Catholicism Forever🇻🇦

@EricRSammons Leo XIV

@HBThomists Pope is humming in his head right now… “…I grew up in Jackson County in a West Virginia farmhouse…We had many hands a working and so many miles to tread…”

@TheGirondin @memeticsisyphus Get wrecked

@memeticsisyphus Artimes II was supposed to launch last month, after originally planned for 2025, but SLS keeps delaying it. SLS has made **zero** launches with humans aboard.

American empire is dying, America is finished, this is the end. America:

@GloopieUFO @JesusSavesUs777 Fake quote. Gagarin was not this retarded

@JesusSavesUs777 First man in space had Aura.

"We need Jesus - whether on Earth or circling the Moon." -- Victor Glover, Pilot of Artemis II

Yuri Gagarin never said this, he was a Russian Orthodox christian who baptized his eldest daughter months prior to his 1961 flight This quote comes from Nikita Khrushchev which was later attributed to Yuri for anti-propaganda religious propaganda in the USSR

Western civilization is awesome, actually

MAGELLAN’S A LOT COOLER THAN JUSTIN BIEBER!!!

Blasphemy isnt funny on April fools day, even when you play it off as a joke

“We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Godspeed, Artemis II.

“What was it like driving in the 2020s?”

What a time to be alive! Got out of confession just in time to witness this @NASA #ArtemisII

@Christophe77612 @michaeljknowles @NASA Fasting and abstinence of the such is a biblical practice ordained by God repeatedly

Not that I disagree with lent but it’s not my thing. It didn’t appear until the 4th century created by religious leaders. I also don’t believe giving up anything materialistic will gain me any favor with Christ other than not excepting him. I believe your requirement for access into heaven is giving your heart to Jesus and excepting that he was and is your living savior😉

tfw @NASA brings you an Artemis-themed Krispy Kreme but it’s still Lent 😔 🚫🫃🏻

@FredSimonTLM Calumny is still a sin

Ever wonder why Judas was Bergoglio’s favorite saint?

This is the kind of slop you post when you don't know the scholarship or the reasoning. First, Scripture provides you different times. In the Synoptics, Jesus has a Passover meal and then is crucified. In John, Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation, which is why there is no Passover meal in the Gospel. Second, the time when Pascha is celebrated was decided at Nicea because some wished to celebrate on 14 Nisan, which would be a fixed day—the Quartodeciman controversy. You celebrate Pascha on Sunday because the council decided it was more important to have the Feast Day on Sunday rather than an immovable celebration—such as Christmas. You keep harping on Sola Scriptura in your comments, but your celebration of the Resurrection this Sunday is because the Church decided when on the liturgical calendar you would celebrate. The book didn't. I'm sure you will say I don't understand SS, which would be a lie, but you are not using Scripture as the ultimate authority as to when you celebrate Pascha. It's because the Church told you when.

@Happyathei70605 @LutheranPrince You can’t be serious

@LutheranPrince I wish Lutherans would become Protestant no Protestant acceps wha Lutherans say about the Lords supper

How obsessed does one have to be to actually buy this doormat. If Baptists were as obsessed with Jesus as they are with Catholics they would maybe step down from their heretical views on the sacraments.

It’s spy Wednesday. Expect the Judas’s to take their 30 pieces of silver today.

@X_Infernos @DaOfficialVigil Nasas been doing that for a bit

@DaOfficialVigil Bruh they really set these astronauts up. They flew to Florida in their own T-38s

Should be Corvettes but aight

No, on the official level, the Magisterium do not view the Scriptures as inerrant. Evangelical converts to Catholicism may. You cannot make blanket statements for Catholics or Protestants. If you want to be taken seriously.

@ProtPhilosopher @MartinP49146517

Your list looks impressive at first glance. But it falls apart on closer inspection. It doesn't offer much support for the Catholic 73-book canon. Your first council is "Rome 382AD 73 books." I'm not sure where you picked this up, but for the last hundred years scholars have argued there's no undisputed list from the Council of Rome. The work that supposedly contains such a list is now regarded as an anonymous composition from the sixth century. Attributing it to a 382 council is a misattribution. Not off to a great start. Next you list "Hippo 393AD 73 books." We don't actually have Hippo's own records. What we know about Hippo comes from a summary prepared in 397 for Carthage. It's called the Breviarium Hipponense. Canon 36 lists the books of the canon. But read what it actually says. It opens with "nothing should be read in church under the name of the Divine Scriptures." That's a liturgical regulation about what gets read in worship. It's not a dogmatic definition of equal canonical authority. And it closes with "the church across the sea should be consulted to confirm this canon." The council didn't even treat its own list as settled. It sent it overseas for ratification. That's not how you handle something you consider infallibly defined. And as Gallagher and Meade (2017) note, the OT list "matches precisely the Old Testament promoted by Augustine," the man who planned the council, hosted it in his own city, and preached the sermon. This isn't the universal church carefully discerning the boundaries of the canon. It's one theologian's reading list getting rubber-stamped at a regional synod he organized. Ref: Gallagher, E. L., & Meade, J. D. (2017). The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity. Oxford University Press. Then you list the two councils of Carthage (397/419). Carthage 397 is the council that received the Breviarium Hipponense. It reaffirmed what Hippo had done. Same list, same absence of justification. It didn't independently examine the books and arrive at its own conclusion. It accepted a four year old summary from a regional synod that had itself requested overseas confirmation. Carthage 419 reaffirmed the earlier canons again, this time folding them into a larger code of African church law. These aren't dogmatic councils solemnly defining the boundaries of divine revelation. They're regional African synods managing church administration. Not one of these councils offered a single argument for why Tobit belongs alongside Isaiah. They all just repeated the same list that originated with Augustine's influence at Hippo. Then you list "Florence 1442AD 73 books," which many Catholics treat as a slam dunk. But Florence actually undermines whatever argument you think your list is building. Yes, the books were listed. But they weren't dogmatically defined. There was no anathema attached. And it didn't settle anything. Gallagher (2025) notes that "this clear statement did not settle the matter," because observers weren't convinced Pope Eugene IV intended to resolve the ancient disputes about specific books. The list "seemed to many observers to be less binding." Debate about the deuterocanonicals didn't just continue after Florence. It intensified. Neither side of the debate even relied on the Florentine statement. If Florence had definitively settled the canon the way you're suggesting, why did the debate get worse afterward? Why did Cardinal Cajetan feel free to argue for Jerome's restricted canon in a commentary dedicated to the Pope ninety years later? Why did Seripando argue at Trent that the question of a twofold canon was still open despite Florence? Your list treats Florence as a settled data point. Ref: Gallagher, E. L. (2025). The Apocrypha through History. Oxford University Press. Then you list Trent. I've discussed it at length elsewhere, so I'll just mention the essentials. When Trent finally forced the vote on equal authority for the deuterocanonicals, the council's own best scholars voted against it. Jedin, the Catholic historian of Trent, says the minority was "outstanding for its theological scholarship." The vote was 24-15-16. That's 44% in favor. That's your infallible council. Ref: Jedin, H. (1961). A History of the Council of Trent, vol. 2. Thomas Nelson. Lastly, you say Protestants "removed" seven books. But that's not the right question. The restricted canon is older than every council on your list. It's the canon of the Hebrew Bible, received by the Jewish community, endorsed by Christ, defended by Jerome, maintained by the Glossa Ordinaria, affirmed by Hugh of St. Victor, and argued for by the Church's own top Thomist in 1532. The real question is why Trent needed an anathema to stop people from noticing what Jerome noticed. If these books had the same stuff as Genesis and Isaiah, you wouldn't need an anathema. You'd point to the texts. They couldn't. So they voted.

A Catholic presses, "Hebrews was disputed too. If you keep it, you have to keep Tobit." No, I don't. And I don't need a council to tell me why. Hebrews opens with the highest Christology in the NT. Tobit tells you to burn fish liver to drive away demons. The texts aren't in the same category, and the doctrine of God tells you why. New article: protestantreview.substack.com/p/why-hebrews-…