Haunting message fron indigenous Amazonian.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests. Their Levitical "solution" of temporary AbStention is pharisaical.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Turning this into a r/atheism type post is pathetic. Plenty of impoverished Brazilians who are Pentecostal voted against Bolsonaro last year, the extermination being waged against the indigenous is being waged by those who worship capital and plenty of these farmers/loggers/miners are Catholic or irreligious.

Yes, I am sure missionaries are present, they always are but it's worth remembering that the modal Evangelical in Latin America is Mayan, not some wealthy white person.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.
I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.

I'm afraid I just don't understand what the difference is or why it's relevant. Somebody either is a priest or isn't one. And I don't think the pastoral situation of a parish of middle-class ex-Anglicans in the suburban US or UK is so much worse than that of a parish of indigenous Amazonians in the middle of the rainforest that resorting to ordaining married men makes sense in the former case but not the latter.

I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

I don't want to get into the "heretical popes" argument with you again, but it seems to me that there's a difference between believing that the Pope is in theological error and personally attacking him as an "anthropotheistical antiChrist". The former is a standard Traditionalist position these days; the latter is unbecoming of any man of goodwill, and still more unbecoming of a Catholic. If you would content yourself with arguing the former, I'd find it a lot easier to have productive conversations with you.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.

I'm afraid I just don't understand what the difference is or why it's relevant. Somebody either is a priest or isn't one. And I don't think the pastoral situation of a parish of middle-class ex-Anglicans in the suburban US or UK is so much worse than that of a parish of indigenous Amazonians in the middle of the rainforest that resorting to ordaining married men makes sense in the former case but not the latter.

I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

I don't want to get into the "heretical popes" argument with you again, but it seems to me that there's a difference between believing that the Pope is in theological error and personally attacking him as an "anthropotheistical antiChrist". The former is a standard Traditionalist position these days; the latter is unbecoming of any man of goodwill, and still more unbecoming of a Catholic. If you would content yourself with arguing the former, I'd find it a lot easier to have productive conversations with you.

Priest is only, who is married with HIS bride. As a result: Acceptable: Unmarried priests or convertits with a real metanoia and no more copulation (a la St.JOSEPH). Tolerable: Convertits/Uniied with occasional abstention (a la Jewish Levites). Inacceptable: Selfrighteous pettybourgeois immanentists, who are integrated & interested only in this world (and its "social justice" or "environmental protection").
As an Austrian i know some of those small voles&rats: This has nothing to do with the Amazonas - it was formerly offered to His Em. Card. Hummes to send missionaries, what that creature rejected in panic -, but only with "our" bankrupt "church".

Prove us, that pope Francis does not put "<human> life above <divine> doctrine", and we will stop calling His Holeness an atheistic and anthropotheistical antiChristian.
Show me any genial left-Christian in WorldHistory and i am able to take pope Francis intellectually serious. I can only think of LAMENNAIS, an idiot of some - low - intellectual importance, who caused tragically the depature of SAINTE-BEUVE, a huge intelligence, from Christianity.
While insisting, that the greatest thinkers (PLATON, DESCARTES, HUME, KANT) and poets (HOMER, DANTE, SHAKESPEARE, GOETHE) were (at least unconscious) catholics i agree, that intelligent atheists&agnostics have existed. But 99%-Christians (so liberal or even left ones) have not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, evidently you're simply not interested in bracketing out the personal attacks, so I'm not going to continue this conversation. Wishing you an early happy All Saints'.

[John Dule]

Amazonian: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"

Evangelist: "No, not if you did not know."

Amazonian: "Then why did you tell me?"

The evangelist's answer would be wrong (or at the very least, extremely presumptuous).

This

Ah, so those who lead virtuous lives yet never become Christians are all going to hell. Sorry, Gandhi. Good to know!

[DC Al Fine]

Amazonian: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"

Evangelist: "No, not if you did not know."

Amazonian: "Then why did you tell me?"

The evangelist's answer would be wrong (or at the very least, extremely presumptuous).

This

Ah, so those who lead virtuous lives yet never become Christians are all going to hell. Sorry, Gandhi. Good to know!

That's not a remotely accurate characterization of the orthodox Christian position.

[RFayette]

Amazonian: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"

Evangelist: "No, not if you did not know."

Amazonian: "Then why did you tell me?"

The evangelist's answer would be wrong (or at the very least, extremely presumptuous).

This

Ah, so those who lead virtuous lives yet never become Christians are all going to hell. Sorry, Gandhi. Good to know!

The Biblical position is that "there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10).  Hence, from God's perspective, those going to hell are wicked, not leading virtuous lives.  In this video RC Sproul made a very interesting point.  according to anthropologist Rudolf Otto, across societies, regardless of the particular religion or customs practiced, people have two reactions to things that are considered holy or sacred within that culture: intrigue/fascination and fear.  That second reaction is because even without scripture we can recognize just how different God  must be from us.   This includes his having power and knowledge far surpassing all of humanity, simply based on the silent testimony of the created world.  The testimony of conscience also tells us we have broken the fundamental laws that (if one is a theist) come from the source of being itself, God.  How could we be in a right relationship with someone who so surpasses and transcends us?  So it is no surprise his judgments about sin are distinct.  James 2:10 says that if you break the law at one point, you are guilty of it all.  So any ideas we have about good or bad are so different from God's.  This is something I have definitely struggled with; it does seem difficult to reconcile a loving and merciful God with what we see in Matthew 7:13-14 that in the final analysis, most people are on the broad road to destruction.  It certainly doesn't align with most people's intuitive understanding of things.  Nonetheless, how one feels about God's judgments does not negate that God's judgments are what they are. 

Hence, man cannot be justified by his own good works but rather needs an imputed righteousness.  Because God in his holiness cannot declare someone innocent who has broken his law, it was necessary for Jesus to live a sinless life, die on a cross and rise again so that whoever believes in him will go to heaven.  Because no good works can bridge the gap our sins create between us and God, we need God to declare us righteous based on the work of another, and we can obtain that forgiveness by trusting in Christ alone for our salvation.  

That being said, I wouldn't judge anyone's final salvation. It is possible, for example, that those who sought the truth throughout their lives to some degree may be given a revelation so that they can have faith in Jesus just before death.  What I was concerned with was the idea that not knowing about God or Jesus is automatic immunity from judgment; rather, the picture painted by scripture is that we (as non-children/infants/unborn, mentally normal individuals) are guilty as a matter of default condition and that knowledge of and belief in Jesus can save us from that fallen state.