Can you help me out refuting this video?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Guest
Don’t just skim through it please actually watch the video I need help

 
Last edited:
Because he’s actually pretty good with refuting protestants
 
Yea ik he a sedevecantist but it’s theologically pretty solid
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said:
Yea ik he a sedevecantist but it’s theologically pretty solid
Click to expand...
Sedevacantism is not theologically solid. You need to stop watching these videos. I don’t care how good they are at refuting Protestantism. You have a bigger concern to deal with right now than refuting Protestants.
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about sedevanticism, I’m talking about his argument. Obviously sedevanticism is theologically weak, his argument appears fairly valid. If you actually watched the video, then you’d understand what I mean. He uses the Assisi ceremony to show that pope john Paul is allowing pagan gods to be worshiped, which is contradictory to the church fathers, his argument is pretty solid however him being a sedevanticist is not, obviously the Pope is still the Pope and john Paul is still a saint
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said:
please read above
Click to expand...
I did. He used Revelations quotes to say that Rome (the Catholic Church) has apostatized and tried to demonstrate this with actions of Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis that he teaches are not orthodox.

The Pope did not claim to have divine nature, that is, to be the Most Holy Trinity, as the video states. We share in divinity through the gift supernatural grace, but do not change our natures from human to divine.

Catechism
460 The Word became flesh to make us " partakers of the divine nature ":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc . 57, 1-4.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It takes about 40+ minutes to view these links that you provide and you want us to refute what the brothers have taught. What have you done to refute these yourself? You have been told information about the brothers and their monastery. You know they are against the Pope. You appear to believe them more than the posters on CAF. Decide who and what you believe.
 
Mate I watched the video, I tried proving him wrong, I haven’t gotten anywhere. I never forced you to answer this, i asked a general question for help. His argument appears valid. Is not this the point of Catholic answers, to ask for help??? I am fully aware they are against the Pope, I am fully aware of their faulty foundation, I am asking basically anyone to help me refute the argument. Something that Vico (see above) actually did. I am not asking to help me denounce them I am asking for help denouncing the argument. Again you didn’t have to answer, If you have no (name removed by moderator)ut then just don’t do anything instead of telling me I have no idea what I’m talking about.
 
Just like your last video I stopped watching when I saw the words Produced by Most Holy Family Monastery.

None of us are interested in Sedevacantist cult propaganda, not sure why you think we are.
 
Last edited:
Please actually read what I’m saying and don’t just say “oh it’s sedevanticists soooo”. I totally agree with you, I think that the guy is nutzo on his position but please actually refute the video and his point and not him. I don’t care who he is all I care is about what he says. I know HE is false but I’m asking for help on why the argument is FALSE. If Martin Luther came up you and said “faith alone” and then you tried proving him wrong by saying he has no apostolic succession, you’ve completely avoided the point, which after evaluation is false. The only way you’d come to conclusion it’s false is after evaluation. I’m asking for help on evaluation.
 
You probably don’t want my help (being an atheist and all), but I watched about ten minutes of that video. It felt like ten days.

If I were you, I wouldn’t feel any compunction about dismissing it out of hand. In the first ten minutes the only two pieces of evidence he provides (and I have never used the term evidence more loosely than I am right now) are that the word “wonder” appears in two separate verses in Revelations, and the Bible calls Ceasar a King. That’s it. In ten minutes, those are his only two attempts to back up his claims.

I think he is delusional. I think Alex Jones is delusional. I described them both as delusional therefore he is Alex Jones. Does that argument seem sound to you? Spoiler alert, it isn’t.

He just makes claim after claim without anything to back up his opinion. There is no logical reason you can’t just say, “I don’t buy it.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top