“The schism of the Easter “Orthodox” was nothing more than their usual (aptly named) byzantine politics rooted in worldly matters. Keep in mind that until 1054, literally EVERY Christian until then knew and accepted that the Pope in Rome was the ultimate authority on Church matters wherever and whenever a dispute appeared.”
This is simply not true. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the actual title of the person holding that position) is a construct. The Papists should be understood as the first Protestants (“Papal Protestants” if you will).
You're talking nonsense and flat out lying. papal primacy was always there for over 1000 years. Stop making shit up as you byzantines invariably do. Look it up.
You even re-confirmed it at the council of Florence then reneged it again. Once a backstabbing traitor, always a backstabbing traitor.
You made the point that the papal primacy “was always there for over 1000 years.” Was that a typo? Did you mean always or for 1000 years?
There are numerous and obvious examples over centuries of the churches and councils rejecting Rome when she was asserting false doctrines and practices, and rejecting assertions of Papal supremacy and power.
Reading comprehension and for context is a thing. Papal primacy was there for a 1000 years BEFORE the Eastern Schismatics "suddenly" decided it was an issue, is the point.
Nonsense. But your side has been lying about everything for centuries. Go on and try and deny the Council of Florence as well or the backstabbing for three crusades in a row next. Schismatics gonna schismatically lie. It's what they do.
You do realise Tea originated in China, right? One idiotic non-sequitur deserves another. Especially since if you read the article I expressley stated this. Do you also drool while you try to keep your place with your index finger as you read?
Please correct me if this is wrong, but the "una cum" portion of the Canon of the Mass is not saying that the Holy Sacrifice is being offered in union with whomever's name is mentioned as the pope. Rather, it is being offered FOR the Church, together with (una cum) the pope, bishop, and all true Catholics. The "una cum" is there to include the pope, bishop, and faithful in the intentions.
That doesn't negate the erroneous choice on the part of the priest of mentioning any of the V2 "clergy" in the Canon. But does it invalidate the Mass? I ask because if I had the choice of attending an Una Cum or a non Una Cum Mass, I would absolutely choose the non Una Cum. But if an Una Cum Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is my only option for the present time, isn't it better to attend in order to gain the graces from the Mass and receive valid sacraments, than to stay away?
It's a personal choice. But in any case, I find it deeply offensive and at the very least don't join in in saying the name during the parayers. That is my suggesion.
You have the backng of all who seek God when discussing the current Vatican. The mask is now off and those who are against Christ proclaim this loudly.
Too many modernizers have added to or subverted the sacraments. They bring in National issues, syncretic local beliefs, and forget that we worship Chris in their false concern for the feelings of the congregation. Worship is not about us. It is about God.
I like the consequences to clerics for preaching error. We need more anchorite (ordo silentonium) communities: their role is to provide for and contain those in error.
it could not be simpler 👍
“The schism of the Easter “Orthodox” was nothing more than their usual (aptly named) byzantine politics rooted in worldly matters. Keep in mind that until 1054, literally EVERY Christian until then knew and accepted that the Pope in Rome was the ultimate authority on Church matters wherever and whenever a dispute appeared.”
This is simply not true. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the actual title of the person holding that position) is a construct. The Papists should be understood as the first Protestants (“Papal Protestants” if you will).
You're talking nonsense and flat out lying. papal primacy was always there for over 1000 years. Stop making shit up as you byzantines invariably do. Look it up.
You even re-confirmed it at the council of Florence then reneged it again. Once a backstabbing traitor, always a backstabbing traitor.
You made the point that the papal primacy “was always there for over 1000 years.” Was that a typo? Did you mean always or for 1000 years?
There are numerous and obvious examples over centuries of the churches and councils rejecting Rome when she was asserting false doctrines and practices, and rejecting assertions of Papal supremacy and power.
Reading comprehension and for context is a thing. Papal primacy was there for a 1000 years BEFORE the Eastern Schismatics "suddenly" decided it was an issue, is the point.
This is just false. God bless you.
Nonsense. But your side has been lying about everything for centuries. Go on and try and deny the Council of Florence as well or the backstabbing for three crusades in a row next. Schismatics gonna schismatically lie. It's what they do.
You do realize that the Church is over 2000 years old, right?
You do realise Tea originated in China, right? One idiotic non-sequitur deserves another. Especially since if you read the article I expressley stated this. Do you also drool while you try to keep your place with your index finger as you read?
Longtime Follower and Cradle Catholic. Still trying to understand the https://popehead.substack.com/p/eucharistic-miracles. Someone trying to discern the Sede position honestly.
Not sure what is the issue with understanding it?
Is pachama a blasphemy, yes or no? If yes, then you might want to EDUCATE yourself on how a "legitimate" pope could commit such a blatant blasphemy.
Regarding footnote #1:
Please correct me if this is wrong, but the "una cum" portion of the Canon of the Mass is not saying that the Holy Sacrifice is being offered in union with whomever's name is mentioned as the pope. Rather, it is being offered FOR the Church, together with (una cum) the pope, bishop, and all true Catholics. The "una cum" is there to include the pope, bishop, and faithful in the intentions.
That doesn't negate the erroneous choice on the part of the priest of mentioning any of the V2 "clergy" in the Canon. But does it invalidate the Mass? I ask because if I had the choice of attending an Una Cum or a non Una Cum Mass, I would absolutely choose the non Una Cum. But if an Una Cum Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is my only option for the present time, isn't it better to attend in order to gain the graces from the Mass and receive valid sacraments, than to stay away?
Thank you, G.
It's a personal choice. But in any case, I find it deeply offensive and at the very least don't join in in saying the name during the parayers. That is my suggesion.
You're banned for one month for posting your monomania which has nothing to do with the OP. Get help.
You have the backng of all who seek God when discussing the current Vatican. The mask is now off and those who are against Christ proclaim this loudly.
Too many modernizers have added to or subverted the sacraments. They bring in National issues, syncretic local beliefs, and forget that we worship Chris in their false concern for the feelings of the congregation. Worship is not about us. It is about God.
I like the consequences to clerics for preaching error. We need more anchorite (ordo silentonium) communities: their role is to provide for and contain those in error.