_{Statue of St Peter at the Vatican}

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that Jesus Christ Himself instituted the office of the papacy.

The Bible contains proofs of the above, which I shall share below:

“And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
- Matthew 16:19

No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.


_{"Le Christ remettant les clés à saint Pierre", Guido Reni, 1620s.}

Most people don’t know: Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament.

“And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
- Isaias 22:22

In David’s Kingdom there was not only a king who ruled. The king had royal ministers. You see references to this in 2 Samuel 8 (2 Kings 8 in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible) and in 1 Kings 4 (3 Kings 4 in the Douay-Rheims) and in other places.

However, of all the king’s ministers, there was one who stood out. That was the prime minister.

In Isaias 22 we read that the prime minister HAD THE KEY to the house of David. This key represented the prime minister’s authority over the house of the king.

“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy [Shebna’s] robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
- Isaias 22:20-22


_{Seal imprint discovered at Lachish, 2015. The inscription reads “L’lyqm yhwzrh,” or “Belonging to Eliakim, Yehozarah.” Believed to have belonged to Eliakim from Isaias 22.}

Notice that the prime minister had the key of the house of David. We also see that to him was committed “the government,” and that he would be “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

“And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
- Matthew 16:19

The reference is obvious.

Note also: The Davidic Monarchy, the Kingdom of God on Earth, was meant to be a prototype of the Kingdom of God which Jesus Christ would establish. That’s why Jesus is called the son of David in the Gospels.
It’s also why Peter himself says in Acts 2:30 that Jesus sits upon David’s throne.
Luke 1:32 says the following of Jesus: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father…”

Jesus was making Peter His Chief Minister, the one with the Keys to His House, with the overall power to shut and to open.

Note also : King Hezekiah gave the key of the Kingdom to Eliakim because Eliakim succeeded Shebna in the office of prime minister.



_{The Keys are held by Peter}

So also would Peter have successors who would receive the same powers he had.

When Jesus said to Peter, “I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,” he clearly indicated to all informed Jews, who studied the Old Testament, what He was doing.

More in Part 2

AntiChristian:
But Catholicism reeks of idolatry! From praying to Mary, saints, bowing and genuflection to graven images, etc.

All these allegations are easily refuted. In fact I'll do a post on the Biblical foundations for Catholic practice, as well as some refuting Protestantism.

But you need not wait. Just visit

www dot vaticancatholic dot com

and you'll have all the information you need.
Don't be hindered by spiritual sloth or bad will, okay? These are the end times, and that means time is running out.

AntiChristian:
Top knotch babalawo aka Dibia Chief priest!

Guess what is happening below?

He is to take two birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop to purify the house; 50and he shall slaughter one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot. Then he shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn, and the live bird, dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times. And he shall cleanse the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet yarn. Finally, he is to release the live bird into the open fields outside the city. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean.
Leviticus 14:49-53

I believe your point is: due to perceived similarities between the practices of witch-doctors and the practices of Old Testament priests, there must be an equivalence between the religions of both. This is false.

Firstly, many times in the Old Testament, we see practices performed that prefigure the ultimate sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament.
Abraham and Isaac for example prefiguring the death of Christ in perfect obedience to His Father. Or the saving of the Israelites via passage through the Red Sea foreshadowing the salvation of the elect by passage through the water of baptism.
Here too we see something similar.
Two birds, one living and one dead, with the living one, along with cedar wood, being dipped in the blood of the dead one ( the faithful are washed in the Blood of Christ, cedar wood prefiguring the wood of the cross).
Then again dipped into fresh water (prefiguring the washing of regeneration, or baptism) and finally being set free over the open fields. That is, by the merit of Our Lord's crucifixion and by the sacrament of baptism, we are set free from the spiritual leprosy of inclination to sin.
I'm no Bible scholar, but Scripture has many examples of such prefiguring, and I suppose this may be one of them. They show the wisdom and foreknowledge of God, rather than what you seem to assert.

Secondly, it's silly, and even dangerous to draw deep similarities from surface comparison.
One might as well argue that totalitarian regimes are similar to just governments because both employ courts and trials to determine guilt or innocence - without considering the deep distinction: predetermined or whimsical verdicts in the case of one, versus strict compliance to principles of logic and Justice in the case of the other.
Likewise here, on account of superficial perceptions, you apparently attempt to place the worship of devils on a footing with the worship of the True God. That attempt is a grave sin.

I'm afraid (I say this in charity) you're simply confused. Or simply being wilfully contentious.

John Paul II has been blasphemously declared a saint by Francis, his successor Antipope.

Let's be very clear what that means:

When a person is canonized by the Catholic Church, this is a pronouncement, divinely revealed, that such a person during his life was a perfect model of Christian virtue and that such a person has been admitted into Heaven.

Catholics are thus bound to hold such a person as eternally blessed, worthy of veneration, and a powerful intercessor before Almighty God.




_{Showing his true loyalties.}

This means that the followers of Francis and the Vatican II sect, hold that John Paul II (whose heresies, blasphemies and apostasy we've very briefly - though sufficiently - examined in parts 1 & 2) is in Heaven, a model of Christian virtue, and divinely revealed to be worthy of veneration etc.

There is an implication to this: anyone who has been informed about JPII's satanic career and still holds such an implication opinion is immediately himself in a state of mortal sin, of heresy, and of apostasy.

That's why Francis 'canonized' him, in addition to retroactively legitimizing all the heretical history of the post-Vatican II establishment.


_{True colours again? Some readers will be familiar with this hand gesture.}

If you've fallen for this scheme, you are outside the True Catholic Church, and on your way to Hell.

Come out of her. Come out of Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots.

Convert to True Catholicism - while there's still time.


(Non-Catholics should take note: the fact that the end times Antichurch is an impostor Catholic Church PROVES that the Catholic Church is the true Church.)

For more information on this whole subject, including steps to convert, visit www.vaticancatholic.com



Fin

"For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.”
- Ps 95:5



On Jan. 24, 2002, Antipope John Paul II held a pagan prayer meeting in the city of Assisi Italy – a repeat of the abominable event that took place in 1986.
During the prayer meeting, a representative each of various false religion involved was allowed to come to the pulpit and give a sermon on world peace. In the presence of Antipope John Paul II a Voodoo high priest came to the pulpit outside the Basilica of St. Francis and gave the Voodoo prescription for world peace. (Voodoo, remember, is Satanism).



_{“Particularly noteworthy was the prayer meeting at the sanctuary of Our Lady of Mercy at Lake Togo where, for the first time, I also prayed with a group of Animists.”
(L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.)}

So, by Antipope John Paul II’s arrangement, from a pulpit outside the historic Basilica of St. Francis, a Satanist was allowed to give a sermon and provide his prescription for world peace. This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves and pigeons, and draining their blood from their arteries.

After the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Voodoo Witchdoctor and the rest were finished preaching, the various false religious leaders broke up into different rooms to pray to their false gods.


<sub>Here we see Antipope John Paul II in the Buddhist Temple in Bangkok, Thailand, May 10, 1984. Also, a few days before going to the Buddhist Temple (in preparing to go to Korea and then to Thailand), Antipope John Paul II said the following:

"May I address a particular greeting to the members of the Buddhist tradition as they prepare to celebrate the festivity of the Coming of the Lord Buddha? May your rejoicing be complete and your joy fulfilled."

- Antipope John Paul II, May 6, 1984</sub>

[img]https://vaticancatholic.com/JP2_Pictures_with_Pagans_and_Infidels/shiva.jpg
[/img]

On Feb 2. 1986, Antipope John Paul II received on his forehead the Tilac or Tika, the red powdery paste of the Hindus: the sign of recognition of the adorers of Shiva. This is total idolatry and apostasy. (Image attached.)

[img]https://vaticancatholic.com/JP2_Pictures_with_Pagans_and_Infidels/JP2withdothead.jpg
[/img]

Below we see the actual arrangement of rooms that Antipope John Paul II gave to the various pagans and idolaters.



Antipope John Paul II had it arranged in advance that each religious group was given a separate room to worship their devil's. Crucifixes were removed, and the crucifixes which could not be removed were covered.

Antipope John Paul II made sure that the infidels and pagans saw no sign of Jesus Christ.
The Muslims needed a room which faced East toward Mecca, and it was given to them.
The Zoroastrians needed a room with a window – so that the smoke from the wood chips that they burned to the devil could exit through it – and it was given to them.
The Jews wanted a room that had never before been blessed – in other words, a room that had never been blessed in the name of Jesus Christ – and Antipope John Paul II provided them with one.
Greater abomination, blasphemy and rejection of the true God almost cannot be imagined.

Conclusions in Part 3.

"Take away the Mass, destroy the
Church"
- Martin Luther

The Traditional Latin Mass, the most holy act of worship of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, was codified by Pope St. Pius V in his Bull Quo Primum in 1570.

“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

On April 3, 1969, Paul VI replaced the Traditional Latin Mass in the Vatican II churches with his own creation, the New Mass or Novus Ordo.

When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it. Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass. The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated. The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

When the Protestants split from the Catholic Church in England in the 16th century, they changed the Mass to reflect their heretical beliefs. The altars were replaced by tables. Latin was replaced by English. Statues and icons were removed from the churches. The Last Gospel and the Confiteor were abolished. “Communion” was distributed in the hand. Mass was said out loud and facing the Congregation. Traditional music was discarded and replaced with new music.

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”
- Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.

One expert noted:

“The extent to which the Novus Ordo Mass departs from the theology of the Council of Trent can best be gauged by comparing the prayers which the Consilium removed from the liturgy to those removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer. The coincidence is not simply striking – it is horrifying. It cannot, in fact, be a coincidence.”

- Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass.

The traditional Missal contains 1182 orations. About 760 of those were dropped entirely from the New Mass. Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them before introducing them into the new Missal.

It’s no longer obligatory for the sacred vessels to be gilded if they are not made of precious metals. Sacred vessels, which only the anointed hands of a priest could touch, are now handled by all.

The priest frequently shakes hands before distributing the host.[8] The General Instruction for the New Mass also declares that altars no longer need to be of natural stone; that an altar stone containing the relics of martyrs is no longer required; that only one cloth is required on the altar; that it is not necessary to have a crucifix or even candles upon the altar. 9

Not even one of the mandatory requirements developed over 2,000 years to ensure that the altar is of fitting dignity has been retained in the New Mass.

The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book was also called “The Supper of the Lord, and the holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.” This title emphasized the Protestant belief that the Mass is just a meal, a supper – and not a sacrifice. When Paul VI promulgated the General Instruction for the New Mass, it was entitled exactly the same way. Its title was: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass.”

On Good Friday, the Novus Ordo religion prays: “for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to His covenant.”

But the Catholic Church prays on Good Friday: “for the perfidious Jews: that Our Lord and God may lift the covering off their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

The difference is clear.

“Cardinal” Annibale Bugnini was Chairman of the Consilium which drafted Paul VI’s New Mass. Bugnini was initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963, according to the Masonic Register in 1976.

PROOF THAT THE NEW MASS IS NOT VALID – THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION HAVE BEEN CHANGED

A sacrament is said to be valid if it takes place. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid if the bread and wine become the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In order for any sacrament to be valid, matter, form, minister and intention must be present.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."

The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Pope St. Pius V’s teaching states that if the words of consecration are changed so that the meaning is altered, the priest does not confect the Sacrament. In the New Mass the words of consecration have been drastically changed, and the meaning has been altered.

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS

“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN."

From the Council of Trent

"...When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

As we can see, according to The Catechism of the Council of Trent the words “for all” were specifically not used by Our Lord because they would give a false meaning.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.”

Therefore, a Catholic cannot attend the New “Mass” under pain of mortal sin.

This is a very abridged and edited version of an original article.

Please read the original article at

https://vaticancatholic.com/new-mass-traditional-latin-mass/

@ Ubenedictus

I had forgotten you for a while, and deservedly.

I've decided to abandon this conversation. You reek so completely of bad will
that its clear my best efforts would be a waste of precious time.

Yes, it appears I was mistaken, and Mortalium Animos was not a dogmatic declaration. But any honest person would realize that doesn't affect my argument significantly. It is the age-old practice of the Church and founded on clear Scripture (as Pius XI says). To deny it is still a heresy.

However, you're not worth the prolonged back-and-forth.

If you think - if you say - that actions such as:

- kissing the Koran
- praying that St John the Baptist protect Islam
- wearing the 'Star of David' (Star of Moloch, more precisely) on a Bishop's
mitre
- declaring that the Gospels are historically incorrect
- teaching that atheists can go to Heaven
- teaching that the Church must embrace homosexuals
- promoting birth control
- organizing joint prayer sessions with Schismatics, Buddhists, Hindus,
Baha'i, voodoooists,
- 'canonizing' notorious heretic Mother Teresa
- giving 'Communion' in the hand
- having 'altar girls'
- accepting the United Nations as a positive influence
- teaching that those in adulterous 'second marriages' may receive
'Communion'
- supporting 'civil unions' between homosexuals
- declaring that Luther was not wrong on Justification
- declaring the anathemas of Trent invalid

...and many, many more..

are actions that can be performed by true Popes possessing the charism of infallibility,... and can be endorsed by the official Magisterium...and are to be rules and models to be held by Children of God...

then not only do you lack the Catholic Faith...
but you're of Satan.
You belong to the Evil One.
And the lusts of your father ye will do.

Don't die in this state.

Should you ever have a change of heart - or better yet, to provoke one - visit

www.vaticancatholic.com

@ Ubenedictus

I had forgotten you for a while, and deservedly.

I've decided to abandon this conversation. You reek so completely of bad will
that its clear that my best efforts woul be a waste of precious time.

Yes, it appears I was mistaken, and Mortalium Animos was not a dogmatic declaration. But any honest person would know that doesn't affect my argument significantly. It is the age-old practice of the Church and founded on clear Scripture (as Pius XI says). To deny it is still a heresy.

However, you're not worth the prolonged back-and-forth.

If you think that actions such as:

- kissing the Koran
- praying that St John the Baptist protect Islam
- wearing the 'Star of David' (Star of Moloch, more precisely) on a Bishop's
mitre
- declaring that the Gospels are historically incorrect
- teaching that atheists can go to Heaven
- teaching that the Church must embrace homosexuals
- promoting birth control
- organizing joint prayer sessions with Schismatics, Buddhists, Hindus,
Baha'i, voodoooists,
- 'canonizing' notorious heretic Mother Teresa
- teaching that those in adulterous 'second marriages' may receive
'Communion'
- supporting 'civil unions' between homosexuals
- declaring that Luther was not wrong on Justification
- declaring the anathemas of Trent invalid

...and many, many more..

are actions that can be performed by true Popes possessing the charism of infallibility and taught by the official Magisterium...

then you're of Satan.
And the lusts of your father ye will do.

Don't die in this state.

Should you ever have a change of heart visit
www.vaticancatholic.com

Rootprof:
Some people don't understand ur pains and things you're coping with BUT will rush to condemn u acting like you're not doing much. Same people will rush to write Taking ur life is not the way out When they see ur suicide note u dropped before losing all hope. In pains presently but hope could fight on. If not see you at the other side. Peace at last.

Don't attempt to justify suicide.
Don't take your life.
You'll regret it eternally.

Repent of your sins and pray God to reveal Himself and His True Faith to you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw

Ubenedictus:
Again i must reiterate that half knowledge is more dangerous .

Keep calling me half-baked.
You're going to end up fully baked in Hell if you continue in heresy.

I'll take out the rest of your trash after I've attended to other matters.

Ubenedictus:

Again i must reiterate that half knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance

This would be laughable if it didn't represent pertinacious and gravely sinful bad will.

Ubenedictus:
...a bishop may overturn universal law if the salvation of souls is involved.

I have made no reference to 'universal law'.
I have made reference to dogma.

No soul may overturn dogma

You know this of course, and thus you desperately had to produce the following concoction:

Ubenedictus:
This is a discipline and it was immediately repealed by the pope after puis xi.

The ruling on prayers with non-Catholics is not a discipline.

It is a dogma.

Stop lying.

By your standard of 'Catholicism', one could simply attend Friday mosque and offer prayers to Allah without committing mortal sin?

What a heretic.

Ubenedictus:

"...to promote "union" in the faith, there is need of quite peculiar vigilance... For if on the one hand these meetings afford the desired opportunity to spread amomg non-Catholics the knowledge of Catholic doctrine..."
De Motione ‘Oecumenica. Published in the Papacy of Pope Pius XII

See who talks about half-baked knowledge.

(i.) That publication is not a dogma. It is a document from the Holy Office and therefore fallible.

(ii.) The simple issuance by the Curia of a document does not confer the infallibility of the reigning Pope upon it. For that to happen the Pope in question would have to approve it in forma specifica (I hope you know what that means) and not just generally. This also applied to theological textbooks, Canon Law compilations etc.

(iii.) All this notwithstanding, the very document you cite says:

“The Catholic Church, although she does not take part in congresses and other conventions called ‘ecumenical'..."

(iv.) All this notwithstanding, the very document you cite says:

"...if these meetings afford the desired opportunity to spread among non-Catholics the knowledge of Catholic doctrine..."

Obviously, it's talking about gatherings where non-Catholics may be proselytized and not joint prayer meetings.
So your attempt to defend JPII, Benedict and co. falls flat.

v. The very document you cite puts the word 'union' in quote marks. As well as the word 'ecumenical' ('oecumenica'). Since the writer(s) did not intend to show quotations or dialogue or word-as-a-word identification, those quotation marks were obviously being used as scare quotes.

"Scare quotes are a pair of quotation marks put around a word or phrase to indicate that a writer believes a term is inappropriate..."
- www.thesaurus.com

I wouldn't have had to explain that if you're as smart as you think you are.

Ubenedictus:

"The term "ecumenical movement" indicates.., to promote Christian unity. "

"...our separated brethren with truth and fairness..."

"...each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features."

"...and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common..."

"...as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity."

It is a defined dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that non-Catholics are not Christian.

"Therefore, the Holy Catholic Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views"
- Pope Eugene IV
Cantate Domino, 1441

Don't you get it?
(i.) Non-Catholics are not brothers to Catholics in any religious context.
(ii.) There are no 'distinctive features' in faith within the Body of Christ.
(iii.) Prayer in common with heretics, pagans or schismatics is never allowed.
(iv.) There is no such thing as the 'pursuit of Christian unity'. All Christians are already united in the Catholic Church.

Of course you don't get it.
Because you don't have the Faith.
You're just pretending to be a Catholic.

Ubenedictus:

"We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

Hoping that the unity (not the population) of the Church continues to increase?
Therefore you hold that Christ's Church is not fully united.
How can you even say the Athanasian Creed then?
How then do you hold to the following dogmatic pronouncement?:

"...Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it" (S. Clemens Alexandrinus,..."
- Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum, 1896

Perhaps you will argue that Pope Leo's encyclical merely "put forth a discipline", and Vatican II repealed it...

Accept the truth:

Vatican II was not a Catholic Council.
It broke with 20 centuries of infallible Catholic doctrine and went in new direction.
It was the foundation ceremony of your Antichrist religion.

Ubenedictus:
And canon law tell us that any death can be prayed for even at mass, thus repealing that discipline

“A priest is free to apply the Mass for anyone, living or dead” (Canon 901).

"Canon law" promulgated by Antipopes?
Don't tempt me to laughter.

Ubenedictus:
...on the core of justification, Luther and the council of trent are in agreement. We are justified by Grace through faith in christ Jesus, in baptism irrespective of our work, we are justified that we may do good works. So yes in the core of luther on justification he was right and was in agreement with the Catholic church, but his polemical nature did not allow him to see that.

What manner of blathering is this?

"...on the core of justification..."
"...in the core Luther..."

I will repeat Francis' words here (to prevent you from lying about them):

"And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err."

Francis' said Luther did not err on the doctrine of justification.
He did not restrict his approval to the role of Faith.
By falsely pretending he did you're displaying again your habit of dishonest argumentation.

But guess what?
You are caught out in your lie because even if Francis restricted his agreement to the role of faith, its still heresy:

"According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)."

- Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, Section 26. 1999.

"You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24)"

- Pope Paul III
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 10

See?

But as I said, his approval wasn't limited to the role of faith, so let's check out some other heresies in the 'JDLJ':

"According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action."
- JDLJ, Section 21,1999.

"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God Who rouses and calls...let him be anathema"
- Pope Paul III
Council of Trent, Session 6, Can 4

Or how about:

"They (Lutherans) intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings."
- JDLJ, Section 23

"If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or by the teaching of the law, without Divine grace through Christ Jesus; let him be anathema"
- Pope Paul III
Council of Trent, Session 6, Can 1

See?

You're a liar.
You're lying.
You're simply lying.
Any honest person can see it.
And why? Why?
Why are you lying?

How does a person come to this?

May God preserve all honest men from such a fate.

Ubenedictus:


you claimed he prayed with jews.... That is not a heresy. the is no catholic dogma that say a catholic must never pray with a jew...etc.

Yes, JPII and Benedict XVI were both heretics.

Catholics may not pray with non-Catholics:

"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the meetings (conventibus) of non-Catholics..."
- Pope Pius XI
Mortalium Animos, 1928


Catholics may not pray for those who die outside the Church:

“And this is now the reason for holy men not praying for unbelieving and ungodly men who are dead; for they are unwilling that the merit of their prayer should be set aside, in that presence of the righteous Judge, in behalf of those whom they know to be already consigned to eternal punishment.”
-Pope St. Gregory the Great
Moralia, Book 34

Ubenedictus:

Lastly you said he agreed with Luther on certain issues....

I didn't say he agreed with Luther on "certain issues".
I said he agreed with Luther on Justification

Don't be dishonest. That's sinful.

Francis said:

"And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err."

That's what he said and it is heresy.

Do you agree or not?

Don't dodge the issue.

Ubenedictus:

A man does not become a heretic simply by being in communion with another supposed heretic....etc

Don't be obtuse.
A Catholic is one who professes the true Faith.
By acknowledging Francis as Pope, the one who does so is declaration by action that he has the true Faith.
That's heresy.

Ubenedictus:

secondly heresy is an OBSTINATE denial of revealed truth or dogma. It does not suffice to show that the person made a wrong statement once,...etc

Francis' statements are not merely wrong. The are heretical.
He has made such statements much more than once. To suggest otherwise is to lie.

To say that a person needs to be canonically declared a heretics before he incurs Divine penalty is false:

"But if anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of Episcopal or clerical dignity by Bishop Nestorius or his followers after they began to preach such things (the Nestorian heresy) it is manifest that such a person continues in Our communion. Because...that man who had already shown that he should be removed was not able to remove anyone."

- Pope St Celestine
Letter to John of Antioch, 430

(Note he says "from the time they began to preach such things" to show that loss of jurisdiction occurs from the time heresy is manifest)

Heretics may be notorious in fact or notorious in law. The latter refers to those upon whom canonical judgement has been passed.
The former refers to those whose heresy is publicly known and whose sinful character (imputability) cannot be excused by any excuse accepted in law. It refers to Francis.

If you hold that Francis' flood of heretical statements do not represent obstinacy, you're simply not of the truth.
The man himself said in an address on May 23, 2015:

"I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps."

He knows exactly what he's doing.

And if you can't see that, you're headed for the Pit.

Conclusion in my next post.

Ubenedictus:
you think you know which is even worst than ignorance.

I quoted a relevant dogma, which you can't dispute.
That shows I know what I'm talking about.

Ubenedictus:

you have proof that +Onaga has rejected the catholic faith?

Onaga is a heretic many times over.

However, the most straightforward charge is that he is in communion with a manifest, notorious heretic in the shape of Jorge Bergoglio, whom you call Francis.
You know Francis is a heretic, right? I hope we don't have to waste time arguing about that.

He prays with Jews,...

https://www.voanews.com/a/pope-francis-rome-synagogue/3150671.html

prays for dead Jews,...

https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-ap-top-news-international-news-prayer-pa-state-wire-9b338ca5b24c4b02904ff450211b5056

agrees with MARTIN LUTHER on Justification,...

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/34103/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia

endorses sodomites...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-5462762

...and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

The man is an obvious heretic.
A manifest and notorious heretic.
And a heretic cannot be Pope.

See the following dogmatic declarations:

“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics..."
Pope Innocent III
Euis Exemplo, 1208


"St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity.
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"

- Pope Leo XIii
Satis Cognitum, 1896

Heretics are outside the Catholic Church.
Bergoglio is a
manifest and notorious heretic.
Onaga is in communion with him;
Onaga is a heretic too.

Ubenedictus:
dogmatically you become catholic at baptism

1. One becomes Catholic at baptism.
One remains Catholic by adhering to every single point of the Faith.

That's why heretics are automatically separated from the Church.

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, ... "
- Pope Pius XII
Mystici Corporis,1943

Ubenedictus:
... you seem not to know the catholic faith

2. Don't be arrogant. I know it far better than you.

Ubenedictus:
so in your mind bishop onaga is not catholic. are you dreaming

No, I'm not.

The qualifications for being referred to as Catholic have been dogmatically declared (I hope you know what that means), and he and his ilk fall woefully
short.

Uteghe:
..you entrust him to the "care of the blessed virgin Mary,Queen of the Apostles". If this Mary is the mother of the incarnate Christ,then whoever crafted the letter is offending her. Mary has no business here. Catholics should stop this idolatry.

Onaga is no Catholic. He (and his followers) just pretend to be Catholic.

On the subject of the Blessed Virgin Mary, however...
you need to watch this, and educate yourself:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVyptxPQ04

LordAdam16:


It was visible until yesterday. You didn't reply so I took it off.

I'll update it again.

-Lord

Danke. Seen.

LordAdam16:


My correct email is in my profile.

-Lord

If it is, it's not visible to me. Unless you meant 'user name'.

I've re-sent the PM.

Video clips of the ongoing worldwide campaign

to normalize perversion

by enlisting music and movie celebrities towards this end. 8 minutes.*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq5CJqvVyyM


(Note - The current trend of Nigerian female pop musicians wearing traditional male attire
is the first step of this campaign into Africa)




*[I do not necessarily endorse all views in this or other videos]

joyContraMundum:
lol...... You did a nice job running away from addressing the OP. Another guy trying to change the subject of the thread. Employing round-about tactics whenever you have no answers! Stop the dodging. Address the OP already!

Child, child, child.

The OP is saying, basically

Where is the empirical evidence of your belief?

I say, basically (and if you were as smart as you think you are I'd not have to explain it.)

Where is the empirical evidence for yours?

Now common sense would dictate that the Loving God would place in mens' hearts the means to know Him and to recognize Him.

And He does. For each of us.

Men who deny this are simply liars.
Look at your own self, for example.
You flee from the very test you set for others.

This marks you. As dishonest.

As well as deranged.

Be wholly, not partly logical.

Flip it around. Let the axe fall both ways.

joyContraMundum:
To state it clearly, how does a believer know he has encountered the True God and not someone else who is godlike but not God? What criteria does he use to authenticate God's identity?

How does a regular guy like you know the difference between truth and lies in your media and education?

How do you know the Earth is spherical? Have you gauged its dimensions?

How do you know man was on the moon? Were you there?

How do you know Hitler wasn't a good guy, later demonized? If Britain could call African ancestors semi-human,

why couldn't they also twist Nazi history?

joyContraMundum:
Abraham heard a voice in his head ordering him to murder his son. So, how did Abraham know it was the True God giving him commands and not the Falsus Deus (the False God)?

How do you yourself know you're under your own will?

You know of hypnotism and drug-induced suggestibility. How do you know Criss Angel didn't hynotize

you last week and instruct you towards what you are doing now?

joyContraMundum:
If someone names himself the Angel Gabriel then he is! But that's the gospel of the madhouse where any number of lunatics name themselves as figures much grander than their true selves. A madman who names himself Napoleon does not thereby become Napoleon.

So how do your authorities become authorities? Why does the US Supreme Court claim the right to intefere in peoples' lives?
Because they say so? Why is CNN a reliable outlet? Because they say so?

joyContraMundum:

Quite simply, "belief" is deranged. It offers no certainty at all. If "God" appeared right in front of you right now, you would actually have no idea at all whether it really was God. What questions would you ask to verify his identity, what tests would you conduct?

What test can you perform now, to prove the official 9/11 account, the moon landings, or the spherical earth?

Name one, or stand deranged.


Answer first yourself these questions

before you stoke yourself into the temerity of questioning the Truth.

Fun fact.

Excerpt from his mother's book:

“He’d grown up hearing stories of a book about the black arts, apparently detailing the Mather’s links to witchcraft.
We discovered a creepy British occultist called Samuel Liddel MacGregor Mathers, who’d founded the Order of the Golden Dawn.
He was an early mentor Aleister Crowley. Bruce [Marshall's father]* loved that...
He and Steve had seen a shooting star [occultspeak for Satan]* outside in the sky just moments after Marshall was born.
The word monster was bandied about many times by other people to describe Marshall ”