The Kingdom's Poet

Liberalism is inherently anti-God as it's antithetical to centralized authority. While every Christian denomination today follows this anti-God framework, only one Church visibly coheres with God's invisible rule. Why would God's temporal Church be the opposite of eternal heaven?

@OrbitingGod @Lemelson @CarriePrejean1 Too many are happily orphans. If you point out any flaws in their patriarch they're too excited to point out that they're not like us, they don't need to listen to him.

@RyanMiles305 @Lemelson @CarriePrejean1 Yes, and as I often told them. They're like orphans.

You didn’t have time to call me back, and have a conversation, but instead sit down with atheist homosexual who pretends to be a mom?

@OrbitingGod @Lemelson @CarriePrejean1 They're basically the original liberals, the rejectors of headship, preferring rule by the many. To justify their headlessness they have to falsely believe that no Pope in the first millennia was supreme, yet many claimed they were (and no other patriarch ever did).

@Lemelson @CarriePrejean1 Your Orthodox is a headless faith. It is essentially a democratic system.

The "older" church that got its title in the split? The title "Catholic," however, goes back to the beginning. "More authoritative" is incredibly laughable. Authoritative without true authority... You need a visible head to be authoritative in the visible world. The Orthodox are as authoritative as their other headless brothers, the Protestants.

Sister, you should never have these feelings towards a bishop. The Church you joined unfortunately has become everything you declaimed against in your life. The Orthodox Church is the older, more authoritative, and unadulterated manifestation of the Church Christ established on Earth. Don't be afraid to look east. You will discover the treasure of Christianity. The antagonism of so-called "bishops" like Barron is harming you spiritually. It is an abusive institution that has departed from the ancient Faith. "ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες οὐ βλέπετε, καὶ ὦτα ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀκούετε; καὶ οὐ μνημονεύετε;" - ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 8:18

Poem of the Week

Only by being prideful can you believe, without a doubt, that the Church is false. A soft heart is open to discussion and to hearing the other side; a hardened heart is overly convinced of its own beliefs and refuses to budge. You can suspect the Church is aligned with the devil, but you cannot, in this life, be certain of that.

@RyanMiles305 @ilikeitneat @OrdinariateUSA We are called to resist the Devil, and as such his agents must be.

In 1844, Catholic leaders in Philadelphia had one simple request: allow Catholic children to use their Bibles in school instead of the state-mandated KJV. The reaction? Violence. Protestant mobs took to the streets. Exploding with claims that “popery” was invading America, they said that the Pope was undermining Protestant liberty, and that Irish Catholics were a foreign influence. Churches were burned to the ground, rectories looted, seminaries torched, and sacred libraries destroyed. Two major churches, St. Michael’s and St. Augustine’s were completely desecrated and reduced to ashes in a single day of rioting. Dozens died and significant Catholic heritage in Philadelphia was destroyed in just one day of rioting. In 2026, these same sentiments are rising again: people are beginning k again accuse Catholics of foreign agentry and dual loyalty, all while cheering along to Israel siphoning billions of tax dollars per year.

Poem of the Week

@PatelDwarma @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer I only know what popes have said throughout the ages, and they said they were supreme. Again, not exercising their authority over the East doesn't mean they didn't have the authority to do so.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer Even official Catholic dialogue representatives conceded the west never had supreme authority over the east. Yet you know more than those chosen by the Vatican to research history?

An Ecumenical Council is infallible only when its doctrinal definitions are confirmed (ratified) by the Roman Pontiff. Neither imperial approval, episcopal majority, nor later reception by the laity is sufficient in itself to guarantee infallibility.

What you're missing is that the Pope can be supreme and not flex that supremacy. Not flexing supremacy is not proof of a lack of supremacy. Yet, there is evidence that the Pope did (rarely) exercise that authority over the East. So, I believe that part of the document is wrong. Either way, it doesn't matter. You're just desperately trying to avoid the fact that the Pope has always been at the top of the ecclesial hierarchy on earth, which is what it means to be supreme. I can see that you think it means to take advantage of that authority. But, like Jesus said, popes don't wield their authority like other kings do - though this just led to people like you screaming that he isn't supreme because he doesn't take advantage of it.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer The Chieti document explicitly says the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the Eastern Churches in the first millennium the way Vatican I later defined it. That’s the problem. Your own scholars admit the universal papal model developed later forgery is ok?

Now you just sound resentful. And all of that is speculation and/or misrepresentation. The facts are: - the Bible refers to one apostle as chief - this chief's successors referred to themselves as supreme, and this makes sense because: - you'd expect a supreme ruler to be in the place of a supreme King while He's ascended. Now, to respond to your distractions: A supreme ruler can be rebuked, but not superseded, duh... The chieti document is unofficial, and you're misunderstanding it. It says the Pope didn't EXERCISE authority, not what you said, that he never HAD authority. They didn't need the forgery, but if it was legit it would've helped their case, I guess.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer The same one that got rebuked and set up 3 Petrine sees? The chiedi document from the Vatican say the west never had universal authority in the east during the 1st millenniums so there goes that theory. Why did they need the donation of Constantine? A forgery for authority.

What you have proven is that only one bishop ever believed his position to be supreme. You ignore his authoritative claim at your own peril. If one is to believe the Church is a kingdom, you would expect someone to hold the King's position while He's ascended. I suggest submitting to the King's Chief of the Apostles.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer Claims aren’t proof. The issue is whether the universal Church accepted those claims as dogma. It didn’t. Honorius was condemned, Cyprian resisted Rome, and Chalcedon’s Canon 28 stood in the East despite papal rejection.

The chief apostle claimed to be supreme. Some struggling with accepting this means nothing - it just exposes their sinfulness. The fact remains, the chief apostle ALONE claimed to be supreme, repeatedly throughout the first millennia. Yet, to this day, so many are unaware of this.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer The question is whether the universal Church received Rome’s claims as binding dogma, and it plainly did not. That’s why there were centuries of disputes over appeals, jurisdiction, and the limits of papal authority in the first place. A claim is not the same thing as acceptance

@heliec574 @PatelDwarma @CatholicPrimer Three successors yet only one repeatedly claims to be supreme, and acted definitionally supreme, throughout the ages. So what that bishops across time have struggled with submission, as any human could, clearly the chief apostle has expected submission since the beginning.

@PatelDwarma @RyanMiles305 @CatholicPrimer We don't have eastern patriarchs Using the word Supremacy to Refer to them or their jurisdiction. the Pope of Rome, the Pope of Alexandria, and the Patriarch of Antioch are the successors of Peter by lineage and all bishops are successors to Peter as I showed earlier

@PatelDwarma @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer All that just to say only the Roman bishop claimed to be supreme. Interesting.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer there would’ve been no need for centuries of disputes over jurisdiction, appeals, ecumenical authority, and the limits of Rome’s power.

@PatelDwarma @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer Roman bishops used the word supremacy numerous times throughout the first millennia. Show me one example of any other patriarch doing it just once in the first millennia.

@RyanMiles305 @heliec574 @CatholicPrimer By that logic every bishop who made a claim about his authority automatically proves himself right. The issue isn’t whether Roman bishops spoke highly of Rome, it’s whether the undivided Church accepted Vatican I style universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

@heliec574 @CatholicPrimer @PatelDwarma Papal supremacy being a later Western development is just a convenient opinion of yours that history disproves. Popes from the first few centuries of the Church talked about, and described, their supremacy in their writings, and many of their actions proved this supremacy too.

@CatholicPrimer @PatelDwarma You are presenting papal ratification as more absolute and historically uniform than evidence shows for the first millennium. You are looking at history through this papal supremacy lens which is a later Western development and not the original criterion.

> Accept that you are retarded >> Become Catholic >>> Heaven

Poem of the Week

O great Bible reader! Most thorough student of Scripture, you must have forgotten that Genesis is Scripture too since you conveniently missed the part where God promised Abraham that kings would come from him, if he remained faithful. I guess God rejected Himself, since you must be right.

@Catholicizm1 No theocracy is. The proper order of Nations is a Theonomy and having a king other than God was because of a rejection of GOD as king. Exhibit A of Catholics who don’t read their Bible.

Disagree. Christ is the King of kings. Not the only king. Monarchy is the proper order of nations when the kingship of Christ is recognized.

@KoramProNobis @Catholicizm1 Precisely. Liberalism as a whole (the poison that every form of Christianity, but the Church, suffers from) was a reaction and rejection of monarchies and headship. Now we're left with headless (non-supreme) religions and nations. A non-supreme head is no head but a figurehead.