ITS ALWAYS WITH AN ADULT WOMAN
Become orthodox Christian
Ryan Walker
Luke Howard
So Catholic Church is destroyed too. What’s the answer then? Which of the thousand different forms of sedevacantism is correct?
Nathaniel Brooks
No thanks rabbi
Christian Cook
So? orthodox church also has everything listed
Lincoln Myers
>zero corruption
kek, orthodox priests are reknown for taking heaps of money from the church
Logan Gutierrez
>some catholic practices were pagan in origin
yea we took them and made them not shit
correct
no u
yes
Henry Foster
>heretics get one thing right
wow
Daniel Evans
>archive.is
I'm willing to overlook any and all corruption as long as they are based. Tough luck, pal.
Elijah Flores
That’s a good thing. All they did was baptism a suffering human
Sebastian Watson
I've seen a lot of the anti-NO posts, and they all seem to follow the same logical steps..
> the new order mass is false
> therefore those who follow it are false
> therefore the whole established church is false
> therefore all popes past Benedict XV are false
> therefore church is apostate
> therefore Revelations point to NO church
However, I have a problem with the first step in this argument. It seems that the entire idea that the NO mass is false is based on "The Ottaviani Intervention", a letter written by Cardinal Ottaviani in opposition to Vatican 2:
catholictradition.org
But I find his arguments less than compelling. It appears that his position that the NO mass is invalid is based on....
> thinking that the mass happens in a vacuum, that those who attend mass have no way of understanding doctrine unless it is spoken in the mass each week
> predicting future apostasy based on a lack of doctrinal understanding as a result of changes to the text of the mass
> An attempt to claim that by changing (or removing) specific words from the mass, it breaks the formula that enables the transubstantiation or otherwise breaks the the unbroken communion between God, the Church, and worshipers.
> That St Pius's 1570 binding of the language of the mass perpetually is binding on all future popes.
Having read his entire argument, I find it lacking. Instead, it reads like someone who wants to act as the grammar police, and as one who places more importance on legalism than on the essential purpose of the mass