↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Elijah Yasi Part 1: Answering Ubi Petrus on Papal Infallibility https://youtu.be/MH6HexjLlJ0
Ybarra already answered him on St. Leo’s tome, but after this... consider him done.
Forwarded from IMPERIVM
“If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism. The rest is rhetoric.”
@ImperivmRenaissance
@ImperivmRenaissance
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
What is Divine Simplicity? Divine Simplicity is to say that God is without out parts, has no ability to undergo change, is subsistent being itself and what it means to be. He is pure act [actus purus]. The DDS also says that God is wholly immutable and is…
In order for the identity of essence and existence in God to make sense, essence and existence must be really distinct in created things. Because they are really distinct in created things, essence stands to existence as potency does to act. And because of this, if in God essence and existence were not identical, then there would be passive potency in Him.
Forwarded from Patria & Fides
« Dear son, if you happen to become the King, take care that you possess those qualities befitting of Kings. »
— Saint Louis IX of France
— Saint Louis IX of France
This comment section is extremely one sided. First of all, he did not post the full debate. Second of all, he did not address the points I made about Peter clearly having a position of primacy and that none of the fathers affirm that the Roman church was merely some Presbyterian ecclesiological system with no sense of Petrine primacy. Thirdly, he failed to respond to the claims I made about Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hermas of Rome, Clement, the Clementine homilies, etc.
Oh, and let’s not forget him totally ignoring everything else I said scripturally but instead only decided to respond to Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. His “rebuttal” to my claims in relation to these verses are totally irrelevant and deserved no response, since the rest of what I said clearly affirms the papacy and links to the verses. Now, I say, go listen to my closing statement again to see where he objectively lost. These are clearly not just “nice things said about Peter.” Also, apparently since the word Pope or bishop is used means there was no Pope or bishop who had primacy over the faithful? That is fallacious nonsense.
Another point is that, the reason why I only stuck to certain Fathers was simply because he would not accept anything after the second century for definitive evidence. Thus, not letting me move on to further back up my point, despite me presenting clear evidence; in which he ignored.
You want even see the Orthodox espousing such nonsense that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome and that the Roman episcopate was Presbyterian in nature. Proves how nonsense it is. They don’t even deny Apostolic Secession either, they just have a problem with the claims of Vatican I.
https://youtu.be/5FHkUS6Mvr0
Oh, and let’s not forget him totally ignoring everything else I said scripturally but instead only decided to respond to Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. His “rebuttal” to my claims in relation to these verses are totally irrelevant and deserved no response, since the rest of what I said clearly affirms the papacy and links to the verses. Now, I say, go listen to my closing statement again to see where he objectively lost. These are clearly not just “nice things said about Peter.” Also, apparently since the word Pope or bishop is used means there was no Pope or bishop who had primacy over the faithful? That is fallacious nonsense.
Another point is that, the reason why I only stuck to certain Fathers was simply because he would not accept anything after the second century for definitive evidence. Thus, not letting me move on to further back up my point, despite me presenting clear evidence; in which he ignored.
You want even see the Orthodox espousing such nonsense that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome and that the Roman episcopate was Presbyterian in nature. Proves how nonsense it is. They don’t even deny Apostolic Secession either, they just have a problem with the claims of Vatican I.
https://youtu.be/5FHkUS6Mvr0
YouTube
Discord Papacy Debate Audio
The audio from ModernistsGoToHell and Angloid's debate on the early Papacy. The beginning is cut off so you miss Angloid's opening statement.
Forwarded from Patria & Fides
Saint John Maro, first Maronite Patriarch, codifies Papal Primacy into the statutes of his Maronite Church 350 years before the Schism of 1054.
Forwarded from La Valette Telegram (LV)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#0207
Forwarded from La Valette Telegram (LV)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#0206
Forwarded from Patria & Fides
Some clarifications on « Identitarianism » and personal opinions ⬇️