catholic rite. Pope Paul VI’s ordination rite was promulgated by the Church and is considered valid by the magisterium.

@seeprvillen @TheRealLogosT @pringle_patrice I literally explain everything in the tweet you're replying to. Pope Leo XIII did not make the Anglican rite of ordination invalid because he said so. He observed what already was. Now apply those same principles to antipope Paul VI's new rite.

@exRhenum @TheRealLogosT @pringle_patrice Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII did not address the Catholic Mass. It ruled that Anglican ordinations are invalid because of: defect of form defect of intention It has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Mass or the post–Vatican II Catholic ordination rite.

@TheRealLogosT @pringle_patrice You should also read Sacramentum Ordinis by Pope Pius XII.

@TheRealLogosT @pringle_patrice Who are you to say that missing a word doesn't make it invalid? Pope Pius XII would say otherwise. You're basically a protestant. Vatican 2 wasn't a valid council, since John XXIII was an antipope. There is nothing to reject.

@IdsRS @astridtheresia_ Beiden zijn oxymorons.

Der Novus Ordo ist einfach nicht so meins.

And that document outlines why the Anglican rite of ordination is invalid, namely; - defect of form - defect of intention The New Rite of Ordination (promulgated by antipope Paul VI) eliminated from the traditional rite every mandatory prayer and ceremony that signified the unique power of the sacrificing priesthood, along the same lines as the Anglican Rite. The two reasons why the New Rite cannot be considered valid are: 1) the form specified by Pope Pius XII is missing a word; and 2) all mandatory references to the true sacrificing priesthood have been deliberately eliminated from the New Rite, just like in the invalid Anglican Rite of the 16th Century – thereby manifesting an intention which is contrary to that of the Church in Ordination.

@exRhenum @pringle_patrice No you didnt you just mentioned a document.