↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Photo
Muh Nazis were pagan
Forwarded from Fighting for Christendom
Modernism is not Catholicism
Forwarded from Izydor Paracki
Canon ix of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, 623 AD: no meat for a year if you transgress the Lenten fast
Post-V2 Vatican: yeah just abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but no worries if you don't
Post-V2 Vatican: yeah just abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but no worries if you don't
Logos Pilled ///
Message
I’m doing fine, not having any bird products or dairy either. Just fish, bread, rice for dinner, that’s it. And before the gym like an hour and a half after 3pm I just have an apple or banana. Nothing before 3pm.
Look how much society has turned its back on Our Lord, and we expect to get a nice clergy. No!
If you want the Church to be purified of all error and heresy, then go fast, do penance, go to Holy Mass and pray the Rosary. Complaining about bad clergy—which we deserve—is useless and only sparks anger in the soul and produces that which is contrary and displeasing to God.
We know the state of the Church. We all want it to return to her former glory. But complaining about it constantly... what does it do? Nothing. When you see something evil come out of the news, do not let it anger you, rather, let it make you want to pray more. Especially for the Church.
If you want the Church to be purified of all error and heresy, then go fast, do penance, go to Holy Mass and pray the Rosary. Complaining about bad clergy—which we deserve—is useless and only sparks anger in the soul and produces that which is contrary and displeasing to God.
We know the state of the Church. We all want it to return to her former glory. But complaining about it constantly... what does it do? Nothing. When you see something evil come out of the news, do not let it anger you, rather, let it make you want to pray more. Especially for the Church.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Look how much society has turned its back on Our Lord, and we expect to get a nice clergy. No! If you want the Church to be purified of all error and heresy, then go fast, do penance, go to Holy Mass and pray the Rosary. Complaining about bad clergy—which…
Do not always expect nice things to come our way, when you know well and truly the state of the west.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from ✝️ 𝐈𝐧𝐋𝐮𝐱🔥
Abortion is the Antichrist's demonic parody of the eucharist. That's why it uses the same holy words, "This is my body," with the blasphemous opposite meaning.
~ Peter Kreeft
#ProtectTheInnocent #SpiritualWar #DestroyClownWorld
~ Peter Kreeft
#ProtectTheInnocent #SpiritualWar #DestroyClownWorld
Forwarded from IMPERIVM
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
"We belong to the Church Militant; and she is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass her destruction."
~Pope Pius XII
@ImperivmRenaissance
~Pope Pius XII
@ImperivmRenaissance
Ladies and Gentleman...
I present to you the Norvus Ordo
I present to you the Norvus Ordo
Had a discussion with someone about Mary supposedly being co-redemptrix yesterday so I thought I’d post my thoughts on here too:
You cannot hold this position without saying that although the Apostles merely played a role in distributing the graces of redemption, in helping the work of redemption flourish, and so forth, had nothing to do with the act itself. This also goes for the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers in general. Whilst they did not have anything to do with the formal, specific act of redemption itself like Mary, they helped in that sense, and Mary in the sense that she played a crucial role in the mission of redemption and the events leading up to the redemption. In order to be consistent you have to put Mary in the left column before Christ or being in Union with Christ in the act itself, or put her on the right with the Apostles and Fathers.
The Mother of God played a stronger role than the Apostles, of course. I do not deny that. However, she is not to be put on the left side with Christ or instead of Christ. Since Christ alone is the redeemer. The Council of Trent and the Council of Florence are very clear on this. Hence why the title of Mary being the New Eve is actually sufficient, unlike co-redemptrix since it’s a giant loophole in which you have to either: A, address these things, or B, keep arguing in circles and ignoring them.
You can’t can’t give her—not the apostles— that title and ignore the fact that she had nothing to do with the act of redemption itself. The title would cease to be necessary or accurate in any sense, it’s self-contradictory. You can’t argue it without ignoring this. So it just ends up becoming loopy and circular. Redeemer is a word which is synonymous with saviour, Mary had nothing to do with the actual act of Christ redeeming the entire human species. And this title implies that she did help with that, when in reality she only played a crucial role in the events prior; the mission. Not in the ACT. You can’t give her this title and say she didn’t help act in union with Christ to redeem, the title would cease to be itself, so would Mary. She was a helper, as were the apostles. Not a co-‘redeemer.’
It’s exactly like how Eve played a crucial role in the events leading up to the fall, but had nothing to do with the actual act of Adam bringing physical death, suffering, concupiscence, and the absence of sanctifying Grace in infants into the world. Hence the need for Infant Baptism. Romans 5:12 states very clearly that it was directly because of Adam that sin entered into the world, not Eve.
You cannot hold this position without saying that although the Apostles merely played a role in distributing the graces of redemption, in helping the work of redemption flourish, and so forth, had nothing to do with the act itself. This also goes for the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers in general. Whilst they did not have anything to do with the formal, specific act of redemption itself like Mary, they helped in that sense, and Mary in the sense that she played a crucial role in the mission of redemption and the events leading up to the redemption. In order to be consistent you have to put Mary in the left column before Christ or being in Union with Christ in the act itself, or put her on the right with the Apostles and Fathers.
The Mother of God played a stronger role than the Apostles, of course. I do not deny that. However, she is not to be put on the left side with Christ or instead of Christ. Since Christ alone is the redeemer. The Council of Trent and the Council of Florence are very clear on this. Hence why the title of Mary being the New Eve is actually sufficient, unlike co-redemptrix since it’s a giant loophole in which you have to either: A, address these things, or B, keep arguing in circles and ignoring them.
You can’t can’t give her—not the apostles— that title and ignore the fact that she had nothing to do with the act of redemption itself. The title would cease to be necessary or accurate in any sense, it’s self-contradictory. You can’t argue it without ignoring this. So it just ends up becoming loopy and circular. Redeemer is a word which is synonymous with saviour, Mary had nothing to do with the actual act of Christ redeeming the entire human species. And this title implies that she did help with that, when in reality she only played a crucial role in the events prior; the mission. Not in the ACT. You can’t give her this title and say she didn’t help act in union with Christ to redeem, the title would cease to be itself, so would Mary. She was a helper, as were the apostles. Not a co-‘redeemer.’
It’s exactly like how Eve played a crucial role in the events leading up to the fall, but had nothing to do with the actual act of Adam bringing physical death, suffering, concupiscence, and the absence of sanctifying Grace in infants into the world. Hence the need for Infant Baptism. Romans 5:12 states very clearly that it was directly because of Adam that sin entered into the world, not Eve.