Conciliar Church

Conciliar Church · Why Catholic at All, Then? · What About an Inkling Reading Protestant, which I was · And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? · Extra on Helio / Geo

Not linking clickable since I dislike images of broken Rosary
go there on your own risk, I have warned you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK7IM7m8oYw

Sordid quote upcoming under IX (I suppose Hemant Mehta is ignorant, it seems T. Estable appreciated feedback).

I

0:34 No, baptism is not exactly like a vaccine for evil, it is more like a resurrection of a dead, in this case "stillborn", or less dramatically, restoring breath of someone born drowning.

II

1:37 I suppose those baptisms by those priests are suspect of being invalid. If one shed the water and another said the words, it would certainly be so.

In Latin this is less likely to happen. There is such a difference between ego te baptizo and nos te baptizimus you are less likely to pick the wrong one.

Btw, as far as "allowed" is concerned, it is a very clear no. It is clearly illicit.

III

2:03 There were more than one Inquisition, the one you think of, created in the 16th C., is the Roman Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition was founded late 15th, at expulsion of Jews, same year as fall of Granada and discovery of America, 1492.

Less famously, the English Inquisition, by decree of king and parliament, De comburendo heretico or De comburendis hereticis, from 1401. Last heretics burned by it were two baptists in 1611 or 1612 - under the Anglican (with Calvinist tendency) King James.

IV

2:18 No, Galileo was not a heretic, he was gravely suspect of heresy, but cleared himself by abjuring two errors - sun in middle of universe, immobile, earth moving both "in third heaven" above the sun and by a daily motion around itself. After that abjuration, he was not a heretic.

No, these errors are not true.

No observation proves either of them. Atheist and materialist metaphysics leave no other solution, but one should take it the other way round and see Geocentrism as actually observed as a proof of God and angels (moving the universe each dday, and moving individual stars, planets and other heavenly bodies).

V

2:38 Here is the timeline of the renaming:

1908 The Inquisition is renamed Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office by Pope St. Pius X.
1965 The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office is renamed Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith

Note very well, "Holy Office" had also been part of the name earlier. The real renaming was by "Paul VI", Antipope of evil memory. At or after Vatican II (a "council" where they decided to heed that kind of "criticism").

VI

3:03 It's not just it's not OK, it's that it's not a real baptism. Invalid and illicit are two different things in sacrament theology.

They are saying, the baptism with form "we baptise you" are strictly not valid, those who wish for salvation need to be baptised "again" but for real this time, it is not even doubtful, it is strictly proceeding as with unbaptised people.

3:29 Yes, exactly, in each sacrament the one giving the sacrament to the other person is taking on the role of Christ.

VII

6:20 There is one sacrament performed by Matthew Hood which is not invalid, since it does not necessitate the one giving it to be priest or even baptised : baptism.

Two atheists converting in the desert could decide to baptise each other (not if they are man and wife or intending to be so, this would be spiritual affinity and render their marriage incestuous). First one baptises the other, then the other baptises the first. As long as both intend to take on the Christian faith, this is valid.

So, while the confessions and eucharists of Matthew Hood are invalid (I think Pope Michael would agree with the "Inquisition" here), his baptisms are still valid.

T. Estable

Wait, WHAT!? "Render the marriage incestuous"!? XD

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Yes, a person who is getting baptised thereon cannot marry :

• the one baptising him (or her)
• the sponsors

It is called "spiritual affinity" and is one species of marriage impediment due to incest.

VIII

6:34 No, they are not "technically unrepentant" but they certainly need to confess all their sins again.

Note very well, if they confessed the same type of sin several times, the real confession would confess it only once, and say how many times added up over the years or how often for how many years, while confessing invalidly.

6:48 Yes, indeed, every Communion by Matthew Hood's consecration was an invalid one.

IX

7:07 "no Jesus parts"

Jesus is not torn into parts by the Eucharist. The whole body with the blood flowing in His veins is present in each particle.

This is why it is not cannibalism.

T. Estable

How is swallowing someone whole NOT cannibalism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Imagine you were dealing with Marvel comics and antman.

He needs to get inside your guts to do a very sensitive operation a surgeon cannot do to save your life. So he takes his tools, gets smaller, and then steps onto a sandwich you take. He gets really small, so your teeth cannot hurt him.

He doesn't stay trapped in you, but once the surgery is finished comes out alive - is that cannibalism?

No.

Similarily, Jesus is also not hurt by the communion.

T. Estable

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just light vore then. (In all seriousness though, thank you for sharing your interpretation of this.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Light core - no way.

Not even that. You are welcome.

Here is St. THomas on the same matter:

S. Th. III, Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

X

7:21 Last Rites - God can see the intention of the people trying to receive a sacrament, but as to the sacrament itself, no it wasn't there. In the case of Matthew Hood.

XI

9:34 Wait, the "Catholic" archdiocese of Detroit claimed a couple married by him is not married?

In Orthodox theology, it is the priest who confers the sacrament on the couple by the nuptial blessing BUT in RC theology, it is actually the man and wife who confer it on each other (if both are validly baptised) by the nuptial vows.

So, the "archdiocese" (as rejecting the Conciliar Church I don't recognise it quite as such any more than I recognise Lustiger, Vingt-Trois or Aupetit as real archbishops) is using EO theology?

I'm somewhat divided on this, but I think the marriages would be valid, due to what I said.

10:58 - as I said - the priest is not the one conferring the sacrament on the couple, the man and wife confer it on each other.

XII

10:51 In the case of an invalid communion due to invalid orders of the priest, God sees the heart of the one wanting the communion. But of course they missed the real Body of Christ.

XIII

11:31 tertium datur
The intention to receive valid sacraments, even if foiled by circumstances making them invalid, is an intention that counts before God. Saying you don't need the sacraments because they don't matter is exactly the opposite intention before God.

It's like "hey, at least you tried" vs "you couldn't care less, why should I?"

No, people who "have faith" will not be "fine whatever what" that is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent, one of the heresies of Protestantism.

XIV

12:49 Verify - sounds like a good rule with sacraments.

XV

13:07 What's the real problem is that the Conciliar Church has been for decades allowing people who say "we baptise you" to go on acting as priests.

So, Hemant Mehta poses the million dollar question : how many more sacraments are invalid? He could have said, theoretically, in the Conciliar Church, but by a common sociological confusion, he said (or made it in context) "in the Catholic Church".