Easily addressed. piped.video/zYNg4e43S5A?is=u5nz…

Six children with Down syndrome have been invited to serve Pope Leo XIV at the altar during Mass during his visit to France. In the Catholic Church, everyone has a place, and every person is valued and loved.

How I sleep knowing Catholicism is true.

If you follow me, watch this. piped.video/wlqIgQFLFAI

Massive video dropping tomorrow. A new, highly-evidenced miracle with, you guessed it, vindicatory implications for Catholicism.

You have clear answers in the catechism. I’m not sure what you believe given what your prophets have said and what I hear your apologists now say. Can you help me? Is there a catechism of the Mormon church that answers the following questions authoritatively? 1. Was Adam “our Father and our God”? (Brigham Young) 2. Was God the Father once as we are, a mortal man who became a god? (Joseph Smith) 3. Are human spirits eternal, pre-existing even God the Father when he was merely a mortal man? (Joseph Smith) 4. Were there gods before God the Father? 5. How did God the Father become a god? Who or what gave him the requisite powers? 6. Does the Father god-man have a wife, heavenly mother? Have they sired any children? 7. Can mortal human beings like you become a god? 8. Is the so-called Book of Abraham a “translation” of “papyrus” on which Abraham, “by his own hand,” wrote the book and that had “fallen into” the church’s hands? 9. If an Egyptologist translated the facsimiles, would what he writes match the “translation” in the Book of Abraham? 10. When did the catalyst theory develop? Who was the first to defend it? Was it after the findings of the Egyptologists about the book? There are many more questions I’d have, but I think that’s a good start—I’ve heard different answers from @ThoughtfulSaint , the prophets, and more conservative Mormons who are willing to defend them (versus changing them with philosophy).

I look to Christ through James, who says ‘faith without works is dead.’

Happy to host this.

Btw, Catholicism is true.

Why do you intentionally downplay the evidence? There are many witnesses, including a German Protestant prince who saw Joseph fly and converted to Catholicism. It was controversial enough for Leibniz to mention.

Yes. St Ignatius of Antioch.

Anti-Trinitarian tries to use AI to refute the Trinity. It doesn’t go well.

He knew Polycarp and John, the beloved disciple. I'm going with him over Americans 2000 years later.

Mark of Ephesus is celebrated in Eastern Orthodoxy for resisting reunion with Rome. But a fifteenth-century account describes him dying while vomiting fecal matter. At the end of Vindicating the Filioque, Fr. Thomas Crean asks whether this terrible end carried a particular significance for Catholics. He quotes Joseph Plousiadenos, the bishop of Methone, who contrasts Mark’s death with that of Patriarch Joseph II. According to Plousiadenos, Joseph embraced union with Rome and died giving thanks to God. Addressing the deceased Mark, he writes: “But you, who so insolently abuse him and those who were with him, did not so die, but rather, you breathed forth your soul along with the filth of the latrine. The whole city knows it. For the justice of God knows how to pay back each one for the faith which he has, just as once happened with Arius, that byword for madness. For he sent forth his bowels beneath him, while you expelled the filth upwards.” Those are severe words. Plousiadenos supported union with Rome, and his account is openly polemical. Crean’s footnote also cites a similar description by Ubertin Pusculo, an Italian whom Crean identifies as having been in Constantinople at the time. That deserves historical examination. The medical detail is plausible. Copremesis, or fecal vomiting, is a recognized phenomenon. It can occur with severe intestinal obstruction, and fatal cases involving feculent vomiting are documented in the medical literature. Its existence establishes that such an account is medically possible; assessing the historical sources remains a separate question. So what is the significance Crean sees? The Filioque concerns the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Crean invokes St. Anastasius I of Antioch’s interpretation of the Psalm’s phrase “breath of his mouth”: the Spirit is the breath, and the divine “mouth” represents the only-begotten Son. If the account is accurate, the symbolism is disturbing. Mark denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the divine “mouth.” His own mouth reportedly became the means by which he expelled filth as he died. Crean closes with this question: “Is it possible to see in this wretched end of Mark Eugenikos, notorious throughout Constantinople, a sign of heaven’s displeasure with one who had so determinedly denied to the divine mouth the honor of breathing forth the consubstantial Spirit, and who has passed on this denial to his posterity?” —Fr. Thomas Crean, Vindicating the Filioque, pp. 428–429.

The Bishop of Rome’s authority over foreign churches is evidenced very early on in church history. Clement, the third Bishop of Rome after Peter, commands the Corinthian church by the authority of God, twice: He warns the Corinthians who ‘should disobey what has been said by him [i.e., God] through us,’ and commends those who would ‘obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit.’ 1 Clem. 59, 63. The authoritative tone of the letter is all the more striking when one realizes that St. John the Apostle was still alive and closer to Corinth. Still the Corinthians appealed to the Church of Rome, and received Clement’s response. In a letter to Pope Soter, Dionysius, the later Bishop of Corinth, confirmed that the Corinthian Church obeyed. The Church so highly regarded Clement’s letter that they read it in church alongside Scripture. Pope Calistus followed in that very early tradition. He promulgated a decree that sins like fornication could be remitted, and grounded that authority in Matthew 16. After Tertullian became a Montanist heretic he mocked the Pope for asserting authority as ‘the Supreme Pontiff, the bishop of bishops’ and ‘blessed Pope.’

No response to the challenge: Reception would make non-ecumenical some councils your Church says are ecumenical.