What does it mean to be a Catholic? Does it mean praying all day long? Does it mean being a hippie? Does it mean being a moral overlord? To be a Catholic means becoming a fine-tuned, highly complex spiritual machine. It means more [and less] than what you mean realize. Also I’ll be answering the question “Did Jesus ever claim to be God?”.  This is a good show for the notice, the convert, the revert, and the seasoned Catholic alike.

  • William Martin

    Great talk Tim!

    • tjhaines

      Thank you brother!!!

  • Kangsta CoasT

    How can we convert through someone who believes hell is empty and promotes mercy as moral indifference which means nobody ever in this earth have committed any mortal sin they’re free to stay Protestants accepting heresies like faith alone and eternal security. That is what this chennel is progressing towards. Full compromise and fluff. On contrary I know how to convert few souls. I simply do damage and oppose heretics. They lead you to the gates of netherworld because they are the netherworld. Don’t be deceived by tin and his fellow apostate sodomites

    • Kangsta CoasT

      Hence the word progressive modernist

      • Kangsta CoasT

        Which is synonymous btw.

        • tjhaines

          They are not synonymous at all. This is basic Church history! And despite my educating you on the matter, you continue REJECTING THE FACTS and instead are adhering to what you want to believe about the terminology, because that is what suits your agenda and fuels your rhetoric. This is how radicals think. You reject the facts, and you reject all substance that shows your conclusions to be erroneous.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            What agenda. My only agenda is to shed light on how you blindly follow the Vatican 2 sect a (Protestant sect) and you modernize the church with hours and hours focusing on vague humanistic identity hence the mascot to suit your interest which is again to modernize and turn the church into the false Antichrist and anti pope home through the transmutation travesty that’s Vatican 2. I will convert you to the truth that there is no pope today. What we have is vacant seat. Heretics can’t be the bishop of Rome. There are many things you have not noticed. Or what sedevacantist Catholics are all about. They are about tradition. Full profession of the faith with no compromise and of course they believe in the primacy of Peter. What you’ve been missing is not that I have an agenda. What you’ve been missing are evidence that Benedict xvi, jp 2, burgolio (Francis) etc are all easily conceived as manifest heretics. Have you heard of Peter dimond or most holy family?

    • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

      Anybody that has watched Vericast at all knows for a fact that Tim does not believe that hell is empty nor does he promote mercy as moral indifference. Quite the opposite actually. You have also revealed your purpose as doing damage, in other words your only purpose here is to disrupt this website. To disrupt and discredit someone who is sincerely and authentically trying to share the truth of the Catholic Church with others. I am going to be blunt. I think you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Hiding behind a façade of what looks to be Catholic in order to disrupt and cause distress for Catholics who are looking to strengthen their faith and increase their knowledge of the Church. That would be the work of the enemy trying to attack the Church from within. I believe that most of the audience of Vericast can easily recognize such tactics but I am going to call it out anyway. For the sake of those who may be new to the website so that they may not be turned away, discouraged or caused to doubt.

    • Foreign Grid

      Brother, excuse me for interrupting but have you ever heard of sensus fidelium or Fr Rippinger? They are a YouTube channel so I think this is up your alley. Fr Rippinger is a reknowned orthodox catholic exorcist and often does talks on demons, spiritual life, and theology. I bring this up because in one such talk he commented that several groups and nations on earth each have their own demon like the Democratic Party. But what was most interesting was that he said the RadTrads have a patron demon as well which is the demon of Criticism.

      Do well to curb these online rants, Ive done it myself to be honest. But I’ve learned this from them: you wont change someone’s mind online. It’s very rare that you can convert someone online. On another note, Ive also listened to the videos by VaticanCatholic but they always struck me as off and left me feeling hopeless, which is something the truth should not do. The Truth should fill even the darkest heart with hope.

      There is only peril for those who do not obey the successor of Peter, no matter what he times are. St Faustina writes ‘Jesus loves obedience most of all’ no matter the kind of person who is in that spiritual authority. Good or Bad, God will use his priests to whom have apostolic succession the authority to bind and loose us, and even more so the papacy.

      What God has made, let not men put asunder.

  • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

    In answering Tina’s question, I think that it might be important to also add that Jesus established that the Church be exclusively tasked with revealing who and what he is. In Matt chapter 16 Jesus asked the question “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answers “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God”. Jesus then affirms that this is the truth and that Peter could have only known it because it had been revealed to him by the Father. The scripture that Tim quotes points to the fact that Jesus did reveal this about himself to his apostles, but he ordained that this revelation then be spoken through the mouth of his Church as the instrument through which Christ is revealed and transmitted throughout history. The answer to the question “Who do you say that I am” cannot be sufficiently answered in the words of a book. The identity of a living God can only be truly transmitted through a living Church.

  • Kangsta CoasT

    Can we agree that I have evidence that Vatican 2 is not Catholic but Protestant and home for the antichrist and antipopes? And more importantly you’re blinded and bandwagonly support all of it. Why obsess over terminologies. It’s the red herring . You obsess on things that mean nothing to the argument that’s what’s a red herring is

    • tjhaines

      “Can we agree that I have evidence that Vatican 2 is not Catholic but Protestant ”
      But then we’d have to agree that you know better than the entire magisterium of the Church, including Pope Benedict XVI, St. John Paul II, Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Burke. I think we can agree that all of those men know what they’re talking about. So for you to say that Vatican II is not Catholic, you first have to openly say that you know better than those men, and in fact that you know better than all of the council fathers. Then we can have that conversation.

      “And more importantly you’re blinded and bandwagonly support all of it”
      Actually I used to not like Vatican II at all until I took the time to actually study it and learn about it from the basis of the theology behind it. This is something that’s been working in my brain for decades, it’s nothing new for me. You, on the other hand, are a loud mouth with a big opinion but no expertise to support it. Your conclusions are drama driven.

      “Why obsess over terminologies.”
      Because that is how Truth operates and that is how theology functions. If you can’t be faithful to the integrity of terminology, you are not qualified to have this conversation or to even have an opinion on the matter.

      “You obsess on things that mean nothing”
      I am attentive to the substance and meaning of things. You are not. The holy faith (Theologically, historically, and philosophically) is far more sophisticated than you, or your radical traditionalist friends, appreciate. Meaning and substance matter, and maintaining the integrity of meaning and substance is REQUIRED, not optional.

      “It’s the red herring ”
      Now you’re talking like an atheist. When you’re pressed to argue the substance of a matter, you call out “red herring”. You would get thrown out of a theology class on the first day of the semester!

      “You obsess on things that mean nothing to the argument”
      Not true. I’m addressing the quality of your arguments, which are built by misapplying terminology and ignoring the substance of the subject matter. You’re building fallacious arguments. I can’t address a fallacious argument, whether it comes from a Catholic, a protestant, or an atheist. All I can do is point out the flaw inherent in the argument.

      My friend, take my advice. The radicals are wrong. Very wrong. And they are doing the work of satan without even realizing it. God is trying to revitalize the Church at her fundamental layers (the laity, in this case), and satan, therefore, is trying to counter that work through division and confusion. You have chosen the wrong side. You have chosen against Jesus and the Holy Church. Jesus spoke very plainly when he said “You are either with me, or against me”. He wasn’t just talking about unity there, he was talking about the scandal of division. If you want to believe that the Church has been compromised, then you are against Jesus, by definition. And that’s fine. Be against Jesus if you want, but keep me out of it, and leave me alone. Thanks

      • Kangsta CoasT

        “But then we’d have to agree that you know better than the entire magisterium of the Church, including Pope Benedict XVI, St. John Paul II, ”

        They are not the magisterium. They are manifest heretics infiltrating the church from within and are quote mockery of the devil against papacy. There are many you don’t knew that is why you are focused on things that don’t matter such as trying to win a conversation with ad hominem. Ad hominem is about assuming something about a person that is nothing like the person to malign and make mockery of a false misperception about him. But since you only knew me online you definitely become a genius of this ad hominem strategy but you can’t win since you know nothing about the heretical infiltrator that is the false Antichrist “magisterium” of the Vatican 2 Protestant sect. Did you know Benedict xvi is worse heretic than burgolio? How about the fact that he endorses condoms. Now I’m gonna ask you to stop quoting and just stop paragraphs or essays that can only amount to ad hominem or red herring. Shall I deliver evidences. Which one do I start. How about this

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-F-TgB2dI

        Notice in that video it prophecize that burgolio will be the last antipope of Vatican 2 counter church sect till it gets destroyed by nukes or whatever tf. It will be over. These are end times.

        “think we can agree that all of those men know what they’re talking about. So for you to say that Vatican II is not Catholic, you first have to openly say that you know better than those men, and in fact that you know better than all of the council fathers. ”

        Early church father’s have nothing to say about the amount of heresies that jp 2, Benedict xvi, burgolio etc you can’t begin to comprehend. They are notorious antipopes. Not only they keep the chair and the primacy of Peter vacant but they make mockery of it by occupying as proven manifest heretics. Again it is you who know nothing so don’t try appealing to my knowledge or any rational thought. What you have are names as a weak and pathetic resort known as “argument from superiority”. That is to say you think these “popes” have made name for themselves and their agenda which then warrants you to undo a person’s contention of em. it means nothing.

        “Actually I used to not like Vatican II”

        But then you’re passive aggressive. If you’re not going to like Vatican 2 then dislike all the way up to the head which is the antipopes. But then you didn’t realize that and ends up accepting not just the child molesting cardenals but the entire spectrum with which manifest heretics are included. This shows your intellectual failure and ill will and it shows you’re a horrible person. You’re evil. Once you acknowledge your guilt only then you can have a valid confession and valid Eucharist. I’m entertain that possibility of converting to heretic like you. You on the other hand can’t convert me into a deceit because you focus and obsess on nothing and things that don’t matter.

        “Your conclusions are drama driven.”

        There’s your pride. You haven’t look into the mountain of evidence all you have are superficial human philosophy and wild conclusions. But those evidence mean nothing unless you realize it is the holy ghost that gives people actual supernatural faith. Such as belief in the holy Trinity for example. Jews reject Trinity moslims. Because these diabolical idiots proposes their ill will and trust in what they can only conceive in their brain. There is nothing supernatural about believing in Allah or yaweh. It is the devil they worship not god the father. Since God wants to be worshiped as one in three persons. But they can’t accept it bcoz it passes the threshold of their physical brain. You’re just a paranoid autistic person if you deny that this issue of Vatican 2 sect is all about superficial conclusions about the theologies. That being said you can use your brain and stop having alternate reality and just deal with the mountain of evidence. You lied .

        “that is how Truth operates and that is how theology functions.”

        Absurd. That is how semantics operates. Most of your theology came from Aquinas who is not infallible. On “balance” or whatever but he’s got tons of errors and I (modern man) will crush him who lives in 11th century with all the information I chose to predispose my brain Into.

        “Meaning and substance matter, and maintaining the integrity of meaning and substance is REQUIRED, not optional.”

        You just blabber non sense to pull yo ass out of the ditch. Can we go back to the subject? Is Vatican 2 infallible? Very simple question.

        “When you’re pressed to argue the substance of a matter, you call out “red herring”. You would get thrown out of a theology class on the first day of the semester!”

        I don’t have to be introduced to superficial strawman philosophy of yours to admit that Vatican 2 is protestantism. It being protestantism is enough. It being conforming to pagan devil enchantments is the other since protestantism counts as heresy and heretics are the gates of hell.

        “All I can do is point out the flaw inherent in the argument.”

        Which flaw is it. It’s me that has pointed out yours. You don’t care about the church’s ailments. Nor can you put yourself on that ivory tower, point fingers and say “sinners, sinners sinners!” Again is Vatican 2 infallible?

        The rest of what you claim are meaningless since I have exposed where they stems from. You know what it is! Apostasy

        • tjhaines

          “They are not the magisterium”
          That officially makes you a heretic as far as I’m concerned, we are done speaking, and you are done commenting. Have a nice day

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “That officially makes you a heretic ”

            Who’s authority is this? Denying antipope jp2 who is the beast who was wounded and healed, the Antichrist, denying Benedict xvi another antipope who condones condoms and teaches that protestantism is not a heresy and that there is no need to convert protestants , denying burgolio etc doesn’t make anyone a heretic. So you can be shut. Now regarding, infallibility of Vatican 2 sect .

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-F-TgB2dI

        • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

          ” Most of your theology came from Aquinas who is not infallible”

          Most of your theology stems from discussions between theologians concerning the possibility of a heretical pope. They are all merely opinions and not infallible as well. Although some respected saints have expressed opinions that might uphold these ideas they have never officially become part of the magisterial teachings of the Church. Nothing of what you say concerning the a vacant seat due to a heretical pope has ever been taught in a magisterial document of the Church nor has any of it been addressed in cannon law.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “Although some respected saints have expressed”

            They are canonized . They expressed that you don’t need any authority to know weather a person is manifest heretic, you just need to have valid profession of the faith to know an antipope is ipso facto excommunicated without any need for authoritative declaration. Plus v2 antipope rejects Vatican 1 infallible doctrines

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            On the one hand you say that St. Thomas Aquinas (a canonized saint and doctor of the Church) was not infallible and that he in fact had tons of errors and that you could crush him. On the other hand you say that the saints who expressed the opinions about heretical popes were “canonized”. You can’t have it both ways.

            “They expressed that you don’t need any authority to know weather a person is manifest heretic, you just need to have valid profession of the faith to know an antipope is ipso facto excommunicated without any need for authoritative declaration.”

            Again, although they may have held those opinions they remain just that, opinion based on hypothesis and theory. These ideas, however, have never become part of the official teaching of the Church nor has the Church ever made provision for them in canon law. You are never going to be able to back that up because it just ain’t so.

            Plus v2 antipope rejects Vatican 1 infallible doctrines

            That is just plain categorically untrue and you are going to have to present something more then your inane babbling to back up that accusation. Which by the way it is an extremely grave matter to make the accusations you are making against Councils and Popes. .

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “theology stems from”

            The theology was actually very simple and doesn’t need further confusion like what vericast fuels in his ignorant human apostasy or pursuits

            It goes like this

            Can we agree that a person kissing Koran, drinking from the chalice of pagan or aka devil worshippers, can that person be a Catholic? If your answer is yes (and your answer will be yes once I told you that person was the beast Antichrist know as jp2 “wounded” as fulfilled in revelation) then I’ve proven that you have done nothing but schism or mere defense of those expelled anti Popes.

            But it didn’t end there as there are other antipopes.

            That would mean you accept that a guy saying that protestants don’t need to convert and calls protestantism as ,”NOT a heresy”, and claiming stuff such as the roman papacy being merely EQUAL to the Eastern orthodox, you would still that guy a catholic just because he has a name that says “Benedict” heck anyone can wear his own roman numeral with a mouth guard btw

            Not only you would conclude such heretical actions actually keeps em in being Catholic but you will defend these folks are bishop of Rome and just allow souls to be put to pardition that’s not advancing the good that’s omission or better yet apostasy.

            “You are never going to be able to back that up because it just ain’t so.”

            But it’s not a rigorous claim like yours. You keep these manifest heretics and uphold them as pope and Catholic which can’t be supported by valid magisterium. It’s basic theology and as I said there are abundance of documents on ipso facto expulsion of heretics so bringing up those are hardly any challenge. I just summarize it for you. You have refuted your argument. You say it would expose my credibility in holding indefectibility but that shows the opposite. It upholds it. For if you say that those men are your Popes you also claim that a pope can teach anticatholic defectible dogma and promote false eccumunism and infiltrate the church. But if indefectibility is right then I’m right and you’re not with us the valid Catholic position. And the holy ghost does protects the church from these antipopes and would exclude it from her automatically or ipso facto

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            Actually, you do not make an argument of indefectibility. Indefectibility means that not only does it not fail, but that it does not end or decay. The Baltimore Catechism says that it means that it will last to the end of time. The Catechism also says that the attributes of authority, infallibility and indefectibility are “found in their fullness in the Pope, the visible Head of the Church, whose infallible authority to teach bishops, priests, and people in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “Indefectibility means that not only does it not fail”

            Again. If you accept folks that claim that all human is god, no one’s in hell because Christ sacrifice saved all and no one actually needs to work out one’s salvation in fear and trembling, “the no hell” pope etc. (And Again do your research as oppose to blogging), you will find that it’s you that wrongly quoting Baltimore whatever the heck that passage and I have all the documents to support indefectibility by means of ipso facto expulsion of manifest heretic. This is treating Christ’s body as mystical and something that will still exist though as a remnant or aka few who are saved. And let me split the church into the real division

            A. Church militant

            B. Church triumphant

            Other than that, protestants who rejects papal primacy, rejects works, accepts sola fide etc. They are outside the church. They can’t be multiple 40, 000 church triumphant sects. If you accept Vatican 2 then you support Benedict xvi that 40, 000 protestant shave offs belongs to the one visible church or burgolio saying that Roman papacy is meaningless or invalid. But you don’t know anything nor what ails the church. You act as if you’re almost like being visited by extra terrestrial.

            “You are afraid that it means that the power of sin is stronger and can than destroy the Church.”

            what that passage means is that a pope or anyone may commit mortal sin and still be in the church. However your proposals are empty of relevance in what we’re dealing with. heretics can’t be pope plain and simple. Heresy is denial of the faith and therefore ipso facto ceasing to be Catholic and this you’re the ones claiming that heretics are not only Catholics but bishops of rome. So your problem is not compatible. It’s foreign or forensic.

            “To say that the Church has been without a visible head for a very long time because the sin of the men”

            This is rhetoric. As oppose to a challenge. I will repeat. Mortal sin does not exclude a person in the church. It’s the denial of the faith itself. How does Hitler goes from Catholicism to atheist? Did it require declaration. Did the pope say, “I now authoritatively declare that Hitler is cut off and severed from Christ’s mystical body”. NO! It simply did not require anything. Simply rejection of faith destroys someone and cut off. By your logic I have to have the burden of proof despite showing the v2 antipopes manifest heresy. Pure schism.

            “bring me all the evidence that you want”

            I sure could but it would be ludicrous to do it in this self serving site. You’re gonna have to seek the truth about it yourself.

            “of a lack of impeccability”

            Certainly not impeccability as I made clear mortal sinners are still in the church however it’s heresy that throws you out. So it’s not a matter of proving impeccability. It’s a matter if manifest heresies denial of faith

          • Foreign Grid

            You forgot the Church Penitant which is our brothers and sisters in Purgatory.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “You forgot the Church Penitant which is our brothers and sisters in Purgatory.”

            What is the point of bringing that up. How does this affect the issue. Here’s the question. It is actually an infallible dogma that non baptized infants goes to hell but undergo a punishment of a different kind. They go to a place where there is no fire. But that’s not purgatory. You’re condemned by the infallible magestirium if you deny that. It’s a word called “anathema”. likewise you’re just deceived if you think purgatory is a form of punishment against the enemies of God but it’s actually not. It’s a form of purification for God’s friends who made it and certainly not if you die a heretic. That would exclude you from even purgatory

          • Foreign Grid

            Ik… That was the point in me saying you forgot… Because we’ve heard all that you have to say before. Agree with it or not.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            Your argument destroyed by this 2 minute clip

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMJMBL0yeo

          • Kangsta CoasT

            Your whole holy ghost protects the antipope dilemma settled in this debate dismantling a sh8cago archdiocesan apologist

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0l5g0gbjag

            You can go up to part 5

          • tjhaines

            @kangstacoast:disqus
            “The theology was actually very simple and doesn’t need further confusion”
            That is specifically the argument of the schismatic orthodox Churches. It’s word-for-word what they say when they’re backed into a corner on their divergent theology, in contrast to our consistent theology. When they don’t know how to answer, they say that the Catholics are in error, because we complicate the theology. They’ve been staying that since the era of their arian roots. So Congratulations, you have added “schismatic” to the list of anti-Catholic characteristics you embody.
            “Can we agree that a person kissing Koran…”
            That was a book of the gospels written in Syriac.
            “drinking from the chalice of pagan or aka devil worshippers”
            This allegation is a lie and a twist of facts, and relies on the ignorance of the reader for it’s false-authority.
            So I want to point out again for the rest of the readers that Sede Vacantists base their arguments on lies, and nonsense. This sede vacantist rejects Aquinas, does not research his own claims, uses lies and deceptive rhetoric to form arguments. He also presents himself as some expert in theology and Church history. But when he’s called out on the objective flaws in his arguments, he says that “the theology is very simple”; the implication being that everybody else—including theologians—are misinterpreting the theology, but he himself is interpreting it correctly. Well just look at the quality of the composition of his comments, and ask yourself if you really believe he is in possession that kind of intellectual and academic prowess.
            Sede Vacantists hijack and exploit the property of the Church mind in order to fabricate credibility, and manufacture validity. But they are neither valid nor credible. They are desperate liars and con artists.
            Pray for the Church.

          • tjhaines

            @vickieknapparmstrong:disqus Somehow it doesn’t shock me that @kangstacoast:disqus does not honor the material arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology on the basis of “he’s not infallible” lol. Yet the magisterium IS infallible, and he rejects its authority. He also ignores the fact that Aquinas theology has been endorsed by the “pre vatican-2” magisterium, which is why he’s a doctor of the Church. So he’s rejecting material endorsed by the magisterium he claims to honor. You just can’t win with a sede. They’re guided by satan, and so their reasoning is confused, and they are always lead to rejection of Truth in both substance and material.

        • DAVID NOLAN

          I don’t know any other way to say this, but the tone of what you are saying is missing the component of the holy spirit brother.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “the tone of what”

            The tone of Vatican 2 is the either effeminate and/or modernized. The tone of true remnant traditional Catholicism is like one’s who’s built overcoming the gates of hell that keeps pressing. The church is under attack from outside like a castle shot by arrows. However, the real battle is from infiltrators mascotting as vericast network. I will still build some Brooklyn bridge to try to convert him to sedevacantist. But there’s fineline between that and just tolerance. Since Vatican 2 accepts gays and allow them communion in the hand , they are persecuting them as oppose to charity. True charity is through spiritual violence. The ripping off once sinful concupiscence etc. Though I will say this, tin comes across as highly amiable person even more than voris. But that is what makes these little false conservative wings of the Vatican 2 even more deceptive and almost impossible for average Joe to spot. As tin refutes himself,

            “niceness doesn’t save souls”

            Tin is a nice speaker but that’s not making him any more holy ghost inspired than other heretics

          • tjhaines

            Let me be as clear as I can. In a thousand lifetimes you will never convert me to sede vacantism. Folks have tried 20 or so years ago, and they nearly succeeded but ultimately failed. They did not succeed because I continued to find logical and factual flaws in their arguments, and they could never offer a logically sound or substantial response to questions I put to them, based on my research of the documents they themselves used to form their arguments. In other words:
            1. They lacked mastery of their own evidence which is positively embarrassing in any intellectual enterprise.
            2. Their arguments were atrocious on the basis of facts and simple reason.
            3. Their arguments were not logically consistent
            4. Lies—not just mis-truths, but all out LIES—were the material of some of their most important arguments.
            Sedes have tried like hell to convert me and they failed. And those sedes were a lot better at their con game than you are, so you surly won’t succeed where they failed.
            You are mean spirited, snide and smug, filled with rage, you are vile with your insults, your reasoning is fantastically confused. Furthermore, I un-blocked you and asked you very nicely to be respectful of others. Instead you grew more disrespectful, crass, and harsh. All of these things are not signs of someone guided by the Holy Spirit, they’re signs of a person under demonic influence. I see the signs all over your comments. Sede Vacantism comes from satan, as an effort to directly countermine the work of the Holy Spirit who is actively preparing the Church (starting with the laity) for a great war. Satan is using sedes and other radicals to bring division and fear where the Holy Spirit is trying to bring unity, peace and holy resolve. You are not an ally of the Holy Spirit. I tell you that you are a son of the devil and you do your father’s bidding. Turn away from your error. Be an ally of the True Church, not of the imposter “church” of Sede Vacantism, which mocks and insults the Mystical Bride of our Lord in service to satan. The True Church will be victorious. That is a guarantee. Which side will you be on when that happens? Right now you’re on the wrong side. That’s something for you to think about and pray on. God be with you, and may His Holy Spirit guide you.

    • Foreign Grid

      Do you even know what the term ‘anti-pope’ means? Because technically throughout history it meant a pope who was not elected by the college of Cardinals.

      • Kangsta CoasT

        It applies to invalid hiring of the manifest heretic. If vericast network is correct about antipopes he considered as “establishment” then it destroys Vicky kidnapped’s conclusion that holy ghost protects the church from such infiltrators. The church would exist with an empty seat and even as a remnant. But it will still be visible. This is why the church cannot be destroyed. It exists as a mystical body also.

        • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

          Have you read Mystici Corporis Christi, the encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Mystical Body of Christ. I have. I have read the whole thing and not just bits and pieces. Do you know that he writes in there that Christ is the head of the Church and that the Vicar of Christ is the visible head. That they are not two heads but that Christ and his Vicar constitute one head.

          40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden [59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the “little flock” [60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

          You also will read that it is error to believe that you can have a visible Church without it’s visible head. You will read that Christ would not leave his Church without a visible head. You can also assume that because Christ and his Vicar constitutes one head that the Pope is protected through this relationship. Pope Pius says this directly here.

          50. Christ enlightens His whole Church, as numberless passages from the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers prove. “No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him”[82] Coming as a teacher from God [83] to give testimony to the truth [84] He shed such light upon the nascent apostolic Church that the Prince of the Apostles exclaimed: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life”; [85] from heaven He assisted the evangelists in such a way that as members of Christ they wrote what they had learned, as it were, at the dictation of the Head. [86] And as for us today, who linger on in this earthly exile, He is still the author of faith as in our heavenly home He will be its finisher.[87] It is He who imparts the light of faith to believers; it is He who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion. Finally, it is He who, though unseen, presides at the Councils of the Church and guides them

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “they are not two heads”

            I hear a lot of Pius movements including sspx whatever. There have been 40 antipopes throughout 300 “elects” not all are valid. So what is the point of trying to be deceived that antipopes are true? I care not to read hearts I care about noticing the fruits of heretical works. Just bcoz vericast came across as “nice” guy doesn’t make him the authority. Obviously I prove he cares about humanistic philosophy more than tradition or supernatural faith. Vatican 2 teaches that Jews are saved outside the church. Council of Florence teaches Jews are reprobates and if they die outside the water regeneration they are eternally reprobated. I don’t get which points did I brought up that you thought you may have swat. I’m only speaking on behalf of those who accepts the infallible magestirium and certainly not Vatican 2 which rejects that Jews are reprobates. So you can’t hide that error.

            “But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden”

            I said the church is visible even if as a remnant. And that heretics can’t be pope. Only the Popes that upholds the infallible magestirium are one with christ. But since Vatican 2 don’t even accept the infallible teachings it is not a valid council. How does v2 upholds the infallible council, “outside the church there is no salvation”. By teaching that protestants are in the same airplane and doesn’t need conversion? Be teaching communion in the hand? By teaching communion to none Catholics? By celebrating dorito chip and clown masses? It goes On and on. Way to be one head with christ. Your quote mine doesn’t obey the very principle tin preaches as a false conservative.

            “Meaning and substance”

            “Finally, it is He who, though unseen”

            I just told you that I didn’t believe in invisible church. I believe in a visible church that is reduced to remnant but still exist with those antipopes excluded. And that heretics don’t need authoritative declaration just like Hitler when he was baptized Catholic as an infant didn’t need any declaration by the popes to be deemed outside the church, cut off and reprobated. He only need to be seen as heretic. How is this? It’s when he said that Christianity is a disease and the same as all religions

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            I hear a lot of Pius movements including sspx whatever.

            I know, Elwood, there were a lot of Pius’s and it is hard to keep them all straight. Pius does not hold the record, however, I think John does with 23. But I digress.
            The SSPX is Pope Pius X. There is another society Pope Pius V. They are known as traditionalist groups. The Pope I quoted was Pope Pius XII. Who according to most sedevacantist was the last valid Pope and the Chair of Peter has been empty since his death in 1958. I wouldn’t think that you blow him off as easily as you did. But then I don’t think you have a high regard for any of the Popes even those before Vatican II. It sounds like you come dangerously close to considering the Pope to hold merely an office of supervision and guidance,
            So, Elwood, here is my question. If Pope Pius XII was the last valid pope, then his cardinals would be the last validly elected cardinals. All of those cardinals have died. So how is the Church then going to be able elect a valid Pope in the future

  • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

    The Baltimore Catechism was taught before Vatican II. In that catechism we are told that the Church has 3 attributes: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. We are told in the Baltimore Catechism that “By the authority of the Church I mean the right and power which the Pope and the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have to teach and to govern the faithful.” We are also told that the Church cannot err because “Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible” Yet you are saying that Vatican II did not carry the authority of the Pope and the Bishops that attended it, that the Church erred and defected at Vatican II. The danger of calling into question one Council of the Church is that it then questions the authority, infallibility and indefectibility of all the other Councils. You can’t have it both ways. Either all the Councils are an exercise of the Magisterium and possess the 3 attributes of the Church or none of them do. Yes the Church has the authority to teach and govern but not always. Yes, the Church is infallible and indefectible but it wasn’t at Vatican II. It doesn’t work that way. If we can only rely on those three attributes some of the time and not others then they is no reason to expect that we can rely on the Truth of the Church at all.

    • Kangsta CoasT

      “Yes, the Church is infallible and indefectible but it wasn’t at Vatican II. It doesn’t work that way”

      You’re not familiar with the sedevacantist position nor what indefectibility teaches. A real Sedevacantist wouldn’t argue that the primacy of Peter nor apostolic succession would fail but rather the accidental antipope who’s manifest heritic would be automatically and exofacto excommunicated from that authority and there fore the church would still exist but the chair of Peter would be vacant and since you knew nothing about the countless of heresies that the Vatican 2 antipope and how they fit the end times. Secondly is how you interpret indefectibility. If this is how to interpret indefectibility, then the chair would never be vacant and Peter the first pope will still be the pope today as he never have to leave the chair. Now the body of christ which would be the church, that body was allowed to fail, that body was crushed by the weight of the cross on its shoulders after having been whipped and then he dies. No one can say that the seat of Peter wasn’t vacant by time before resurrection and Christ body gets pumbled into submission. Hence Sedevacantist doesn’t argue that the church fails. It argues from the perspective of how any pope not just Vatican 2 can lose any authority exo facto or aka automatic excommunication just by being manifest heretics. And yet heresy is the second worst sin next to apostasy. Heretics are the gates of hell. One can not just lose any authority but be outside the body or member of the church through it without any declaration. If you do a yt search you will find mountain if information to refute your false views.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMCUbkLYPs

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce3kEZVF5AM

      • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

        Well, that was some nonsensical ramblings right there.

        I would like to point out that you site youtube videos, websites and even individuals but you do not site any sources that carry the authority of the Church to back up your arguments. You give no scripture references, you give no reference from any teaching documents nor do you reference any catechisms…even those from before Vatican II. Therefore nothing that you say has ever been part of the teachings of the Catholic Church or truly part of tradition. You argue from the position of fear concerning the insufficiency of human beings rather than from the position of faith in the sufficiency of God’s grace. I believe in the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit and in the promises of Christ that say that the Church is protected from the very things that you propose.

        • Kangsta CoasT

          “you give no reference from any teaching documents”

          The burden of proof isn’t on the sedevacantist the burden is on those who support the manifest heritics. Did you know Benedict xvi denies many Vatican 1 infallible teachings. So I sure have many infallible doctrines on my side since I’ve proven the defectibility of the antipopes and Antichrist. All one might need to do is either open ones eyes or flat out leave their schisms all together

          “believe in the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit and in the promises of Christ that say that the Church is protected”

          That would impose the sedevacantist position not yours. Since the Vatican 2 antipope were thrown out of any authority and outside the church, she is protected from further abuse and there by I’m right

          • tjhaines

            “The burden of proof isn’t on the sedevacantist ”
            Oh yes it is. Because the sedevacantist is the one trying to refute an establishment. Here again you talk like an atheist. You are living proof that sedevacantism comes from satan.
            “So I sure have many infallible doctrines on my side”
            But you don’t, because you apply the term “infallible” incorrectly. All sede vacantists do. Anything you want to be absolutely true, you just call “infallible” and binding, and treat it accordingly, even if it isn’t actually infallible or binding. Remember how I said you talk like a theologian but you actually sound/reason like a CCD student? Just sayin’
            Also, the Church has not departed from the infallibility and authority of teachings/doctrines throughout time. So once again, the burden is on you to present an argument that solidifies your position. All you’re doing is blabbering. You aren’t citing anything, you’re only alluding to citations. And AGAIN, that is exactly what atheists do.
            I have unblocked you because I did not realize that blocking someone hides their comments. I didn’t want to hide your comments, so I unblocked you, so that your comments would be public again. If you continue to abuse the comments feature I’ll block you again, and I won’t care if it hides your comments. So please be rational, logical, and respectful, and please be concise. Failing to live up to these very basic standards will result in your being blocked. Thanks.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “an establishment.”

            You poor deceived fagbag. You only begin in thinking antipopes can be “establishment”. If that’s the case, you assume heretics can be Pope’s. But indeed they are not. And therefore the seat is vacant. the root word for sedevacantism which is the real position that true genuine concerned Catholics should pose . And you’ve been caught being a sidekick in three of five years and the rest are just being garbage time compiler. All you do is increase the level of scraps. from bricks you pile up let me rebound em.

            “from satan.”

            this is red herring. How do you demonstrate that? Who’s authority. I’m gonna use same fallible argument and turn it 180 degrees apply it to the right medium (you), and only then it’s converted to infallible. It’s you. The more I expose the more I see that you defend apostasy which is from Lucifer and heresy which is from Lucifer. Which ever poison. Why don’t you admit you’re wrong tin the foil 😂 what’s at stake? Your silly misapplication of Aquinas philosophy? Balance don’t apply on compromise spectrum of cruel things such as supporting the antipopes. Meanwhile I have both canonized saints and infallible magisterial documents that are not misused and are simply specific to the issue. And that’s how meaning and substance work. Not having the audience led astray by misused philosophy of some fallible non binding caveman off of middle ages

            “CCD student”

            Exactly what is accepted student. How does this enhance your adhominem and red herring? You apply misused philosophy so I guess that makes you the ccd student ROFL

            “very basic standards”

            There were no standards in exposing you then hitting post. What argument is this. The only standard here is you do your research and find that you hold a compromised flawed position that heretics can be popes. Again it is well documented focus on that. Not trying to wait on quotes

            “being blocked.”

            That’s your last resort since you don’t meet my standards and admit heretics can’t be popes. heretics like you can’t lead such a layman audience which your blessed that I’m not lay and yet I support this secularist show by pointing out the secular infection in it. I am trying to heal your ailment Mr old head. I feel 25 year old again . rejuvenated now. Good luck

          • Foreign Grid

            Bro what are you trying to accomplish

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “Bro what are you trying to accomplish”

            vericast network or aka tin foil is the ones that should answer that. He doesn’t have the fullness of the true remnant faith. He eats chewing gum, whilst doing a reaction clip about false eccumunism on the Eucharist. Complete apostasy . plus I heard he just committed mortal sin of drinking shots of vodka. This is modernism which he would consider “balance”. He accepts antipope and the heretical Vatican 2 sect protestant

          • Foreign Grid

            It’s not a mortal sin to drink in moderation… It’s not an act of virtue, but it’s definitely not a sin. Much like eating a donut. After all we can cite Jesus and His apostles drinking wine in jovial amounts for a week long wedding in the Bible.

            And what does chewing gum have to do with heresy?

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “It’s not a mortal sin”

            I don’t have to prove weather it’s a mortal sin since as stated by the saints we are not endowed with ability to read hearts however I will have to include and indeed it’s included that their fruits are easily knowable just by looking at the situation. First he noted that he was feeling angry about God and all the self pity. He was drinking the vodla which I consider as an act to glorify Lucifer and tell how this is so. Yep indeed. It acts as chalice of devil same with the footage we saw how Antichrist John paul 2 drinks from cup of pagan
            Henceforth as the genius as I am to decode what’s being fruited forth. I easily desern tin foil as manifest heretic and outside the church. Notice how you would be considered a criminal the moment you oppose this self serve network

          • Foreign Grid

            St Gemma Galgani herself drank 1 glass of wine as a dinner for awhile for her health though?

          • Foreign Grid

            “Notice how you would be considered a criminal the moment you oppose…”
            Brother, people will call you out anywhere if you come in and act uncharitably towards the host of the show and start throwing out grotesqueries and bad words towards people who reply to you.

            I recall you once calling Tim a ‘fagbag’?

          • Kangsta CoasT

            He calls me a ccd student firsthand

          • Foreign Grid

            And?

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “eye for an eye”
            That was not how I was competing with the lying deceiver. What I was doing is trying to bump the heretic to a hedge stone so he can realize he’s wrong and convert.

            “turn the other cheek.”

            It applies to him as the arrogant one. You don’t know how terrible person and evil. let me give an example. A sodomist addict thinks he’s a good person by calling himself an “addict”. Well I’m sry but that doesn’t justify any homo acts. What would you say to the person to convert. Would you just pat him in the back and say, “it’s ok being gay and sodomy as long as you’re accepted”. But the thing is he’s not a good person and he’s immoral. likewise tin is evil by insulting despite the fact I exposed him as heretic. Out of the seven deadly sins Pride is the ones that keep some one from getting valid contrition much more perfect ones which gets you state of grace and straight to heaven. None of these things are ccd style he’s dumb and imbecilic

          • Kangsta CoasT

            It’s behaviors that are direct result of his subscription to modernism. Notice how he misapplies the theological fallacy of “balance” a human philosophy introduced by Aquinas not as a doctor of the church but on behalf of the other fallible humanistic philosophies he made in the middle ages. It’s fairly similar to the yin yang doctrine that the heretical religion buddhism introduced to the world. Yin yang states that good is equal to evil. Christianity teaches good is superior to evil just like one flicker of candle light exposed the whole entire room whilst you’ve never seen dark envelops and conquer any light. Yin yang teaches every human must not be totally good and must have evil and likewise totally evil people cannot exist and therein lies the notion that something good must be called for even that guy Hitler or whoever. Christianity preaches to be perfect for the farther is perfect. One mortal sin can fall you short and totally reprobated. It preaches no one is good except the father in heaven. “Why do you call me good, only the father in heaven is good.” The Lord goes on to say, “ye are your father the devil, the offsprings of the serpent” (talking snake that deceived Adam). Tin is totally misusing or glorifying such fallible Aquinas philosophy. He is not ordained. You can’t confess nor be saved by his power to forgive sins. He’s got nothing but self serving philosophy.

            “And what does chewing gum have to do with heresy?”

            It’s connected to reaction segment of the one hour video, “triumph of truth”. You didn’t even watch the video so why sway me like anathema for pointing that. He was reacting to the priest who preaches to the public that Jesus has many subjective natures. But that is heretical since it is taught that Christ’s human nature does not conflict with his divine nature. He has unconfused dual natures. And he supports that more likely Vatican 2 priest who more likely taught communion in the hand and other heretical acts against Eucharist such as non Catholics reception. I’m exposing the retards greatly

          • Foreign Grid

            It seems to me you are looking for ghosts that are not there. By balanced reasoning we don’t mean the balance that is refrenced in Buddism. By it, we mean what ancients call “The Golden Mean” which is a philosophical theory that has been developed over the millenia with regards to virtue and extremist philosophies such as fascism v communism, oligarchy v democracy, hard left v alt-right, modernist v radtrad, etc.

            Re: Triumph of Truth

            That was released like a year ago man xD you can’t expect me to recall something from that long ago that you vaguely mentioned. But to your point I don’t recall the priest preaching that. I think he was talking about how Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. He is the new Adam, the new Davidic king, etc according to scripture and prophecy.

            Re: Tim is not ordained…

            So if Tim were a priest, then would that make his argument valid? A priest was is apart of this network too though so…

            “I’m exposing the retards greatly”
            You say you are, but honestly…

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “It seems to me you are looking for ghosts ”

            Do you mean ghost in a sense that are not worth pursuing? but since it’s the secularist that make it seem they are WORTH pursuit you can’t have it both ways. What I have is trying to convert by means of spiritual damage. It’s not through tolerance. Accepting gays for example as quote and quote previous Jewel of Christ doesn’t convert homosexuality. This is contrary to eg when David said, “create on me oh God a pure heart” or the passage, that implies the destruction of your sinful nature, and the putting on of a new man, “put on the new man” by doing spiritual violence to the person/s. Also a counter to the false interpretation of “judge not”. On some other infallible passage it was saying that if you can judge an angel how much more judgement you can cast towards the surface of the earth. likewise by the judging of vericast, the video he made on , “triumph of truth” he is more likely talking about the importance of tolerance. That we must inflict pain to Christ. In this instance it’s the church he several. And again if you believe in Vatican 2, it teaches that all men are saved. That we must tolerate one another’s differences. This is religious indifferentism to the max. It destroys Vatican 1 infallible doctrines. For instance council of Florence says, if anyone says an unbaptized infants are saved let him be anathema. or that Jews are reprobates. Which means rejected by God. Vatican 2 on the other hand teaches that Jews and get saved outside the church and are god’s people. Do you know that practicing Judaism is a here’s and in the same Antichrist way that Christ didn’t came in the flesh yet. There is many that comes to mind as ghosts you may never heard about. So surely we must pay attention to those. It’s not that were tearing down it’s the fact the threat of hell is how the church has always gone about very first hand to prevent ppl to perdition. Tolerance is never how the church operates except Vatican 2 antipopes and there are about 40 antipopes out of 300 plus elections.

            “fascism v communism, oligarchy v democracy, hard left v alt-right, modernist v radtrad, etc.”

            Tin hardly used any of those in example. But this argument is red herring. Since I know acceptance of antipopes is a sign of imbalance

            “That was released like a year ago ”

            Now what. He sums up how he goes about this apostolate. the we shouldn’t judge or tear down, he criticizes black lives American flag etc all are red herring since it’s not helping you accept the fullness of true remnant faith. You have to be sedevacantist as oppose to supporting antipopes with vague lies

            “He is the new Adam, the new Davidic king, etc according to scripture and prophecy.”

            It deals with opposites. it deals with tolerance and love without return back to god it’s piercing god and inflicting damage to the church with those whole false eccumunism of Vatican 2 counter church. Do you know what started the communion in the hand? The communion by non Catholics, Doritos “Eucharistic” celebration. But tin does not want you to focus on ugly head reared. He just wants to get along with those and stay as a false conservative wing of Vatican 2 counter church. I have a full video talking about guys like him who’s got a “nice apostolate” thing going. Voris for instance.

          • Foreign Grid

            *cracks knuckles*

          • Kangsta CoasT

            So have you watched the video?
            Tin is highly amiable just like voris. But they are both deceptive false conservative wing of the Vatican 2 counter church. They just don’t want you to figure that out. So they play the nice mascot game. Here’s an example of how to expose such false conservative

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZlHLtkPc8

          • Foreign Grid

            Part 1: (Parts 2&3 to come later)

            “Do you mean ghost in a sense that are not worth pursuing?”

            No I mean you are looking for things that aren’t there.

            “but since it’s the secularist that make it seem they are WORTH pursuit you can’t have it both ways.”

            Wut?

            “What I have is trying to convert by means of spiritual damage. It’s not through tolerance. Accepting gays for example as quote and quote previous Jewel of Christ doesn’t convert homosexuality. This is contrary to eg when David said, “create on me oh God a pure heart” or the passage, that implies the destruction of your sinful nature, and the putting on of a new man, “put on the new man” by doing spiritual violence to the person/s. Also a counter to the false interpretation of “judge not”.”

            People seek acceptance, especially the broken and outcasted which for the most part is what these people are. The sins of the past generations are the suffering of the present, and I think our youth is getting radically distorted in their sexual identity because of the sins/propaganda/bloodshed of the past. But the secularist way is love without truth which is not love at all. Truth cannot be separated from love because they are one in the same.

            But what a lot of people on the radical traditionalist side, and what I think you are doing now, is putting forth their convictions (or Truth) without love. And since love cannot exist without truth without dissonance, it becomes cruelty. And that, is what pushes people away.

            I technically agree with the latter part of your statement, and so does Tim. I think everyone here can agree that our #1 goal should become pleasing to God, which is to become saints.

            And we are not to judge souls, but we can judge actions. For example, it’s possible that St Padre Pio accidentally steps on your toes the other day or says something you take to be ‘heretical.’ You can’t automatically say “Oh yes, he is a grievous evil sinner and is hellbound and God looks down on him” because first of all, we do not know his soul or his intentions. But what you can say is “that shouldn’t be done.” Plain and simple.

            “On some other infallible passage it was saying that if you can judge an angel how much more judgement you can cast towards the surface of the earth.”

            Wut?

            “likewise by the judging of vericast, the video he made on , “triumph of truth” he is more likely talking about the importance of tolerance. That we must inflict pain to Christ.”

            What video did you watch? (Im asking because I don’t see that at all)

            Here’s my two bits. I think Christ is trying to help you, but I don’t think you are listening to Him. If you keep rejecting His attempts to help you, it will end very badly. I know because it happened to me as well. He tried to help me but though I was in the Catholic fold I rejected Him and things went downhill until I allowed him to help me.

            “In this instance it’s the church he several. And again if you believe in Vatican 2, it teaches that all men are saved.”

            Actually it doesn’t. It teaches that all men CAN be saved, and the distinction is key. God is not limited by his sacraments. Except it also teaches, there is no salvation outside the catholic church or without baptism #straight from the catechism. It sounds contradictory but it’s not, and heres why. The Catholic Church is an ark in the midst of a flood. It gives you the best nourishment, protection, and safety out there as you make your pilgrimage. Theoretically then, because there are no other arks out there, there is no salvation outside the Church. The waters are perilous and on any other raft, you have a high chance of sinking. However that does not mean through either the sacrifice of the martyrs or of the saints and penitent that others may not be saved. For example, St. Faustina in her suffering and obedience asked God that she may offer up her sufferings and works to save every soul that would die and were hell bound that day. God acquiesced and according to her account, all souls that were hell bound were saved. We do not know whom God will choose to save out of love for a saint or martyr or by his own volition. Re: Baptism, there have been known to be a few different kinds of baptism that were accepted even in the middle ages. Proof of this is in Dante’s Purgatorio and elsewhere in various church documents that he must of known about. There is baptism through water, baptism through blood, and baptism through desire. The first is the common baptism we know and love. The baptism through blood is those that die for the faith or for the good and the true.

            Ex. When the Coptic Christians were decapitated by ISIS few know that one of them was actually a Muslim who was supposed to deny the faith to discredit them. As they all died with firm conviction and love, they finally got to him and asked him to renounce, he said “Their God, is my God.” So, he was killed. That would be a baptism of blood.

            A baptism through desire or tears is said to be when someone yearns for the truth or for baptism but isn’t able to know Jesus or be baptized before they die.

            It is said that barring no other difficulties, these people are able to reach salvation. But as it turns out it’s very hard to survive in the sea holding on to a measly raft so for the most part, people will be lost outside the doctrine of the Catholic faith and outside obedience to the Captain of the ship. Since our heavenly Captain is not visible, this visible Captain is the holder of the keys and the continuation of the line of Peter.

            ” That we must tolerate one another’s differences. This is religious indifferentism to the max. It destroys Vatican 1 infallible doctrines. “

            Not really, and here’s why. Toleration is to be able to still love your neighbor even though they do and believe things that you do not. To love them to the point of being able to tell them the truth is one thing that it also includes, but another component is to love them enough to not reject them or think of them as inhuman or evil or below yourself which was something that was ingrained in politics in the past. That attitude will not gain converts.

            Religious Freedom is based on the concept of Man’s capacity for God. So man cannot be coerced by the state or church into belief. We are meant to live our faith loudly, but we should also not think of ourselves as above those of other religions.

            That distinction is between persons and beliefs. We are not called to accept other beliefs. In discourse, we should not pretend to. But we should love our neighbor as Jesus exemplifies at the Well where he asked a Samaritan woman to give him drink. That’s what the Catechism calls for.

          • Foreign Grid

            I’ve seen enough of VaticanCatholic in the past I assure you brother

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “A priest was is apart of this network too though so…”

            You don’t try to appeal to my logic by falsely quoting me. There are all kinds of priests. I can give you a priest.

            Peter dimond

            He will expose this show better.

            But fr Peter durantmaniac is nothing and promotes contraception. Just go to the credo episode where nfp was condoned and the antipope. Hell you can hear lightning and then he says, “god? God?.?”

            Here is the video against nf

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSQrKrrQqw

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            Peter and Michael Dimond say that they are part of the Benedictine order. Benedictine monks go by the title Brother if they have not been ordained to the priesthood. When they have been ordained they go by the title Father. I believe that both Peter and Michael Dimond call themselves Brother so they are not priests.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “Dimond say that they are part of the Benedictine order”

            I barely even notice weather one is a priest and other are “low” monk order. I go by the fruits of what they trying to profess. I’ve already exposed peter durantziac as someone endorsing birth control. Hell there are lots of v2 bishops preaching “gay ok” as they molest alter boys. I’m not saying I’m molested rofl

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            OK, Joliet Jake, I am thinking that you have autocorrect on your phone. Otherwise I would think you were talking about the weather. Speaking of the weather, do you wear your sunglasses at night? That would not be a red herring by the way, that would be digressing. Which come to think of it you do quite often.
            You know, Joliet Jake, you are not going to get anywhere with us by slamming Father Peter Dugandzic. As a matter of fact it is rare that you are able to convert people by using insults. Just saying.

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “Jake”

            Ok you guesses the first letter of my surname. However I want the screen name Raynor Jims. Iook forward to pirating a copy of the remastered version sc1

            “autocorrect on your phone”

            That would be a red herring on the ass since autocorrect on phones usually messes up grammar. For instance I may say heresy, phone will autocorrect *”here’s”. I haven’t seen any “autocorrect” disruption so far on my last rebut.

            “wear your sunglasses at night”

            When I play ball at night I might wear headband. Did you know there’s a thing called “sleep phones”? You just yt search that. Slightly cool huh

            “digressing”

            If you don’t weight much muscle mass, much of those dirt junk food turn into poop party if not methane emissions. Keep moderate aight. Don’t commit gluttony.

            “slamming Father Peter Dugandzic”

            Might’ve been pleasure involved in that

            “convert people by using insults”

            I might not able to reach hearts but I know one that happened. last 5 am tin foil panty hanes was having sum sleep paralysis. His dreams are weird including someone throwing a rock at him. He felt it in his head but his head is one with his spiritual ghost head or ether as oppose to two heads. Then he looked to a mirror in that dream whilst full nude mid way through bathing and he noticed his head isn’t visible. This might have something to do with the spiritual violence I’ve done trying to convert everyone to sedevacantism which is to be fully catholic

          • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

            Well, I see you’ve climbed aboard the dream weaver train. Whatever gets you through the night until you reach the morning light.

            I don’t believe Tim has any reason to fear the reaper. I’m pretty sure he just had a fever. And the prescription for that is…well…more cowbell.

        • tjhaines

          Vickie, you always build amazing arguments from angles I overlook. You and your input are truly a gift to us (me and the audience).

          • Kangsta CoasT

            “always build amazing arguments from angles”

            Exactly which angles. The puny quotes from Baltimore and Mathew? That’s just weak and didn’t refute anything. I even made a stronger case that heretics can’t be the pope and therefore supports those quotes of hers rather than oppose em. For if the church allows those manifest heretics, then you would have to have a wild conclusion that the church is indeed defectible and indeed destroyed. And the rest of what she said became mere flabbergasting. Since none refuted my position. The correct ones. Now try having overconfidence contest a piss contest bcoz that’s the only sh8 you’re looking for. Me on the other hand don’t look to engage quote contest bcoz it doesn’t work that way. You have to open your eyes do some research. This is well documented and I’m calm af for the most part regardless of any ad hominem or red herring you throw. All I do is expose you and your schism in a small way and I can see how destroyed your knee cap is. Stop corrupting her.

            “You and your input are truly a gift to us (me and the audience).”

            Just be contented with same sex sodomy you filthy pastoral gag. Like the church you allow be defected by Vatican 2 antipopes so too is your lukewarm ccd style scandals

  • Lu

    Good stuff, Tim!

  • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

    One of the things that Tim means by balance is the necessity of examining things in keeping with the whole of Catholic teaching and not just bits and pieces. A sedevacantist will give you bits and pieces. They rely heavily on a work by St. Robert Bellarmine in which he examines the possibility of heresy in the papacy. He puts forth several propositions or possibilities which he then examines and evaluates. What they don’t tell you is that St. Bellarmine personally believed that it was very unlikely that the Pope could be a heretic but that it couldn’t be theologically certain. Because of this he felt that the hypothesis of the Pope being a heretic should at least be examine. Here are some of the possibilities he examined.
    1. That the Pope could be a heretic and could teach heresy as doctrine. St. Bellarmine rejected this as heresy.
    2. The pope may be a heretic and may teach heresy but not when defining doctrine. Bellarmine rejected this as well as being erroneous and proximate to heresy.
    3. That the pope could not be a heretic and could not teach heresy. He concluded this to be probable but not certain, but could be piously believed.
    4. That regardless of whether or not the Pope could fall into heresy, he could not define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church. He conclude this to be the possibility that was certain and could be asserted.
    Sedevacantist quote the parts where St. Bellarmine discusses IF (and that is a big if) the pope where to be a heretic and what that would mean. They do not however give you this quote.
    Chapter 6. On the pontiff as he is a particular person.

    Fourth Proposition: It is probable and can be piously believed that the highest pontiff, not only cannot err as pontiff, but also as a particular person cannot be a heretic by believing anything false contrary to the faith.

    This is proved firstly because the sweet order of God’s providence seems to require it. For the pontiff not only should not and cannot preach heresy, but also should always teach the truth, and he will certainly do this since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brothers, and therefore he added: I have asked for you that your faith not fail, i.e. that the preaching of the true faith not fail in your see. And how, I ask, will a heretical pontiff confirm his brothers in the faith and always preach the true faith? Surely God can force out a confession of the true faith from a heretical heart, as he once put words in the mouth of the ass Balaam; but it would be violent and not according to the custom of God’s providence sweetly ordering all things.

    Secondly it is proved from the result, for so far there has been no heretic, or certainly it cannot be proved of any that he was a heretic. Therefore it is a sign that this cannot happen.

    See Pighius for further arguments.
    (De Romano Pontifice, Bk IV, Ch. 6)
    This quote also indicates that St. Bellarmine believed the Pope and Church are supernaturally protected from teaching error or heresy.

    Many theologians, saints and even Popes have examined the idea of a Pope falling into heresy. Some of them even believed it, as a private opinion, to be possible. That is where the quotes from Popes come from. But the Church has never definitively answered this question so that it is not a part of the whole of Catholic teaching. Nor has it ever been provided for in canon law. But most of them agree that even if a Pope could fall into heresy and even if he did ipso facto lose his office it would still take the authority of the Church to affirm his heresy and confirm that he was not a Pope. It is not up to individuals to declare that any Pope is no longer the Pope. It would be up to a council or a subsequent Pope. There are some problems with it coming from a council because a council needs to be in communion with the Pope in order to valid so more than likely it would have to be a subsequent Pope.

    Regardless of the idea of the Pope being a heretic or not you can take the sedevacantist argument to it’s logical conclusion and find that it cannot stand. Think of the implications of what they say. The seat of Peter is empty and has been for a very long time. This means that many of the bishops and cardinals that have been appointed during that time are not validly bishops and cardinals. Without bishops and cardinals how are we to elect a new legitimate Pope? Therefore the seat of Peter will remain empty and that is against the teaching of Vatican I that said the seat of Peter would have perpetual successors. Think about what happens to the validity of sacraments because of the lack of valid bishops to perform valid ordinations. All bishop appointments and ordination of priests could be put into question and therefore the sacraments that you are receiving would be put into question without a Pope in the seat of Peter to guarantee their validity. So ironically by trying to protect the indefectibility of the Church by removing the Pope they instead create an argument that can only bring about a conclusion in which the Church would fail, decay and not last.

  • Vickie Knapp Armstrong

    Let’s recap shall we?
    It seems that a sedevacantist has decided that their purpose in life is to come to Vericast and get all rowdy in the comments. So they began with a rant about Vatican II and post conciliar Popes as well as insulting Tim Haines and this apostolate. At one point also speaking of Fr. Peter Dugandzic in a disrespectful manner.

    Tim Haines is much more patient that I would have been. Despite the abusive insults that have been flung Tim’s way, he has allowed this person to have their say. I probably would have blocked them the minute they called me a fagbag. Tim, however, was wise enough to allow our friendly neighborhood sedevacantist to demonstrate the inconsistencies of his arguments, his illogical conclusions and his arrogance.

    When asked if he could give evidence to his claims he gave the basic response, you know…the same one the atheists use. Evidence?! I don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. I have tons of evidence I just see no need to present it here. Go look for it yourself…kind of thing.

    Ok, fine with us if you want to stand there empty handed making circular arguments and insane ramblings.

    He did, however, present several videos, all from the same source causing me to wonder if he was one of the Dimond brothers just trying to get views for their website and youtube. I don’t think so, though, because I am pretty sure the bros would not have used exo facto instead of ipso facto. Our sedevacantist interloper did correct that after awhile. Or not knowing the difference between a religious Brother and a priest. No, alas, he is merely one who has no platform of their own so can only hijack the comment section of someone else’s website to regurgitate the erroneous thoughts and ideas of others like a parrot and then present a youtube video full of half-truths and misapplied quotes that is supposed to “destroy” opposing arguments.

    Our arguments, of course, were described as puny, merely rhetoric or a pissing contest. And then having no real arguments of his own he resorted to name calling and insults while at the same time accusing others of ad hominems and red herrings.

    Because the dude has got no game.

    He does fancy himself (a modern man, in his own words) to have such prowess that he could crush the arguments of Aquinas. Aquinas is not infallible by the way. Other saints though, they are CANONIZED, so infallible….just not Aquinas.

    What our sedevacantist did not realize is that he came to the wrong website. This audience respects Vericast knowing that nothing is presented here that is not demonstratively within Church teaching. They are balanced and knowledgeable. They aren’t going to be easily swayed by just anyone who shows up in the comments. Especially if that person uses insults against Tim and Fr. Peter. We don’t mind lively discussion by those who disagree but we aren’t going to put up with the likes of that.

    This person would do best to just move on to his next target because there’s no joy for him here.

    My replies have not been an attempt to change this person’s mind. It is quit obvious that they are obstinate in what they believe. My replies have been written that others in the audience will remain confident in the Church. Be assured and be not afraid, The Pope and the Church, through Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit can be relied upon. There is nothing that men can do to it from within or without that the Lord will not remedy. Be assured as well that the Seat of Peter is not empty for Our Lord would not allow his Church to remain without a visible head thereby allowing a situation in which apostolic succession could ever be doubted or in question. But then I am pretty sure you guys know that. Pray for this person that they may fall no further into the darkness of this error but that the Holy Spirit might illuminate their mind and cause them to be reconciled to the true teachings of the Church.
    .

  • Foreign Grid

    Sorry for all the posts Tim, but think about the ratings XD

    • tjhaines

      LOL don’t sweat it my friend. I’m glad that people are enjoying being engaged.

  • Poska

    Tin you’re a lying dishonest coward traitor you ban honest audiences without knowing smh

  • tjhaines

    @disqus_nYjWfs2g87:disqus Sorry “Kangsta CoasT” but you are not on the ban list. If you’re having issues getting comments through, it might have something to do with the fact that your apparent super-creepy obsession with me has driven you to flood the comments and DIsquss may have stopped you. As you know from just this past week, when I ban people their comments go away. I un-banned you and your comments came back. But I’ll tell you this, I’m damn sick and tired of cry babies like you, bitching and moaning because the comments section isn’t cooperating with your obsessive-compulsive disorder. You are now officially banned. Ya see how this works? When I ban people, I tell them. Have a nice day.