St. Peter’s Biggest Fan

@Benji_n_me @ElijahElishaRap High church Anglican

@catholixity @ElijahElishaRap What tradition were you in?

This is what winning a debate really means. This is also precisely why I agreed to do this debate on an Eastern Orthodox channel. Evangelization is more important than the perception of winning. All glory to God in the highest.

@Xaverius_1402 @jarldietrich I will say a prayer for you. Have a good day.

@catholixity @jarldietrich That is your private interpretation. There is no official one and the translations are all over the place on this. Why, if it's so clear? Nice try, though. The N.O. is blasphemous, not me.

One of the most erroneous and spiritually dangerous arguments most sedevacantists will make is that the new rites of Holy Orders of Pope St Paul VI, specifically the rite of episcopal consecration, are invalid due to him, as they argue, changing the essential form. They use this to prey on peoples scrupulosity and ignorance and it's genuinely evil. I'm going to point out how the new rite is irrefutably valid. Here is the new form of St Paul VI “And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom he gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name” Pope Pius XII has addressed what is needed for the form to be valid "the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects — namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit — and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense" So what's needed for the form to be valid is to signify the power of the bishop, the blessing of the Holy Ghost, and to be accepted by the Church. The Holy Ghost being invoked in the new form is unambigously invoked in the title Governing (or Ruling) Spirit. Governing and Ruling Spirit are two different English translations of the same Latin, they are the exact same thing. One of the first objections sedevacantists make is that "Ruling Spirit" isn't a traditional title of the Holy Ghost. They are wrong. Ruling Spirit is specifically used in the Coptic form and has always been seen as valid. In the book *A vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae curae'*, written by English Catholic bishops after the promulgation of Pope Leo XIII's Bull, it quotes the words "ruling spirit" from the Coptic rite, and underlines the word *ruling* in order to mean that it signifies the Episcopal Order: archive.org/details/a61871… We already see that the new form of St Paul VI univocally names the power of the order and the graces of the Holy Ghost. Although it's already irrefutable that the essential form is present, I will expand that the form specifically mentioning "the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name” doubles down on the power of the order as the Apostles were bishops and founding churches as "your sanctuary" denotes the altar which is blessed by the bishop. I personally think the new form is even more explicit and clear than the old form under Pope Pius XII, but even if you disagree there, it undeniably has the essential form especially when you look at the Coptic form. So when sedevacantists argue that the Catholic Church doesn't have valid bishops, priests, confessions or the Mass, they are lying. And they will have to answer for that before God.

@Xaverius_1402 @jarldietrich “Spiritu principali” comes from the Vulgate text of Psalm 50:14 “et spiritu principali confirma me” — “and strengthen me with a willing/governing spirit” (or “principal spirit”). (Repent of your blasphemy if you can, I hear this kind may be unforgivable)

@jarldietrich Nice try x.com/i/status/20488…

@Christ_Conserv @SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler But that’s my point. What Paul meant by it is not what you mean by it, and yet even with the uncertainty your tradition binds consciences. Nothing wrong with that. I’m just pointing out that in practice you’re okay with the concept of binding conscience beyond scripture.

The issue of the canon is trickier and more organic than both sides would like to admit. When Paul writes that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” he presumes that the reader knows what “Scripture” is. The Holy Spirit was at work guiding not only the inspiration of Scripture but also its recognition by the early Christians. There was no up/down vote at a church council that “decided” the canon (at least not until the Council of Trent). Rather a consensus formed based on factors like authorship, when they were written, and theology. But at no time were Christian completely ignorant about which books were Scripture, as if to trust none of them at all. Yes there were some that were disputed more than others. Yes, we have to trust that the Holy Spirit led people to recognize the right ones. No, that doesn’t create an epistemic crisis for the Protestant.

Question for Protestants only. What is the one teaching of the Catholic Church that you consider so serious that it prevents you from ever considering becoming Catholic?

@Christ_Conserv @SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler Faith + works of love (not of the law, both Christ and Paul make this distinction of the two kinds of law) *together* justify. These works do merit salvation, but man cannot boast because only by grace are we enabled to do them. Grace alone: yes. Faith alone: foreign to scripture

“Faith apart from works of the law” when the law in question is “love God and love neighbor as yourself” along with everything that encompasses which we fail to do perfectly on a daily basis means “faith alone”. And yet faith is never alone and works are the fruit of genuine saving faith. I have become increasingly convinced that Catholics and Magisterial Protestants largely agree on this issue *except* that Protestants deny that our own works can merit salvation at all, and that our salvation is purely merited by the works of Christ, to which we are united as members of His Body.

@Christ_Conserv @SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler So if scripture cannot bind the conscience, that only leaves the authority of the church in its tradition. Your church binds yours and mine binds mine, both by defining what scripture is, and also by interpreting what it says in ways that may not be directly inferred.

@Christ_Conserv @SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler You also presuppose what “scripture” is when scripture itself does not self- identify into a canon. Therefore your idea of what is or isn’t scripture and can therefore bind the conscience is, itself, derived outside of scripture but purely from tradition.

@Christ_Conserv @SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler This one sits at the nexus of established science (fetal microchimerism) and scripture (Acts 2:27,31, 13:35-36). If Mary was not assumed into heaven then Christ’s living cells, persisting within her body for decades after His incarnation, would have seen corruption.

@SirJumpsAlot2 @CharlesTingler Agreed that it’s an issue of authority ultimately.

@UntoldFortune It’s less about willingness and more about ability.

@UntoldFortune If it is acknowledged that man is only able to raise the sails by the grace of God, then pelagianism is precluded by definition. That grace merely assists but does not enable is the defining characteristic of Pelagian soteriology.

Can I get a proper citation on this? because it’s the single most Pelagian thing I’ve ever read in my entire life. Whether or not God’s grace can move you is entirely dependent upon whether the man himself is willing to raise that sail!

@KevinPaulMoritz @autocorrect2_0 @metathomist 1. Some things Jesus taught in the NT contradicted the NT eg “eye for eye”, divorce, clean vs unclean food 2. OP said you have to agree with scripture in order to accept the teaching (not “not contradict”) 3. Scripture never says scripture is the only source of divine revelation

@catholixity @autocorrect2_0 @metathomist The point is he didn’t contradict it, and whatever he said had to agree with what already existed. Also, as an apostle and accepted writer of Scripture, His own Scripture was authoritative (yet still didn’t disagree withnother Scripture).

There is not a single verse that affirms or teaches sola scriptura. that’s weird innit

@extranosky @bonesforsales There’s sinful flesh (ours) and sinless flesh (Mary and Christ, and us after baptism), just as there is sinful spirit and sinless spirit. The divine cannot be carried in sinful flesh. Gnosticism denies the possibility of both sinless flesh or sinful spirit.

@bonesforsales In the sense the divine cannot be carried in the flesh because flesh is evil, thus Mary had to be sinless too.

Our final and orthodox opinion, however, is this: "The Blessed Virgin Mary sinned in Adam, was conceived and born in sin, and throughout her entire life was subject to actual sins." — Bl. Schertzer, Anti-Bellarminus.

@autocorrect2_0 @metathomist Which scripture did Paul’s readers use to verify his teaching of our works being tested by fire or of the parousia, or Peter’s teaching that baptism saves, or John’s revelation concerning the mark of the beast?

@metathomist Acts 17:11 You have to verify teachings in scripture or else how do you accept them?

@Gigantals @CatholicRob Four days and no response? Maybe the Nigerians are owed an apology…

@CatholicRob Just to prove to you that I'm not making this up, here's a free post I made on my Patreon where you can read the references for yourself. patreon.com/Gigantals/post…

Love the sudden increase in Nigerians, where Catholicism only began to take root in the late 19th century, trying to shove modernism down the throats of peoples who have been Catholic for over 1,000 years.

@emma_doell @poperespecter1 How about we let the One who gave them life set the rules for when that life is returned to Him?

@poperespecter1 It has to be consistent. Anyone who doesn't have children also has no one to look after them without taking resources away from someone else. I see a generation that hardly followed the rules of life at all. And now we supposed to stop them from leaving? Why? 🤔

Pope Leo XIV does so much for the Catholic faith behind the scenes. Pray for him.

Whichever one has all 72 books

@HyruleTemplar @BreeSolstad Indeed. Because Paul asked the church to follow his example, but also considered himself the chief of sinners. He was holier in his actions, but in his attitude he felt he was worse off than they were.

Holier than thou is an attitude not a state of being. Someone acts with Christian love and makes others feel bad because they don’t as much isn’t “holier than thou” Someone who uses their faith as an excuse to mistreat someone, act condescendingly, or insults someone simply for having a different expression of faith, IS holier than thou.

Hot take: “Holier than thou” is a coping mechanism used by people who are lukewarm in their faith. It’s another insult to hurl around at people who take the faith as seriously as God commands. We should all be striving to be holier. If it makes people feel bad about their own faith, that can actually be a good thing.

@Protestia Enoch, anyone?

Rev. Kate Davoli (they/them) who has the distinction of being the first person to have been dismissed from the ordination process of the PCUSA for being openly polyamorous, casually blasphemes Christ while preaching at Sixth Presbyterian Church.