Arthur Conway

This is the recent rhetoric of violence

@BasedDavePA Be sure to read all the do umemts referenced in the footnotes.

Guess what yours truly now has in his possession?

@SenatorDurbin Names and dates, or are you lying again?

Someone is dying in ICE custody every week, if not more frequently. This is a crisis.

@BVMConsolatrix Parochial practice. Give it a rest.

Leo was a priest when he did this. Would you say that about Fr James Martin SJ today? If so, why then do you attack him or any pro-LGBT modernist? Leo was a PRIEST.

@Joseph_Spurgeon Your straw man is on full display. How many gods do you have?

Roman Catholics claim an infallible church, but in practice what they defend is a selective and shifting infallibility. The problem is not hard to see. There are councils the Roman Church now rejects or downplays, such as the iconoclast council of Hieria in 754, which opposed the use of images, and then later councils that reversed course. Both cannot be protected from error. At some point, the church was wrong, and Rome decides after the fact which moments count and which do not. That is not a consistent doctrine of infallibility. That is a retrospective sorting of history. The same tension appears in the Western Schism from 1378 to 1417, when there were two and then three rival popes, each with supporters, each claiming legitimacy, and each excommunicating the others. The church did not speak with one clear, indefectible voice. It fractured, and it took decades and a council to sort out the mess. During that time, who exactly was the infallible head of the church. The system offers no clean answer. It simply moves past the problem once a winner is declared. There are also moments when popes themselves resisted ideas later defined as dogma. In the fourteenth century, during disputes over poverty, the Franciscans pushed arguments that would bind a pope to prior papal statements. Pope John XXII rejected those claims and opposed the line of reasoning that would later be used to support papal infallibility. Take another example. Pope Honorius I was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople for supporting the Monothelite heresy. A pope was formally rebuked as a heretic by a council later recognized as authoritative. Or consider the Council of Constance in the fifteenth century, which asserted that a general council held authority over the pope. Rome later rejected that principle. So was the church speaking infallibly when it elevated the council over the pope, or when it later denied it. Both positions have been held. Both cannot be infallible. Then there is the case of Pope Sixtus V and his official edition of the Latin Vulgate in 1590. He proudly proclaimed to have produced an infallible translation. Yet within his own lifetime, it was found to contain numerous errors. Within a short time, it was withdrawn and replaced under Pope Clement VIII with a corrected version. Oops. And this raises a deeper problem. Can the church produce an infallible list of all the infallible things it has ever said. It cannot. What Rome actually has is a selective catalog, identified after the fact, under highly technical conditions that seem to change with the wind. That is not how an inherent property works of infallibility works. Even beyond that, popes have contradicted one another in teaching and policy. Councils have been called, corrected, and sometimes effectively reversed. Rome maintains the appearance of consistency by narrowing the definition of infallibility to rare, highly technical conditions, then declaring that only those moments count. Everything else is allowed to be mistaken, revised, or abandoned. That approach protects the claim while conceding the reality that the church, in its actual history, has erred. Once that is admitted, then we aren't dealing with infallibility any more. An authority that can be wrong in many of its official acts, reversed by later decisions, and divided against itself in times of crisis does not carry the marks of something that is incapable of error by nature. The historical record shows a church that can speak truly at times and err at others. That is exactly what one would expect from a fallible institution, not an infallible one. Holy Scripture is infallible because it is the word of God. It is the only infallible authority on earth.

@D_Preacher_1 What religion claims doubt is a sin?

Religion says doubt is a sin. Science says doubt is the beginning of knowledge. which one actually discovers truth?

@stashu394 @TridentineBrew Yes, her entire position was, as are many uneducated Catholics.

@ajcii @TridentineBrew Cough…bullshtein…cough, cough.

At this point, it’s just a grifting opportunity. She was unjustly fired from a ceremonial commission by an admin dedicated to supporting Israel first. Is it surprising? No. It’s been weeks of this wailing. I’m tired boss.

@Sparkpoodle1 It kills all bacteria, good and bad. It was never really necessary, but is only necessary today if the conditions of the cows is poor, the corporation producing the milk so big it can. not get it to the consumer in 24 hours and greed. Don't drink sour milk.

I can not understand what the big deal is with pasteurization? It's literally just heating milk for a set time then rapidly cooling it No chemicals, no high tech equipment, it's just heated milk

@JendersII @CardinalDolan @CarriePrejean1 The reason she is not being defended is because she is incorrect in her logic, inaccurate in her theology and acting outside the magisterial authority of the Church. Your desire for people to die over her bull headedness is telling.

The Red worn by @CardinalDolan is supposed to symbolize a willingness to die for the faith. He's not even willing to publicly defend @CarriePrejean1 for being correct about Israel fulfilling no Biblical prophecy.

@senatorbabet The reason the Church does not ordain women is the Sui generis nature of the body, AND the Church as Bride. It has nothing to do with modern sociological trends.

There is a good reason why the Catholic Church forbids women from becoming priests, in her speech she says that, “there can be limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives.” Under no circumstances should a person who claims to be Christian be supporting the murder of babies. Demonic.

@IfindRetards Not a prediction, that was how it was then. Woke aint new, it's just communism repackaged.

He called it! Retards with multiple flags on their socials and pins on their clothing

@BackwardsFeet You sound just like Leander Perez of the KKK as he defended segregation, at the same time threatening the Catholic Pastor, teachers and students.

@ajcii Not all Jews even support Israel. Jewish and Israeli are not synonyms.

Let's be clear. Anti-Semitism, which is a hatred rooted in ethnic or religious reasons, is evil. However, disagreement with the political and military actions of the modern state of Israel is not that.

@CarriePrejean1 @BishopBarron What exactly is the antisemitic Dogma you think the Catholic Church teaches?

Please don’t allow a new Catholic like myself to take the bullets because you’re too afraid to be called an antisemite for simply being Catholic. I am a mother and a wife. I shouldn’t be having to fight these ravenous wolves alone. Where are you shepherds @BishopBarron @CardinalDolan @ArchCordileone Please help me!

@DrDStarkeyCBE Wrong, it date to the ROMANS and was even a position of the English for years.

Where did the idea that the electorate can’t be trusted come from? It came from the experience of Germany under the Nazis. Those who rebuilt the country after the war concluded that because the Nazis had originally been installed in government in an election, so constraints needed to be placed on the ability of the people to actually affect the course of government, and institutional power would instead be invested in enlightened people like experts and lawyers. There’s an even a term for it; no longer ‘democracy’, but ‘liberal democracy’, perish the thought that voters might prefer a conservative democracy. And so in Germany you have the spectacle of the champions of this liberal democracy mulling a ban on the biggest opposition political party in the country. Is that democratic? #DavidStarkey #DemocracyDebate #LiberalDemocracy #GermanPolitics #PoliticalHistory #FreeSpeech #EuropeanPolitics

@ClownWorld We used to be civilized, not barbarians.

This is why you pay your contractor

@ConceptualJames Anyone calling for Christian Nationalism is an enemy of the Constitution. Real Simple, oppose the Bill of Rights and you are an enemy of the Constitution.

Maybe this kind of thing is more visible to you now. This has been a rising problem on the Right for several years, but the time has come when they can't hide anymore. People realize something is wrong, and it centers on these Woke radicals in right-wing clothing.

@c54587 your claims of Dogma are false. All Dogma is De Fide, that Eucharist is a Sacrament IS DOGMA, the attire and demeanor of the priest are not. You clowns really need to stop.

Are these buffoons intending to do what the Church does? The dogmatic statement Council of Trent, Session VII (March 3, 1547), Decree on the Sacraments, Canon 11: "If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema." Pre-V2 moral theology manuals (e.g., referencing Trent) and dogmatic teachings list circumstances where external acts indicate invalidity. An example: Parody or Mockery in Performance: If the Mass is conducted in a manner that treats it as a joke, burlesque, or theatrical simulation rather than true worship, this implies interior dissent and invalidates it. For example: Pre-V2 concerns included "parody Masses" with lascivious or impure elements (condemned by Trent), where inappropriate additions like secular music or dances turned the liturgy into entertainment. Dressing in ridiculous or profane attire (e.g., as a clown, jester, or in secular costumes) to ridicule the rite, rather than using prescribed vestments. This suggests the priest is mocking the sacred action, not intending to offer a genuine sacrifice.

@MattGaspers @CardinalDolan @BishopBarron @ArchCordileone @TheJusticeDept Most Catholics have no idea how things work. Her statement concerning what Catholics do not have to believe is problematic. It is problematic because, she does not understand Doctrine, which means she should not make those kinds of Statements.

WHERE ARE THE SHEPHERDS? “Hey, I feel like I’m a sheep surrounded by wolves and I need a shepherd. Can you help?” How incredibly sad that neither @CardinalDolan nor @BishopBarron nor @ArchCordileone (all associated with @TheJusticeDept’s Religious Liberty Commission) are willing to publicly defend @CarriePrejean1. My guess is that it was something to do with @USCCB’s “Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition,” published in cooperation with @AJCGlobal (see pp. 51-53): usccb.org/resources/Tran… God bless you, Carrie! Keep fighting the good fight (1 Tim. 6:12)! Video source: youtube.com/watch?v=31Lhq-…

@robbertleusink Not quite. More like 1300 years

Therapy was invented in the 19th century Confession has existed for over 2,000 years... It's when you examine your conscience, name what you did wrong, receive absolution, and make it right Freud took the structure, removed the resolution, and charged by the hour