Trying to prove the Catholic church is correct by quoting a "Saint" is a circular logic fallacy.
If you really cared about this man who died, you would denounce the system that forced him to take a vaccine with a vow of obedience.
On the other hand, if you believe that disobeying Church authority is "turning your back on Christ", why haven't you gotten your shot? The Pope expects you to take it as an "act of love".
This man had the free will to choose not to inject himself with the product of an abortion.
Just because a father tells a son to sin, doesn't mean the son must blindly obey. His obedience lies with God first. However, that does not undermine the reality that God ordained the father to have authority over his children, just as he ordained the apostles to have authority over the Church (John 20:21).
To disregard this authority altogether is a a sin against God (4th commandment).
All that being said, God has chosen the information age to permit Satan to hijack a great majority of the apostolic succession. Leaving only those who persevere after truth with the grace necessary to obtain eternal happiness
with Him.
But we cannot have Him as our Father if we reject the Church as our Mother. Our Lord is not a polygimist. He does not have multiple brides.
Private interpretation of scripture is condemned by scripture (2 Pet-1:20), we need a divinely ordained authority to look to.
One one hand, you state that there is an obligation to obey authority, on the other hand you say we have free will to reject the authority if it is against what God wants, then circle back that "God wants" us to obey authority.
It's clear that Q is posting from the perspective of a protestant when they quote scripture, as they condemn the pope for wearing Nazi symbolism or suggesting the Pope serves moloch:
God has chosen the information age to permit Satan to hijack a great majority of the apostolic succession
"It's all infallible except when it wasn't".
The sale of indulgences were ok, eh? Oh, those were in the "information age"?
Yes, Peter was an apostle. No, Peter wasn't the first pope. Here's a clue ... he was married.
I'm sure you're aware that Q posts from the perspective of protestants, and the bulk majority of Christians here are protestant. This isn't the place to proselytize Catholicism.
If you're here to place a red pill of Catholicism in front of everyone before they can swallow the red pill of the great awakening, then you're doing Satan's work.
One thing you have in common with "pope" Francis" is you both condemn proseletysm. You both dislike the idea there is one true faith and a one true Church.
Q serves to reveal natural truth so that people can wake up and see reality for what it is and live accordingly.
God established a Church, His bride, to teach the divinely revealed supernatural truths necessary for our salvation. He entrusted the deposit of faith to his apostles and their successors.
It is absurd to turn away from Jesus and the apostles because of Judas, just as it is absurd to believe we can have Jesus but reject His Bride.
It is a historical fact that protestantism originated with people blindly following priests and bishops who turned away from the traditional teachings and practices of the Church.
That same apostasy is happening on a grand level (great apostasy perhaps) formally beginning in the 1960's, with Vatican II & the New Order Mass (brainchild of Masons & protestants) for the New World Order.. And now, most "Catholics" are, like protestants, offended by the faith of our fathers. They have blindly drifted into apostacy without knowing it, just as the protestants did the last 500 years.
The farther you dive into the war on Christianity, the more you will find it's a war on Catholicism. Trump seems to see that as well
I think this conversation is over until you address my first issue with the Catholic church.
You called the pre-"information age" Catholic church infallible.
I mentioned indulgences. You ignored it.
If you cannot defend indulgences, then you cannot defend the Catholic church. Unless you say that, when the Catholic church sold indulgences, it made a mistake (even though it was pre-"information age" era).
Taking God's Church, slapping a trademark on it and banning all others from participation unless they also believe x, y and z (excommunication, indulgences, purgatory, elevating mere humans to the status of angelic saints and praying to them instead of to Jesus, etc. etc. etc.) sounds exactly like something Satan would do.
Trying to prove the Catholic church is correct by quoting a "Saint" is a circular logic fallacy.
If you really cared about this man who died, you would denounce the system that forced him to take a vaccine with a vow of obedience.
On the other hand, if you believe that disobeying Church authority is "turning your back on Christ", why haven't you gotten your shot? The Pope expects you to take it as an "act of love".
This man had the free will to choose not to inject himself with the product of an abortion. Just because a father tells a son to sin, doesn't mean the son must blindly obey. His obedience lies with God first. However, that does not undermine the reality that God ordained the father to have authority over his children, just as he ordained the apostles to have authority over the Church (John 20:21). To disregard this authority altogether is a a sin against God (4th commandment). All that being said, God has chosen the information age to permit Satan to hijack a great majority of the apostolic succession. Leaving only those who persevere after truth with the grace necessary to obtain eternal happiness with Him. But we cannot have Him as our Father if we reject the Church as our Mother. Our Lord is not a polygimist. He does not have multiple brides. Private interpretation of scripture is condemned by scripture (2 Pet-1:20), we need a divinely ordained authority to look to.
You're contradicting yourself.
One one hand, you state that there is an obligation to obey authority, on the other hand you say we have free will to reject the authority if it is against what God wants, then circle back that "God wants" us to obey authority.
It's clear that Q is posting from the perspective of a protestant when they quote scripture, as they condemn the pope for wearing Nazi symbolism or suggesting the Pope serves moloch:
https://qalerts.app/?n=1413
"It's all infallible except when it wasn't".
The sale of indulgences were ok, eh? Oh, those were in the "information age"?
Yes, Peter was an apostle. No, Peter wasn't the first pope. Here's a clue ... he was married.
I'm sure you're aware that Q posts from the perspective of protestants, and the bulk majority of Christians here are protestant. This isn't the place to proselytize Catholicism.
If you're here to place a red pill of Catholicism in front of everyone before they can swallow the red pill of the great awakening, then you're doing Satan's work.
One thing you have in common with "pope" Francis" is you both condemn proseletysm. You both dislike the idea there is one true faith and a one true Church. Q serves to reveal natural truth so that people can wake up and see reality for what it is and live accordingly. God established a Church, His bride, to teach the divinely revealed supernatural truths necessary for our salvation. He entrusted the deposit of faith to his apostles and their successors. It is absurd to turn away from Jesus and the apostles because of Judas, just as it is absurd to believe we can have Jesus but reject His Bride. It is a historical fact that protestantism originated with people blindly following priests and bishops who turned away from the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. That same apostasy is happening on a grand level (great apostasy perhaps) formally beginning in the 1960's, with Vatican II & the New Order Mass (brainchild of Masons & protestants) for the New World Order.. And now, most "Catholics" are, like protestants, offended by the faith of our fathers. They have blindly drifted into apostacy without knowing it, just as the protestants did the last 500 years. The farther you dive into the war on Christianity, the more you will find it's a war on Catholicism. Trump seems to see that as well
I think this conversation is over until you address my first issue with the Catholic church.
You called the pre-"information age" Catholic church infallible.
I mentioned indulgences. You ignored it.
If you cannot defend indulgences, then you cannot defend the Catholic church. Unless you say that, when the Catholic church sold indulgences, it made a mistake (even though it was pre-"information age" era).
Taking God's Church, slapping a trademark on it and banning all others from participation unless they also believe x, y and z (excommunication, indulgences, purgatory, elevating mere humans to the status of angelic saints and praying to them instead of to Jesus, etc. etc. etc.) sounds exactly like something Satan would do.