Lukas Scooty

@__Isabella__007 @badatcatholic @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Her response is exhibit one for BOD. Imagine having the pride and blindness to think you are an expert on the Latin syntax of Trent, block anyone who disagrees, not even understand what Trent 5.5 says in English, with this absurdity the height of your knowledge on the subject.

@badatcatholic @CatholicLukas @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Typical genius level BOD supporter. Blocks. Can't answer points. Can't understand Trent 5.5 infallibly defined the born again go to heaven immediately, no purgatory. Contrarily, St. Alphonsus says BOD go to purgatory. Yet quote him as the BOD advocate and must always be correct.

Sedevacantism is the way to hold on to the Faith. The SSPX is obsolete.

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor It should be easy for you to correct @1Friarminor and, as you say, his novel interpretation of Latin grammar and syntax from Trent. Explain in detail how he is wrong. Show us how it's done.

@CatholicLukas @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor I don’t reject Trent, I reject your novel interpretation of Trent No one between Trent and Feeney rejected BOD. If you can name a single theologian who did, I would be intrigued.

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor BOD people are the ones you're calling heretics? They deny water baptism for salvation. You have a problem with simple logic. Claiming argument from silence is a proof for BOD. "no one condemned so and so." Water baptism for justification and salvation are ancient dogmas.

@CatholicLukas @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Salvation without water baptism

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Most the Church Fathers agreed water baptism is absolute for salvation/being born again. In modern times Pius XII Mystici Corporis #22, as just one example. A major encyclical naming only those who are in the Catholic Church. But you hold salvation outside Church membership.

@__Isabella__007 @CatholicLukas @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor I’m saying if Ligouri misunderstood the Latin, why hasn’t any person in Church history (saint or otherwise) pointed out his error? Why would it take nearly 300 years before a Twitter anon finally corrected him? The answer is that every theologian since then agrees with Ligouri

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor So you agree with St. Alphonsus and reject infallible Trent if none are found that corrected him? I already suggested a long thread by @1Friarminor where Trent infallibly "corrected" BOD in the Latin text. You might want to read it all to see if you are out of your depth here.

@__Isabella__007 @CatholicLukas @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Can you quote any saint or theologian who corrected Ligouri on his error? Since you claim so many disagreed with him

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor What's the heresy you referred to?

@CatholicLukas @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor When did I call you a heretic?

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Yes, but you are the one calling others heretics for holding water baptism is absolute, even though the Church always infallibly held it. Why? It's very suspicious for a person claiming to be Catholic to condemn Catholics who hold one must be of the Faithful to be saved.

@CatholicLukas @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor I am also a fallible person speaking in a non-infallible capacity. Heresy is a heresy, no?

This entire thread going back months should be read by anyone honestly seeking the truth about absolute water baptism for justification vs. BOD.

@badatcatholic @__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor Fallible saints and popes in non-infallible capacity? Read the @1Friarminor very detailed Latin breakdown showing how infallible Trent never taught BOD, and in fact, taught water baptism is an absolute for justification. If you disagree with that show why his grammar is wrong.

@__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @CatholicLukas @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist @1Friarminor None of these people rejected BOD, while we have multiple popes and saints affirming it

@derblutmeister4 @1Friarminor I think his point was that the Church didn't allow the type of lending you are referring to, either. The idea that usury has only been around as long as credit cards and payday loans is not correct, since the Church condemned usury centuries prior to their invention.

@1Friarminor We aren’t talking payday loans and credit cards. It’s all standardized interest. Usury distorts the demand curve and warps everything it touches.

Usury, for centuries condemned and considered evil, now considered as "normal," is one of the greatest tricks to destroy western civilization. Usury is a massive destructive force crushing civilization. Usury has played a major part in the current world we now experience.

@__Isabella__007 @ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist These false opposition groups divide all who try to hold the faith. Consider their lunacy of viciously attacking Catholics that hold that water baptism is absolute for salvation. Most of the leaders are dishonest or can't really read Latin as @1Friarminor demonstrates in depth.

@ColleenEldrach1 @Zachspeare @maccabeanpapist To clarify why that is no argument against the sedes: Perpetuity of the office isn't without periods of having no pope. The Church had no pope for long periods of time in the past. Perpetual can't mean at all times and moments, otherwise those times without a pope are a problem.

@chesterbelloc3 @1_lauren28 @1Friarminor No, Saints disagreed and most Church Fathers held the same position as him on water baptism. BOD was always speculation not dogma. The point is what does the Latin of Trent say in totality. What @1Friarminor stated is correct. Nice talking with you. You are wrong, though.

@CatholicLukas @1_lauren28 @1Friarminor No, it's wrong to expect me to agree with what's wrong, and co trary to the Father's and Doctors of the Church in a common consensus.

"Every morning I wake up thinking good, another 24 hours of pipe smoking." —JRR Tolkien London Telegraph magazine, July 1966

@chesterbelloc3 @1_lauren28 @1Friarminor There appear to be posts in that thread that weren't on that subject, but with no pushback from you. Regardless, @1Friarminor is correct in the causality, ontology and the Latin. I agree, it was certainly a mistake to ask you.

@CatholicLukas @1_lauren28 @1Friarminor It's wrong for a ton of reasons, but you're not invading my Tolkien thread to do it. Make a general post and I will respond when I have time.

@chesterbelloc3 @1_lauren28 Since you are an expert in Latin, the question is directed to you in that capacity. Is what @1Friarminor said wrong, and if so, why? Sometimes people seek other experts to get solid information. In charity, perhaps you could answer the question for the edification of others?

@1_lauren28 This doesn't belong in this thread.

@BigModernism See what @1Friarminor has said on the dogma of baptism recently. Go through all of it slowly. He explains in great detail the Latin of Trent, ontology, causality, separation from desire. God will provide even with a miracle (Acts 8). The label Feeneyite lacks Christian charity.

Question for Feeneyites. Suppose your baptism was invalid due to a defect of form, matter or intention. You had no idea and continue to live a Catholic life, receiving the sacraments and die in what you believe to be a state of grace. Do you go to Hell because you were never validly baptized?

@ShroudJesus @VladSarto @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano Interesting observation. Does he come down so hard on the BOD people preaching that non-Catholics go to heaven?

@CatholicLukas @VladSarto @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano Of course, he ignores you.

Durante la mia visita a Bassano del Grappa — dove ho benedetto una cappella privata e amministrato cinque Cresime e una Prima Comunione — mi sono fermato a Schiavon, paese natale del Segretario di Stato Pietro Parolin. Avrei voluto visitare la Parrocchiale e il Fonte dove il Cardinale è stato battezzato, per pregare per la sua conversione. Ma la primavera conciliare ha svuotato anche la Diocesi di Vicenza, un tempo detta “la sagrestia d’Italia”: la chiesa viene aperta solo quando c’è la Messa, e di fedeli non se ne vedono praticamente più. Mi sono quindi recato al Cimitero e sostato nella cappella di famiglia di Parolin, dove riposano il nonno, il padre, deceduto quando Pietro aveva solo dieci anni, e mamma Ada, deceduta nel 2024. Un anziano signore anziano, che quotidianamente viene a passeggiare nel cimitero, mi ha raccontato alcuni ricordi legati al compaesano Parolin, soffermandosi su questo particolare: nella sua prima visita a Schiavon come Cardinale, al termine dei festeggiamenti la mamma — invitata ad esprimere le sue congratulazioni ed auguri al figlio neoeletto — disse: “Chiedo solo che rimanga prete!” Credo che Sua Eminenza farebbe bene a seguire il monito materno, dimettendosi e tornando a Schiavon a fare il parroco e a far rifiorire il Veneto, così da riparare tutto il male che inflitto alla Santa Chiesa, a cominciare dallo sciagurato Accordo Segreto tra Santa Sede e Repubblica Popolare Cinese che ha reso più feroce la persecuzione dei Cattolici fedeli, senza dimenticare la firma apposta al Rescriptum pubblicato negli Acta Apostolicæ Sedis, con il quale le eresie dottrinali di Amoris Lætitia sono state assunte come “magistero autentico”. Dum tempus est.

@VladSarto @ShroudJesus @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano Are these the same "jackasses" that say one must be baptized; that most trads say are the biggest enemies of the Church? It's strange how the flower-trads and N.O. people can without doubt agree on that issue. BOD is the great dogma. Salvation outside Christ is a dogma! Absurd.

You really have to learn some English comprehension and learn how to ask questions. Answer to your question is NO ... due to two separate idiotic mistakes you make in even asking it. 1) No, that is NOT "proof" ... some random individual posting on a forum about some "rumor" is proof of nothing. 2) No, because ... no bishop is RE-consecrated. You can only be consecrated one time, as the Sacrament cannot be repeated due to the character it imparts. What you're referring to is what would be called a "CONDITIONAL" consecration, where if he had already been validly consecrated, then no consecration occurs, and then if he had not been validly consecrated, then he's consecrated (the first ... and only time). There's no such thing as RE-consecration. So based on your ignorance, you ask a question where the answer must be NO based on two separate errors that you made in asking it, thereby discrediting yourself. If I had been conditionally consecrated, I could not answer YES to your question without it being a lie, since that post is not proof, nor was there ever any "RE-"consecration. Finally ... your demanding an answer on a public forum is hardly the same thing as YOU asking him, personally. Nor do you even care about the answer, since you're just an insufferable arrogant jackass trying to stir up excrement and to satisfy your curiosity despite having no actual need to know. I think that fools like you are probably very high up the list in terms of reasons NOT to make the information public, since I would deliberately want to withold the information from jokers like you. I would happily tell anyone who asked EXCEPT people like you.

@VladSarto @ShroudJesus @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano There seems to be a lot of information about yourself and what you know about what is going on here. I suppose others might not ask questions if they knew as much about the matter as you do.

You have mental vapor lock. Let me guess ... dogmatic anti-una-cum sedevacantist, right? 1) it's not secret (as already mansplained to your thick skull, not posting it on a website does not make it secret -- since I know dozens of people who know, and that's just within my own circles) 2) the faithful who go to him or priests he's ordained are getting valid Sacraments (so that's a nonsensical statement ... when what you mean to say is that they have a right to know that they're receiving valid Sacraments) 3) if said faithful don't believe the New Rites are valid, they can ask him ... and he will tell them, and if he doesn't, then nobody's forcing them to go there You're hiding behind some nameless "faithful" who have a right to valid Sacraments to pretend that this is also tantamount to YOU having a right to satisfy your curiosity, and if His Excellency doesn't comply, you're going to arrogantly make demands. This has nothing to do with some random "faithful" but about your effeminate gossipy curiosity. Would I LIKE to see Archbishop Vigano post it? Sure. Do I NEED to see it posted? No. Do I have a RIGHT to see it posted? No. Do I, who have no need, nor any right, to see it posted, have a right to demand that His Excellency post it? No. And the "I" in the previous statements applies equally to you.

@VladSarto @ShroudJesus @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano Of course he could have serious reasons. But simple people who are struggling through this wasteland are searching for anything that could be positive. They have waited a long time. Maybe they think they received the run around many times. Perhaps they have hope this is not that.

I've already speculated regarding some prudential considerations that might weight into whether he would proactively make some public announcement about the matter. I'm sure if it was any of your concern, and you asked, he would answer you with a yes or a no. Speaking of Bishop Williamson ... he kept the consecration of Bishop Ballini secret for two years, that of Bishop Morgan for several months, and that of Bishop Stobnicki for some time as well. Bishop Williamson also had his reasons, where I believe some of it was the thought that things might be even more locked down during the COVID Plandemic. SSPV kept the consecration of Bishop Clarence Kelly by Bishop Alfred Mendez secret for a couple of years also. There can be any number of prudential considerations that would suggest keeping a consecration or ordination "under wraps" at least for some period of time, and I trust that Archbishop Vigano has his.

@VladSarto @ShroudJesus @StARadtrad @D1870473838573 @CarloMVigano There is nothing wrong with a request to answer that simple question in public. People here are asking and they would believe him if he confirmed. They would take him at his word. Perhaps it's none of your business based on circumstance; it could be for others.

Well, if I didn't already know the answer, yes, I would ask him. As it is, I don't need to ask, since I have moral certainty about matter from other sources. As for whether he wants to repeat himself to every individual who asks, that's also his choice. If he gets asked 50 times a week, he might just decide to make a public statement. For most of those agitating on this thread, we don't live on the same continent, and do not have any contact with any Sacraments that might depend upon his valid episcopal consecration, so ... it's basically none of my business.