Matthew Imuetinyan Aborted babies are baptised in their own blood and are now in heaven. Those who murder them and have no remorse shall not enter heaven, they are the eternally cursed ones.
The Catechism tells us that it is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants who die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ, who instructed that we must be like children to enter the kingdom of God and said, "Let the children come to me" (Mark 10:14-15)
Thus Limbo ia not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism.
MississippiLife The new catechism is heretical. Actual Catholic teaching completely contradicts it. You and your heretical antipopes promote heresy. Children mist be baptized or they will not be saved. Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: " If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the lover of rebirth for them to obtain enternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema". Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: "Regarding children, indeed, because of the danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy then through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] been adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for 40 or 80 Days, or any time according to the observance of certain people" Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul
To all of you scoffers: Pope Francis IS the true pope whether you like him or not and whether he likes to be called Pope or not. Like how a bad, past president with a questionable birth was still our president whether we liked him or not, Pope Francis is now the pope because Pope Benedict abdicated the throne. Remember learning how George VI became King of England because his brother, Edward, abdicated the throne to marry a divorced woman? Likewise, Pope Benedict is no longer pope because he gave up the throne. But we call him "Pope" just like we STILL say "President Obama", despite that Trump is currently in power.
Do some souls go to hell? Can atheists go to heaven? Should we edit the Lord's Prayer? If you answer "no" to any of those questions, you contradict the pope of the Novus Ordo.
As a father of three miscarried children and stepfather of one miscarried child (yes, he matters that much to me even though he died 15 years before I ever met his mother), where the intent was to have them baptized, what is the Catholic belief regarding the state of their souls?
+Benjamin Mankowski according to this video, and to the Catholic teaching it references, they are more or less in hell, in particular limbo where i guess things are not as bad or whatever.
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones,for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father." They are in Heaven, Catholic Church teaches that as well, and man i this vide that call these popes heretics, might be a heretic himself.
@@m.935 no the church doesn't teach that, stop contributing to the blindly optimistic coverup of doctrinal teachings from official councils which this channel has pointed out several times in different videos. unbaptized babies go to hell
Michael Ferguson This "priest" is a denier of Catholic dogma andas sch is a heretic, not a true Catholic. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul.
Michael Ferguson This FSSP "priest" is not true because of the validity of their ordination. While the FSSP ordain their men in the Traditional rite, The super majority of their"bishops" are ordained in the invalid new Rite of Episcopal consecration. Thus, their "priest" are doubtfully ordained. The new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid because the words required to unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy which is the fullness of the priesthood were changed through deletion by Paul VI. He is also not powerful because they accept the post-Vatican II apostasy, false ecumenism, the New Mass, and the satanic doctrine of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Please watch th-cam.com/video/WWo-7uVR8yI/w-d-xo.html
@Moe Gibbs No, they never had their own Bishops, they use the Bishops Consecrated in the Novus Ordo. So at best these are priests trying to ordain laymen if the so called bishops were ordained by a valid bishop in the latin form of the novus ordo ordination. And at worse both episcopal and priestly novus ordo ordinations are completely invalid. The Episcopal Consecration is Highly doubtful which is why it is to be avoided, just saying the rite doesn't do anything if you aren't truly a Bishop. What this has led to is the massive deception of millions of faithful people who then worship a piece of bread as their God and not Christ in the Eucharist and they lead to calling Sedevacantism heresy.
I respect this priest a lot. I have about 20 questions for him. Butalas... He's one of most trusted priests. I am in middle of were and his view. Very confused. Very painful
"Vicims of abortion are excluded from the beatific vision." --Pope Sixtus V "If anyone says Baptism is optional, that it is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." --Council of Trent
Also you said it's heretical to say that God does Not desire for each of us to choose heaven and be saved, which i agree with. Problem is this then logically contradicts the doctrine that the unbaptized infants simply descend into hell without even the opportunity to make a choice. If God really did desire all of us to choose salvation then he would grant all of us the opportunity to choose for or against it. The only thing that should ultimately lose us our salvation is ourselves and our own free decision, but this doctrine ultimately demonstrates that some (the miscarried and aborted) will lose their salvation merely on an external circumstance of which they had zero control over. their fate is literally predestined for them. So logically no, God does not desire the salvation of everyone, which then goes to suggest error in his nature, and thus, suggest his nonexistence. I totally agree that God doesn't owe us anything, but it's not about that. It's about God being consistent with himself and living up to his own nature as omnibenevolent
Limbo does not contradict God's omnibenevolence because Limbo is a place of great peace and happiness. There is no sin or suffering there. Limbo is almost like Heaven, the only difference is that the souls in Limbo never get to see God face to face. God does not have to grant anybody Heaven or even a chance at Heaven, anymote than God is required to let anyone win the lottery. You could say that the souls in Limbo are saved----after all they ARE saved from the fires of Hell.
@@georgepenton808 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father."
I feel very upset upon hearing this about Sedevacantism; that those who die following this heresy will go to hell. My dad subscribed to the Sedevacantist ideas. He died 12 years ago and he did his best to figure out what to do and how to guide his family with all the problems in the church. There was no priest like this one to point out, to my dad, this heresy. There was no Fraternity of Saint Peter where he lived. He could only work with what he had. He always prayed the rosary and became very humble before he died. I would hate to think that God does not judge each soul individually according to what they understood and did with/without a purity of heart. I see that my dad was in error, but I want to have hope that God was merciful to him. We have more information now than my dad had and we have more ways of getting the truth out there. I can see that if someone listens to this truth here, that then they will be required to follow this truth.
peapotter3: Sedevacantism is not a heresy. From the eyes of the Novus Ordo, it's schism. The question is: would being in schism with the current pontiff be damnable? I do not think so. He has said many things that are heretical and unbecoming of the vicar of Christ.
peapotter3 Your dad was not in error. Sedevacantism is the truth. Not a heresy. It is amazing that people believe that a man like Francis can deny the existence of hell AND still remain Catholic. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul
Great you responded to my comment.You make a lot of sense also. Gerry used to advocate the Fatima Center. On a video he states Pope John 23 didn't reveal the third secret.Now he's saying him and the other Bishops of Rome weren't valid.Interesting how he changed his view. I know someone else that has changed his view also. I know better. But the present Holy Father and Bishops need to make drastic changes. Currently nothing seems to be changing all except ushers in Rome telling people to receive on the tongue. When will the Pope obey Our Lady of Fatima? Wouldn't this change the world and the Church's view on Tradition?
Sorry I didn't spell Jerry's name correct. I think I would listen to him.I would not be misled.I see and hear a lot errors and views about the pope.I would need to know about what his view is.I heard him on the Fatima Centers "Heavens Key to Peace" His view points on the message of Fatima are correct and agreeable.
+mejl2015 I think the Church took the appropriate response to the theory of limbo when it rejected it as obsolete and instead said, We leave the children that die before baptism to the mercy of God. Yes, we all know that if God were to give us (humanity in general) what we deserve then it would be hell but did he not die to reconcile the world to himself? Of course he did and he wills that all men be saved. How then can he will that all men be saved yet put babies in hell? So I don't believe in Limbo, yet I don't entirely reject its ideas either. I will just say until I die and find out for myself what God did with them then I will leave these poor children to God, to his mercy. And did he not say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little ones such as these?
@@Azygos1986 Yeah, reject everything on the basis that it's outdated. We needa get with the times don't we? What Does getting with the times sound like to you? It sounds to me like modernism.
Mr.Mattatics has spoken on Fatima.He is confused.How can he support the message of Fatima but now say there is no pope.The message of Fatima is all about God's command upon the pope and bishops.
The theory of "limbus puerorum" was never an official binding teaching of the church. It was only a theological theory as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed. Roland Minnerath, the archbishop of Dijon, explained that the theologians in the Vatican came to the conclusion, that little children who are not baptized and die, directly enter paradise.
@@javonijackson4642 So not baptized infants are going to hell? And if so, what about aborted infants? Does it make a difference to be born or unborn and why? Once the infant is born and then dies the next day unbaptized it goes to hell? So better abort them late term when birth already has started before they are outside of their mothers body? What would that tell about Gods character? This is not mathematics. And it is not magic. Whom did Jesus have in mind when he said you have to be baptized? Little children who can not even make their baptism happen? Come on, my friend. Baptism in the early days of the church was an expression of faith. A faith that an infant could not have nor express.
@@javonijackson4642 No, the church never taught limbo. Prove the opposite. Limbo is just a theological invention to ease ones concern about unbaptized infants and still holding the view of original sin.
@Moe Gibbs there are many different things if you look at the Council of Florence Cantate Domino the Council of Trent and many other statements which I have said multiple times I'm not going to keep explaining myself to you guys
Also, could you not show images of aborted fetuses, I understand that this is a very sad and serious reality, but I just feel overwhelmed when it appears on screen.
Offer up the distress you feel to the Lord. He can use it as any prayer or good deed and He feels much more the sorrow that the souls he has created are murdered in this way. If more people offered their distress and called on the Lord to stop this hideous act the quicker the Lord will put an end to it. Infact be glad that your conscience is affected this way! "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness"
everybody can baptize everyone, the only thing required is water and the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" then baptism is done irrevocably and cannot be repeated
"Perfect natural happiness", even though there is no true happiness for man except to be one with God himself where we find actually fulfillment, so it's pretty hard to say they will enjoy some arbitrary level of perfect natural happiness. They are forever unfulfilled.
+Unclenate1000 what they don't tell you is that Limbo was and is a theological theory, not a dogma of faith, no matter how much anyone wants to present it that way. At the present, the Church teaches that it leaves the babies that die before baptism to the mercy of God, as it should. Yet, the theory of limbo exist(ed) because if God were to give them and everyone of else what we deserve then we would all go to hell (separation from him) because we are conceived in sin after our parents declared war with God. The Catholic faith teaches us that Christ died to reconcile the fallen world to God, to reconcile us to God. God wants and will that all men be saved. God is perfectly just and trustworthy, when you die you will regret any blasphemies against him. Now whatever sin that has taken hold of you, I pray will leave you and you will take back up your cross, and the sensible mind. Avoid sexual immorality, pray to God for help and he will sanctify your mind. God love you.
Azygos1986 I thank you for that, but unfortunately i have found at least one place where it is defined that the souls of the unbaptized immediately "descend into the dead" and even though the word "Limbo" was not in that it was quite clearly implied. This definition, at least one of them that I'm now aware of, was done in the Council of Florence.
Unclenate1000 I would be careful not to isolate one sentence from a past council and apply such a strict interpretation to it. A Catholic is supposed to be known for his ability to unify his dogma, so as to mold his understanding to the teachings of the faith. To give an analogy, what you are doing with the council of Florence would be no different than isolating a sentence out of scripture like Protestants do and then to build a dogma of faith around it, it would be proof-texting. Proof-texting is bad and does not lead to sound theology or faith.
Azygos1986 in general i totally agree with what you're saying, but in this particular case, based off of what i've read so far, i haven't had a reason to believe that that particular definition needs to be applied to a greater context to be understood any better. It made itself pretty clear, and on top of that, simply back up a seemingly huge amount of tradition and speculation form the greatest of minds.
Unclenate1000 the problem with proof-texting things in our religion is that it causes a refusal to see a dogma of faith in its totality, it isolates it and essentially perverts it. What the council of Florence stated is true but it can and has been further expounded upon. I want to post what I believe to be one of the greatest explanations of the dogma 'outside the Church there is no salvation' because this is really what teaching we are addressing. Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgements of God" which are "a great abyss" (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice. "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. "But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, 'for the hand of the Lord is not shortened' (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light."[6]
Of course God doesn't owe us anything. I reject limbo for unbaptized infants (and the mentally incapacitated) because of the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not because I think God owes humans anything. God binds himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by them.
@Moe Gibbs The "baptism by blood" for non-baptized martyrs is a perfect example of God granting salvation to those who have not received baptism. The other obvious example is the repentant thief on the cross who was also not baptized but went to paradise. I don't know who first formulated "God binds himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by them," but it's certainly a valid way of expressing that God can work in extraordinary ways beyond the sacraments for those not able to receive, as with the repentant thief and non-baptized martyrs.
@Moe Gibbs To say it is "obligatory" is obviously in reference to normative means. To those who have the means/access, it is certainly necessary. To those like the repentant thief and unbaptized martyrs, God uses extraordinary means, apart from baptism. You are going against the very words of Jesus Christ who said that the thief on the cross will be with him in paradise. He will be "with him," i.e., with Jesus himself. If baptism wasn't necesary for him, then it is not absolutely necessary. Grow up, seriously, and learn some real theology instead of trad fundie nonsense.
@Moe Gibbs You have not even attempted to counter my arguments. You actually believe that I'm willfully rejecting church teaching and will burn in hell for all eternity. I am willfully rejecting your silly interpretation of the Catechism of Trent. God will be my judge, not some trad on the internet.
Well i owe great thanks to St. Augustine for making this issue clear and definitively destroying the last bit of Catholic faith i had holding on me. It's about time things have been made clear. thanks.
yoyoho2627 well without him even knowing it, basically the more modern notion that the permanent state of limbo is just an idea. It is however what i've been repeatedly taught and assured until just recently.
+Unclenate1000 so you are saying that now that it is clear that limbo is not just an idea, you no longer have any Catholic faith left in you? Or am I misunderstanding.
Though not every death is a case of martyrdom, "if aborted children have in some way been killed because of Jesus and his teaching, they qualify to be among those souls that were slain for the word of God." (Msgr. John F. McCarthy, head of the Roman Theological Forum, 1996) So if an ex-Catholic mother goes back home to Rome because of the grief and guilt she suffered over her decision to kill her unborn baby, and once accepting Chrst's forgiveness, from thenceforth she actively seeks to bring other people to Christ and his Holy Church because of the mercy Jesus has shown her, then one could argue that her baby died for Christ.
Father told me tonight that catholic teaches limbo for unbaptised baby’s. it makes sense because they have not been cleansed of original sin yet have not consciously sinned. It’s a slippery slope to say they are saved because what if an older child who wasn’t baptised died. Or a teen. Or an adult. Why would the formula changed based on age. It leads to a permission of those who “aren’t in the know” to get into heaven free with original sin. It lessens the need for evangelical teaching of the doctrine of the holy church. It leads to the realisation it be best no one knows the word of God to ensure in their ignorance they get in to heaven easily. It’s not cohesive or compelling to me. Limbo was described that they are happy but eternally separated from heaven.
God is just. Christ hopefully has a merciful love for unbaptized souls. I do not worry about my stillborn son. He may not be able to see God but maybe he can see Mary.
Great video. I really benefited from that St Robert Bellarmine. Follow Up question: what happens with the dead and unbaptized with regards to bodily resurrection?? Thank You.
Robert Bellarmine? Are you serious? Robert Bellarmine was one of the men who placed Galileo under house arrest! Bellarmine's opinion counts for nothing! Popes Innocent I, Innocent III, Pius VI, and Sixtus V all infallibly stated that Limbo of the Children exists, as did the Counvils of Florence, Lyons, and Trent.
"On behalf of all mankind," because it's totally just and fair that us descendants of Adam had zero say in his sin, yet we still are born prone to hell because of it.
+Unclenate1000 of course not that he owes us anything, but he does owe himself consistency with his nature, and part of his nature includes (supposedly) being all loving and just.
i can argue with a being whose supposedly omnipotent choosing to set things up this way when its clearly better to set it up where we are mainly accountable for ourselves, not our parents which we have no control over, etc...
The Catholic Church infallible teaches "as a result of the sin of Adam all men are saved the Blessed Virgin Mary were born and conceived in a state of original sin this original sin keeps man in a state of separation from God and under the Dominion of the devil until that person is removed from that state through the grace of Christ which is conferred in the sacrament of baptism as a result those who remain in original sin cannot be saved".ccc402 this is why the Catholic church has dogmatically defined at the council's of Florence and Trent and in other statements that no infant or child can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. Pelagian teaching (that has been condemned by the church) "That recently born infants are in the same state as Adam was before his fall". Pope St innocent I said "but that which the pelagians preach that even without the grace of baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life is quite idiotic". Saint Augustine (also) wrote "anyone who would say that infants who passed from this life without participation and the sacrament (of baptism) can be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole church". At the Council of Trent in its decree on original sin Session 5 it defined infallibly "if anyone says that unbaptized infants incur no trace of original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life let be anathema". Also at the Council of Florence Cantate Domino infallibly defined "that there is no other remedy for infants to be rescued from original sin other than the sacrament of water baptism".
I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed them who can neither deceive nor be deceived. We also believe that all things are possible with God. He is merciful but it is not ours to presume his mercy. Then we must be faithful to His teachings which the Church proclaims. I believe that God reveals to us what is necessary for our own salvation. As far as who is right between Catholics and sedevacantists, you can use a simple rule, that is, no bad tree bears good fruit. You can tell a lot about someone from listening or reading what they have to say most of the time. If Pope Francis is not the real Pope, which he is, but hypothetically, I would rather have a false pope that teaches mercy and charity and humility and solidarity than one who knows all the doctrines of the Church and yet is divisive, legalistic and has not the love of Christ in his heart. Pope Francis is a great pope and he is the pope that the Holy Spirit has given us for our times, and it takes faith and humility to accept that. Pope Francis is greatly misunderstood because people listen to him but close their hearts to the vicar of Christ. So if you are one to criticize the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, and yet you do not get on your knees every day to pray for him, and seek the Holy Spirit in his exhortations with an open heart, you ought to think carefully again about your life.
JoHn LyTe if he is just being "misunderstood" all the time. maybe its his fault for being so ambiguous and not clearly defining or defending catholic doctrine. if he would do that, all the "misunderstandings " would disappear over night. and so would sedvacantism.
TheCleanTech Yes I agree he can be confusing. But I also agree that he says more clear things than confusing things. We only hear about those controversial topics. For eg. he is very hard against abortion. And he supported St. John Paul 2's confirmation that women can't be priests. But I don't believe that the way we deal with things like Amoris Latitia is calling him a heretic or separating yourself from Rome. If he makes an error, then we must all work to have that corrected but as a church. That's why I said it requires faith and humility. Faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance and the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail. Humility to say that we are not perfect and we all make mistakes, and we all need to work on that. Living the church in the midst of turmoil, because of turmoil seems to be a lack of faith and humility and quite frankly, courage.
So you think that the pope should excommunicate anyone that thinks abortion is ok? Well we do have both natural and supernatural elements to our existence. Its not bad to work for natural goods like feeding the poor which is connected to the supernatural also. And I don't think you can accuse anyone, especially the pope of not having supernatural motives. I said a lack of faith, not no faith altogether. which you accuse me of. If you weren't so full of yourself you would actually find that there are faithful Catholics who are loyal to the pope but will say if he is wrong on anything. Catholics like me go out of our way to share the teachings of the church and to clarify any confusions with Church teachings. Catholics like me don't judge people as heretics because they might be ignorant, but we will correct them. People like me understand that you are useless outside of the Church if you want to make changes inside. Perhaps it's because I understand that I'm not perfect, no one is. perhaps I beleive in the end, the Holy Spirit will always prevail. Perhaps its because Catholics like me will not abandon ship as soon as the weather starts getting rough, but rather we think it sensible to stick with the captain and help the ship to survive. Perhaps its because I have patience and understand that God is working behind the scenes and its OK if we don't understand everything all the time. But hey that's just me, no faith and out of touch with the supernatural, unlike you.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
It bleeds the heart to think that we deny aborted babies the beatific vision and yet treat for issue of abortion as mere economic or social problem
Matthew Imuetinyan Aborted babies are baptised in their own blood and are now in heaven. Those who murder them and have no remorse shall not enter heaven, they are the eternally cursed ones.
@Tango Mike still waiting
@YP Poe to my immaculatequeen
The Catechism tells us that it is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants who die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ, who instructed that we must be like children to enter the kingdom of God and said, "Let the children come to me" (Mark 10:14-15)
Thus Limbo ia not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism.
+msyotaboy yes, thank you. This kind of talk makes people overly fearful of God, or else makes them hate God. We have to be careful.
MississippiLife please give me the paragraph number
MississippiLife
The new catechism is heretical. Actual Catholic teaching completely contradicts it. You and your heretical antipopes promote heresy. Children mist be baptized or they will not be saved.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: " If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the lover of rebirth for them to obtain enternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema".
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: "Regarding children, indeed, because of the danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy then through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] been adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for 40 or 80 Days, or any time according to the observance of certain people"
Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul
Superior Faith and Morals oh no, the heresy of sedevacantism, the opium of the Catholic Church
Great video, except for the last ten seconds when the audio got fuzzy.
To all of you scoffers: Pope Francis IS the true pope whether you like him or not and whether he likes to be called Pope or not. Like how a bad, past president with a questionable birth was still our president whether we liked him or not, Pope Francis is now the pope because Pope Benedict abdicated the throne.
Remember learning how George VI became King of England because his brother, Edward, abdicated the throne to marry a divorced woman? Likewise, Pope Benedict is no longer pope because he gave up the throne. But we call him "Pope" just like we STILL say "President Obama", despite that Trump is currently in power.
Do some souls go to hell? Can atheists go to heaven? Should we edit the Lord's Prayer? If you answer "no" to any of those questions, you contradict the pope of the Novus Ordo.
Could you make a video on the history between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry?
As a father of three miscarried children and stepfather of one miscarried child (yes, he matters that much to me even though he died 15 years before I ever met his mother), where the intent was to have them baptized, what is the Catholic belief regarding the state of their souls?
+Benjamin Mankowski according to this video, and to the Catholic teaching it references, they are more or less in hell, in particular limbo where i guess things are not as bad or whatever.
Benjamin Mankowski I
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones,for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father."
They are in Heaven, Catholic Church teaches that as well, and man i this vide that call these popes heretics, might be a heretic himself.
@@m.935 no the church doesn't teach that, stop contributing to the blindly optimistic coverup of doctrinal teachings from official councils which this channel has pointed out several times in different videos. unbaptized babies go to hell
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father."
This priest is a true and powerful father.
Michael Ferguson
This "priest" is a denier of Catholic dogma andas sch is a heretic, not a true Catholic. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul.
Where doses either of you get this. He is an FSSP priest.
Michael Ferguson
This FSSP "priest" is not true because of the validity of their ordination. While the FSSP ordain their men in the Traditional rite, The super majority of their"bishops" are ordained in the invalid new Rite of Episcopal consecration. Thus, their "priest" are doubtfully ordained. The new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid because the words required to unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy which is the fullness of the priesthood were changed through deletion by Paul VI. He is also not powerful because they accept the post-Vatican II apostasy, false ecumenism, the New Mass, and the satanic doctrine of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Please watch
th-cam.com/video/WWo-7uVR8yI/w-d-xo.html
@Moe Gibbs No, they never had their own Bishops, they use the Bishops Consecrated in the Novus Ordo. So at best these are priests trying to ordain laymen if the so called bishops were ordained by a valid bishop in the latin form of the novus ordo ordination. And at worse both episcopal and priestly novus ordo ordinations are completely invalid. The Episcopal Consecration is Highly doubtful which is why it is to be avoided, just saying the rite doesn't do anything if you aren't truly a Bishop. What this has led to is the massive deception of millions of faithful people who then worship a piece of bread as their God and not Christ in the Eucharist and they lead to calling Sedevacantism heresy.
I respect this priest a lot. I have about 20 questions for him. Butalas... He's one of most trusted priests. I am in middle of were and his view. Very confused. Very painful
"Vicims of abortion are excluded from the beatific vision."
--Pope Sixtus V
"If anyone says Baptism is optional, that it is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
--Council of Trent
5
Was the Good Thief on the Cross baptized?
Also you said it's heretical to say that God does Not desire for each of us to choose heaven and be saved, which i agree with.
Problem is this then logically contradicts the doctrine that the unbaptized infants simply descend into hell without even the opportunity to make a choice. If God really did desire all of us to choose salvation then he would grant all of us the opportunity to choose for or against it.
The only thing that should ultimately lose us our salvation is ourselves and our own free decision, but this doctrine ultimately demonstrates that some (the miscarried and aborted) will lose their salvation merely on an external circumstance of which they had zero control over. their fate is literally predestined for them.
So logically no, God does not desire the salvation of everyone, which then goes to suggest error in his nature, and thus, suggest his nonexistence.
I totally agree that God doesn't owe us anything, but it's not about that. It's about God being consistent with himself and living up to his own nature as omnibenevolent
Limbo does not contradict God's omnibenevolence because Limbo is a place of great peace and happiness. There is no sin or suffering there. Limbo is almost like Heaven, the only difference is that the souls in Limbo never get to see God face to face.
God does not have to grant anybody Heaven or even a chance at Heaven, anymote than God is required to let anyone win the lottery.
You could say that the souls in Limbo are saved----after all they ARE saved from the fires of Hell.
@@georgepenton808 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father."
@@georgepenton808 Jesus didn't say baptized ones, but little ones.
I feel very upset upon hearing this about Sedevacantism; that those who die following this heresy will go to hell. My dad subscribed to the Sedevacantist ideas. He died 12 years ago and he did his best to figure out what to do and how to guide his family with all the problems in the church. There was no priest like this one to point out, to my dad, this heresy. There was no Fraternity of Saint Peter where he lived. He could only work with what he had. He always prayed the rosary and became very humble before he died. I would hate to think that God does not judge each soul individually according to what they understood and did with/without a purity of heart. I see that my dad was in error, but I want to have hope that God was merciful to him. We have more information now than my dad had and we have more ways of getting the truth out there. I can see that if someone listens to this truth here, that then they will be required to follow this truth.
peapotter3: Sedevacantism is not a heresy. From the eyes of the Novus Ordo, it's schism. The question is: would being in schism with the current pontiff be damnable? I do not think so. He has said many things that are heretical and unbecoming of the vicar of Christ.
peapotter3
Your dad was not in error. Sedevacantism is the truth. Not a heresy. It is amazing that people believe that a man like Francis can deny the existence of hell AND still remain Catholic.
Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul
@@superior9980 Wrong, please don't visit this site.
I will pray for your father's soul. Sedevacantism is wrong but I believe you can still go through purgatory if you adhere to it.
Great you responded to my comment.You make a lot of sense also.
Gerry used to advocate the Fatima Center. On a video he states Pope John 23 didn't reveal the third secret.Now he's saying him and the other Bishops of Rome weren't valid.Interesting how he changed his view. I know someone else that has changed his view also.
I know better. But the present Holy Father and Bishops need to make drastic changes. Currently nothing seems to be changing all except ushers in Rome telling people to receive on the tongue. When will the Pope obey Our Lady of Fatima? Wouldn't this change the world and the Church's view on Tradition?
Sorry I didn't spell Jerry's name correct.
I think I would listen to him.I would not be misled.I see and hear a lot errors and views about the pope.I would need to know about what his view is.I heard him on the Fatima Centers "Heavens Key to Peace" His view points on the message of Fatima are correct and agreeable.
Can God decide to reveal to an infant supernatural faith before death, like the Holy Innocents?
+mejl2015 I think the Church took the appropriate response to the theory of limbo when it rejected it as obsolete and instead said, We leave the children that die before baptism to the mercy of God. Yes, we all know that if God were to give us (humanity in general) what we deserve then it would be hell but did he not die to reconcile the world to himself? Of course he did and he wills that all men be saved. How then can he will that all men be saved yet put babies in hell? So I don't believe in Limbo, yet I don't entirely reject its ideas either. I will just say until I die and find out for myself what God did with them then I will leave these poor children to God, to his mercy. And did he not say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little ones such as these?
+Azygos1986 good answer
@@Azygos1986 Good point.Christ did say that.
@@Azygos1986 Yeah, reject everything on the basis that it's outdated. We needa get with the times don't we? What Does getting with the times sound like to you? It sounds to me like modernism.
Mr.Mattatics has spoken on Fatima.He is confused.How can he support the message of Fatima but now say there is no pope.The message of Fatima is all about God's command upon the pope and bishops.
Because, there was a consecration, even if it bore no fruit it still was a consecration by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Pope Benedict XVIth says different- All unbaptized babies go to Heaven, not Limbo. Now, who is right??
Benedict XVI has not asserted that all baptised babies go to heaven. Your statement contains certainty, Benedict’s statement contains hope.
The theory of "limbus puerorum" was never an official binding teaching of the church. It was only a theological theory as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed. Roland Minnerath, the archbishop of Dijon, explained that the theologians in the Vatican came to the conclusion, that little children who are not baptized and die, directly enter paradise.
That is palagin teaching which is heretical
@@javonijackson4642 No, not at all. Jesus had a lot to say about little children and how close they are to God.
@@javonijackson4642 So not baptized infants are going to hell? And if so, what about aborted infants? Does it make a difference to be born or unborn and why? Once the infant is born and then dies the next day unbaptized it goes to hell? So better abort them late term when birth already has started before they are outside of their mothers body? What would that tell about Gods character? This is not mathematics. And it is not magic. Whom did Jesus have in mind when he said you have to be baptized? Little children who can not even make their baptism happen? Come on, my friend. Baptism in the early days of the church was an expression of faith. A faith that an infant could not have nor express.
@@javonijackson4642 No, the church never taught limbo. Prove the opposite. Limbo is just a theological invention to ease ones concern about unbaptized infants and still holding the view of original sin.
@Moe Gibbs there are many different things if you look at the Council of Florence Cantate Domino the Council of Trent and many other statements which I have said multiple times I'm not going to keep explaining myself to you guys
Also, could you not show images of aborted fetuses, I understand that this is a very sad and serious reality, but I just feel overwhelmed when it appears on screen.
Offer up the distress you feel to the Lord. He can use it as any prayer or good deed and He feels much more the sorrow that the souls he has created are murdered in this way. If more people offered their distress and called on the Lord to stop this hideous act the quicker the Lord will put an end to it. Infact be glad that your conscience is affected this way! "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness"
Yes,Gary Matticks makes sense though.
Yes except he's wrong. Many people make senses but are they right
I illegally baptized my two 9 mo adopted girls. I was terrified of plane going back . I was wrong. Got Church baptism later
everybody can baptize everyone, the only thing required is water and the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" then baptism is done irrevocably and cannot be repeated
"Perfect natural happiness", even though there is no true happiness for man except to be one with God himself where we find actually fulfillment, so it's pretty hard to say they will enjoy some arbitrary level of perfect natural happiness. They are forever unfulfilled.
+Unclenate1000 what they don't tell you is that Limbo was and is a theological theory, not a dogma of faith, no matter how much anyone wants to present it that way. At the present, the Church teaches that it leaves the babies that die before baptism to the mercy of God, as it should. Yet, the theory of limbo exist(ed) because if God were to give them and everyone of else what we deserve then we would all go to hell (separation from him) because we are conceived in sin after our parents declared war with God. The Catholic faith teaches us that Christ died to reconcile the fallen world to God, to reconcile us to God. God wants and will that all men be saved. God is perfectly just and trustworthy, when you die you will regret any blasphemies against him. Now whatever sin that has taken hold of you, I pray will leave you and you will take back up your cross, and the sensible mind. Avoid sexual immorality, pray to God for help and he will sanctify your mind. God love you.
Azygos1986 I thank you for that, but unfortunately i have found at least one place where it is defined that the souls of the unbaptized immediately "descend into the dead" and even though the word "Limbo" was not in that it was quite clearly implied. This definition, at least one of them that I'm now aware of, was done in the Council of Florence.
Unclenate1000
I would be careful not to isolate one sentence from a past council and apply such a strict interpretation to it. A Catholic is supposed to be known for his ability to unify his dogma, so as to mold his understanding to the teachings of the faith. To give an analogy, what you are doing with the council of Florence would be no different than isolating a sentence out of scripture like Protestants do and then to build a dogma of faith around it, it would be proof-texting. Proof-texting is bad and does not lead to sound theology or faith.
Azygos1986 in general i totally agree with what you're saying, but in this particular case, based off of what i've read so far, i haven't had a reason to believe that that particular definition needs to be applied to a greater context to be understood any better. It made itself pretty clear, and on top of that, simply back up a seemingly huge amount of tradition and speculation form the greatest of minds.
Unclenate1000
the problem with proof-texting things in our religion is that it causes a refusal to see a dogma of faith in its totality, it isolates it and essentially perverts it. What the council of Florence stated is true but it can and has been further expounded upon. I want to post what I believe to be one of the greatest explanations of the dogma 'outside the Church there is no salvation' because this is really what teaching we are addressing.
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion.
Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgements of God" which are "a great abyss" (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
"But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, 'for the hand of the Lord is not shortened' (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light."[6]
Of course God doesn't owe us anything. I reject limbo for unbaptized infants (and the mentally incapacitated) because of the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not because I think God owes humans anything. God binds himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by them.
@Moe Gibbs The "baptism by blood" for non-baptized martyrs is a perfect example of God granting salvation to those who have not received baptism. The other obvious example is the repentant thief on the cross who was also not baptized but went to paradise. I don't know who first formulated "God binds himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by them," but it's certainly a valid way of expressing that God can work in extraordinary ways beyond the sacraments for those not able to receive, as with the repentant thief and non-baptized martyrs.
@Moe Gibbs To say it is "obligatory" is obviously in reference to normative means. To those who have the means/access, it is certainly necessary. To those like the repentant thief and unbaptized martyrs, God uses extraordinary means, apart from baptism. You are going against the very words of Jesus Christ who said that the thief on the cross will be with him in paradise. He will be "with him," i.e., with Jesus himself. If baptism wasn't necesary for him, then it is not absolutely necessary. Grow up, seriously, and learn some real theology instead of trad fundie nonsense.
@Moe Gibbs You have not even attempted to counter my arguments. You actually believe that I'm willfully rejecting church teaching and will burn in hell for all eternity. I am willfully rejecting your silly interpretation of the Catechism of Trent. God will be my judge, not some trad on the internet.
Well i owe great thanks to St. Augustine for making this issue clear and definitively destroying the last bit of Catholic faith i had holding on me. It's about time things have been made clear. thanks.
which aspect is St. Augustine challenging?
yoyoho2627 well without him even knowing it, basically the more modern notion that the permanent state of limbo is just an idea. It is however what i've been repeatedly taught and assured until just recently.
+Unclenate1000 so you are saying that now that it is clear that limbo is not just an idea, you no longer have any Catholic faith left in you? Or am I misunderstanding.
yoyoho2627 pretty much. That and a few other things that have come up in my mind repeatedly and have finally busted their way through.
+Unclenate1000 Keep praying, your future depends upon it. God will help you.
This is truth
Stephanie Lane
It actually isn't. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul
Though not every death is a case of martyrdom, "if aborted children have in some way been killed because of Jesus and his teaching, they qualify to be among those souls that were slain for the word of God."
(Msgr. John F. McCarthy, head of the Roman Theological Forum, 1996)
So if an ex-Catholic mother goes back home to Rome because of the grief and guilt she suffered over her decision to kill her unborn baby, and once accepting Chrst's forgiveness, from thenceforth she actively seeks to bring other people to Christ and his Holy Church because of the mercy Jesus has shown her, then one could argue that her baby died for Christ.
What happens to Limbo at the end of time and the start of eternity, when heaven and earth (and purgatory) pass away?
Please improve your diction, dear priest.
Father told me tonight that catholic teaches limbo for unbaptised baby’s. it makes sense because they have not been cleansed of original sin yet have not consciously sinned. It’s a slippery slope to say they are saved because what if an older child who wasn’t baptised died. Or a teen. Or an adult. Why would the formula changed based on age. It leads to a permission of those who “aren’t in the know” to get into heaven free with original sin. It lessens the need for evangelical teaching of the doctrine of the holy church. It leads to the realisation it be best no one knows the word of God to ensure in their ignorance they get in to heaven easily. It’s not cohesive or compelling to me. Limbo was described that they are happy but eternally separated from heaven.
God is just. Christ hopefully has a merciful love for unbaptized souls. I do not worry about my stillborn son. He may not be able to see God but maybe he can see Mary.
wow, I had heard of limbo but don't remember ever being told it was for babies. it was always insinuated that babies always went to heaven
wow, I had heard of limbo but don't remember ever being told it was for babies. it was always insinuated that babies always went to heaven
Well can a infant make a baptism of desire .. and I won't say limbo isn't real but I believe God makes such call .....
Baptism of Desire I believe is not for infants.
Great video. I really benefited from that St Robert Bellarmine. Follow Up question: what happens with the dead and unbaptized with regards to bodily resurrection??
Thank You.
djb5255 limbo of infants
Robert Bellarmine? Are you serious? Robert Bellarmine was one of the men who placed Galileo under house arrest! Bellarmine's opinion counts for nothing!
Popes Innocent I, Innocent III, Pius VI, and Sixtus V all infallibly stated that Limbo of the Children exists, as did the Counvils of Florence, Lyons, and Trent.
"On behalf of all mankind," because it's totally just and fair that us descendants of Adam had zero say in his sin, yet we still are born prone to hell because of it.
+Unclenate1000 of course not that he owes us anything, but he does owe himself consistency with his nature, and part of his nature includes (supposedly) being all loving and just.
Hey, black parents will have black children. If you argue with God, you can argue with laws of nature. Both is foolish, because that's the way it is.
i can argue with a being whose supposedly omnipotent choosing to set things up this way when its clearly better to set it up where we are mainly accountable for ourselves, not our parents which we have no control over, etc...
Yes, but hereditary faults in character and in psychology are not uncommon. It is the way it is, whether you are atheist or believer.
+Unclenate1000 how else would you explain the fallen nature of mankind?
The Catholic Church infallible teaches "as a result of the sin of Adam all men are saved the Blessed Virgin Mary were born and conceived in a state of original sin this original sin keeps man in a state of separation from God and under the Dominion of the devil until that person is removed from that state through the grace of Christ which is conferred in the sacrament of baptism as a result those who remain in original sin cannot be saved".ccc402 this is why the Catholic church has dogmatically defined at the council's of Florence and Trent and in other statements that no infant or child can be saved without the sacrament of baptism. Pelagian teaching (that has been condemned by the church) "That recently born infants are in the same state as Adam was before his fall". Pope St innocent I said "but that which the pelagians preach that even without the grace of baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life is quite idiotic". Saint Augustine (also) wrote "anyone who would say that infants who passed from this life without participation and the sacrament (of baptism) can be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole church". At the Council of Trent in its decree on original sin Session 5 it defined infallibly "if anyone says that unbaptized infants incur no trace of original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life let be anathema". Also at the Council of Florence Cantate Domino infallibly defined "that there is no other remedy for infants to be rescued from original sin other than the sacrament of water baptism".
I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed them who can neither deceive nor be deceived. We also believe that all things are possible with God.
He is merciful but it is not ours to presume his mercy. Then we must be faithful to His teachings which the Church proclaims. I believe that God reveals to us what is necessary for our own salvation. As far as who is right between Catholics and sedevacantists, you can use a simple rule, that is, no bad tree bears good fruit. You can tell a lot about someone from listening or reading what they have to say most of the time. If Pope Francis is not the real Pope, which he is, but hypothetically, I would rather have a false pope that teaches mercy and charity and humility and solidarity than one who knows all the doctrines of the Church and yet is divisive, legalistic and has not the love of Christ in his heart. Pope Francis is a great pope and he is the pope that the Holy Spirit has given us for our times, and it takes faith and humility to accept that. Pope Francis is greatly misunderstood because people listen to him but close their hearts to the vicar of Christ. So if you are one to criticize the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, and yet you do not get on your knees every day to pray for him, and seek the Holy Spirit in his exhortations with an open heart, you ought to think carefully again about your life.
JoHn LyTe if he is just being "misunderstood" all the time. maybe its his fault for being so ambiguous and not clearly defining or defending catholic doctrine. if he would do that, all the "misunderstandings " would disappear over night. and so would sedvacantism.
TheCleanTech
Yes I agree he can be confusing. But I also agree that he says more clear things than confusing things. We only hear about those controversial topics. For eg. he is very hard against abortion. And he supported St. John Paul 2's confirmation that women can't be priests. But I don't believe that the way we deal with things like Amoris Latitia is calling him a heretic or separating yourself from Rome. If he makes an error, then we must all work to have that corrected but as a church. That's why I said it requires faith and humility. Faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance and the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail. Humility to say that we are not perfect and we all make mistakes, and we all need to work on that. Living the church in the midst of turmoil, because of turmoil seems to be a lack of faith and humility and quite frankly, courage.
So you think that the pope should excommunicate anyone that thinks abortion is ok?
Well we do have both natural and supernatural elements to our existence. Its not bad to work for natural goods like feeding the poor which is connected to the supernatural also. And I don't think you can accuse anyone, especially the pope of not having supernatural motives.
I said a lack of faith, not no faith altogether. which you accuse me of. If you weren't so full of yourself you would actually find that there are faithful Catholics who are loyal to the pope but will say if he is wrong on anything. Catholics like me go out of our way to share the teachings of the church and to clarify any confusions with Church teachings. Catholics like me don't judge people as heretics because they might be ignorant, but we will correct them. People like me understand that you are useless outside of the Church if you want to make changes inside.
Perhaps it's because I understand that I'm not perfect, no one is. perhaps I beleive in the end, the Holy Spirit will always prevail. Perhaps its because Catholics like me will not abandon ship as soon as the weather starts getting rough, but rather we think it sensible to stick with the captain and help the ship to survive. Perhaps its because I have patience and understand that God is working behind the scenes and its OK if we don't understand everything all the time. But hey that's just me, no faith and out of touch with the supernatural, unlike you.
I hope that one day we will be united and that Truth will prevail. Can we at least agree on that.
Amen to that.