Thursday, September 24, 2020

Some people consider Catholicism "Antichrist", they are wrong

Specifically defending here the power of priests to forgive sins:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
6:13 Actually, the Bible does not define blasphemy as claiming the power to forgive sins, but says that Pharisees so defined blasphemy.

But it's obvious that only God has the power to forgive sins as he can only know the hearts of the people or if they've truly repented or not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Apixity The priest who sees a penitent in the confessional - actually hears, rather - who seems to have repented, will absolve that penitent.

If he didn't repent, he did a new sin by fooling the priest and the confession is invalid and sacrilegious.

As for "truly repented" - as opposed to what?

If someone thinks he is repenting, he should go to confession if a priest is available. If he is wrong about himself, the confession will sort things out, usually by making his repentance the real it needs to be before God.

God has promised the priest through the first ten who got this power: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

If I can find my comments to the other nine reasons, I'll link to the video too.

Here are two comment series more from under it, first about "1260 prophetic days = literal years" and then after "wound was healed":

16:37 No opposition to Justinian? 538?

Veremund was an Arian. While Theudis tolerated Catholics, he was an Arian (and did not obey the Pope).

Æscwine of Essex and in Kent Octa or Eormenric were Pagans. So was Cissa in Sussex. Cnebba or Cynewald had just made a pagan invasion in Mercia.

16:46 "when the people were kept in spiritual and intellectual darkness"

Have I heard this evil meme before?

16:49 Oh - the "Dark Ages" ended in 1798?

Not really ... if historians (outside your type of sects) use the word at all, they ended like Carolingian Renaissance to First Crusade.

17:00 Popes had not "dominated" in Europe during most of the two centuries before that.

Also, during the Investiture quarrel, Popes had been persecuted by Emperors. When the Pope received an Emperor at Canossa, the Pope had come there as a fugitive from the same Emperor.

17:13 So, two limits are badly chosen to match a pretended "prophecy".

The 1260 days are literal days.

17:46 The vulnerability and weakness of the papacy had been shown more than once before Berthier.

You know that Boniface VIII died in prison?

18:04 Bergoglio is certainly hoping to get more influence, and he is sacrificing Catholicism for that.

This means, the papacy (even as hijacked by Modernists) does not now hold the kind of power Antichrist will hold for 1260 literal days.

18:36 Palmer was - he has since then died in a motorcycle accident - incoherent.

With a Protest that was "over" why did he stay a Protestant as in an Anglican?

In my own case, at least I didn't do that very long and on top of that as a teen I had perhaps some threats of paternal intervention if I rushed things ... Palmer was no teen.

Bergoglio gave him a burial as of a Catholic bishop. If Bergoglio had died first, Bergoglio would have received a burial as an Anglican "bishop" by Palmer.

One thing that shows Bergoglio was not really Catholic - plus I can answer the question I posed, at least in part : Bergoglio told him to not convert.

Here is a dialogue on Vicarius Filii Dei:

Lea Jazz
Ive heard from my prof that "U" signifies "V" before in roman number so i think your explanation to the 666 is correct.

In Latin the letter "U" didn't exist so it used to be written with a "V" and that's why it's Vicarivs

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Apixity By the Middle ages, V was usually u, except at beginning of words.

Both letters used for both U and V as we use it. Vlixes for Ulixes, auis for avis.

Now, u and i/j were used as Roman numerals.

However, no Pope in the Middle ages used "vicarius filii Dei" as his title.

Some VII Day Adventists have tried to document the usage, and they found one manual on papacy (approved by the Church but as a resumé, not as authoritative teaching). The only uses of "Vicarius filii Dei" in it were quotes from Donatio Constantini in which Constantine termed the then Pope "vicarius et successor (beati) Petri qui fuit vicarius Filii Dei" = "vicar and successor of (Saint) Peter who was vicar of the Son of God".

Popes usually consider themselves as successors but NOT vicars of St Peter, and like him as vicars of Christ. This means, they did not use the title given (or supposedly so, some having disputed Donatio as genuine) by Constantine.

In modern times Paul VI used it twice, but I believe he was an antipope anyway.

No comments: