Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 35 minutes later[^][v]#1,426,395
I think you’re a bit confused. The Anglican Church is Protestant, and Protestants are called Protestant because they protest Catholicism and broke away from the original church. The Catholic Church views the Catholic Church as the original Christian church founded by Jesus. The Catholic Church’s thing about "Anglican heritage" has to do with the Catholic Church reintegrating non-Catholic churches back into the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church doesn’t accept Anglican Christianity as correct, instead they merely have created a process where an Anglican Church can de-reform itself back into a Catholic Church while still retaining “Anglican heritage" in terms of asserting that it is culturally British but still under the authority of the pope.
Liberal Anglo Catholics are not in communion with the Catholic Church and are not considered to be Catholic. They simply retain a few more of the traditions from before the Anglican Church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church.
This can be confusing because since the Anglican Church originally was nothing more than a branch of the Catholic Church, the structure of the Anglican Church was originally exactly the same as that of the Catholic Church in England and everyone held exactly the same titles, making it easy to get them confused with each other. But fundamentally, Anglicans are not Catholic and they hold views that are incompatible with Catholicism and considered heretical by the Roman church.
The structure of an ordinariate enables Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Pope while preserving some degree of corporate identity and autonomy from the geographical dioceses for other Catholics of the Latin Church and maintaining distinctive elements of their Anglican "theological, spiritual and liturgical patrimony".[57] The ordinariates integrate these groups in such ways as "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared",[31][58][59] while also being members of the Latin Church and fully accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Can you explain this to me simply, as the article as simply left me more confused
Sounds like it's a process where a church can do the mass however they did it before, but they're Catholic?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,404
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
So you can sort of think of the situation this way:
Black in the day, long long time ago, you could think of the Catholic Church as a giant tree, and you can think of the pope as the root of that tree. What king Henry VIII did, is he cut the English branch off of that tree. And now the pope is still trying to glue that branch back on. But it’s a big branch and it’s heavy so it doesn’t want to stay on, so instead he’s trying to glue individual twigs back on.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,405
It’s confusing because the church isn’t stupid, they won’t just come out and be like, "the Church of England is wrong you’re all going to burn in hell!" They use the carrot and the stick. They want to affirm the fact that Anglicans are English and have English heritage, but they also don’t really want more than one church to exist at the same time. So if you ask a Catholic if Anglicans are Catholic, the answer is definitely not. The issue is Catholic priests tend to be polite old men, and you really have to imagine very polite old men having a disagreement over religion. Not which religion is true, but details like does Rome have primacy, is there a purgatory, was Mary born without sin, etc. The boring details most people don’t really care about. There’s naturally going to be a lot of doublespeak.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,407
Now the Catholic position on orthodoxy is even more confusing because the Catholic Church and the orthodox churches were originally one church. They were both founded by Jesu, but the disagreement is that the Catholic Church believes that Rome has primacy over the entire Christian church while the orthodox churches believe that primacy means Rome was supposed to be "first among equals." So about a thousand years ago they split apart into two churches, but the Catholic Church at various points in history has expressed a desire to resolve this schism, but the only way they want to resolve it is with Rome retaining full primacy over the church, so they have a system where orthodox Christians can basically accept the primacy of Rome and remain "orthodox" but are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They’re referred to as "Eastern Catholics" which differentiates them from Roman Catholics. But the end goal with that is they want to create one Christian church underneath the pope. Of course, they aren’t that direct, but that’s literally what the Catholic Church believes and what they want, they believe in one church, only one church, led by Rome.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,451
@previous (F)
That's the order that pulls the strings behind the church in England.
They have a history inside the nationalist church to gain kompromat (from confession) and then "convert" to return to their true masters. The pope then uses this intel and reports to his true master the black pope of the jesuits (aka the antichrist).
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,463
@previous (A)
You know you can just walk up to a Jesuit in real life, ask them what they are and what they believe in. You should do it if you want to listen to some guy talk about social justice and education or something boring like that.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,472
@previous (A)
He’s a Chinese Canadian high school teacher who pretends to be a professor on the internet. His "class" is just an after school program he made up. He’s not qualified to talk about anything he gives opinions on.
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,473
I’ve been Catholic my entire life. He has no idea what he’s talking about. Nobody who knows what they’re talking about would ever refer to the Jesuits as a secret society because there’s nothing secretive about them or what they believe. The literally have Jesuit high schools where anyone can send their children even if they’re not Catholic. If you’re Catholic you’re actually not allowed to join secret societies or you’ll be excommunicated from the church.
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,476
And don’t get me wrong, I can understand why someone would be suspicious of authority given how often people are lied to. However, listening to some random guy on YouTube make stuff up isn’t the solution. He doesn’t know anything more about the Catholic Church than you do so you shouldn’t listen to his opinions on how the Catholic Church operates. There are genuine things you can criticize about the Catholic Church, but the Jesuits just aren’t a secret society.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,481
@previous (A)
How is calling him Chinese Canadian racist if he was born in China and moved to Canada? Why do we call people African American or Irish American? I never said it was bad that he’s Chinese, you’re making that assumption yourself based on your own biases. How do you know I wasn’t fine with the fact he’s a Chinese and have a problem with him being Canadian?
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 58 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,485
I’m just pointing out he has worked in China and Canada and his has connections with both countries. Saying someone is Chinese Canadian doesn’t mean they’re not Canadian.
> I once ate lunch in Paris, should I disclose that before continuin the conversation?
Well are you ethnically French, were you born in France, and did you work in France? Because he’s ethnically Chinese, worked in China, and was born there.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,491
@1,426,487 (A)
It’s fairly common to say where someone is from when you’re talking about them. For example, mentioning that Richard Wagner was a German composer.
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,492
@1,426,490 (A)
I didn’t judge him based on his heritage, I just said he was Chinese Canadian. I never said there’s anything wrong with him being Chinese Canadian.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,493
This is what my issue was:
Professor (noun)
1: one that professes, avows, or declares
2
a: a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education
b: a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school
c: one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill
Anonymous G quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,494
There’s nothing wrong with teaching high school students, but he’s being dishonest by calling himself a professor. Calling yourself a professor implies you’re teaching college level courses at a college or university. Except he’s not teaching college level courses at a college or university, he’s teaching high school level courses at a high school and none of the videos he uploads are from real courses he actually teaches. "Predictive history" isn’t something he lectures on that his students receive academic credit for on their transcript, it’s just an afterschool program he made up.
Anonymous G quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,495
And now, I don’t have a problem with that. If he’s just a guy who came up with a fun after school program idea that’s fine, I don’t care. But when people got confused and thought it was a real class he actually teaches he let it get to his head and now he’s trying to represent this as a real thing when it’s literally just him making stuff up as he goes along. Which is okay, you can do that, if you say that’s what you’re doing.
Anonymous G sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,496
And that’s not to say that I disagree with everything he ever said or I think everything he's ever said is wrong. I’m just saying, the fact that he said something doesn’t mean that it’s true because he’s not a reliable source of information, he’s just winging it and having fun. There’s nothing scientifically rigorous about it.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 48 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,507
@previous (H)
Tbh idk why people need to make up conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church. You’d think the 8 (possibly 9) holy wars against Islam and Judaism would be enough ammo, but I guess not.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,509
@1,426,507 (G)
When you think about it, its rather unrealistic that a global organization that can get people to testify their belief in the supernatural would somehow be involved in power brokering.
Sure they were involved in drawing national lines, orchestrating coups, selling children, and genociding nonbelievers. But aside from that what evidence is there they'd even be capable of something like conspiracy?
Anonymous G replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,511
@previous (A)
During the Middle Ages the church was more powerful than governments, but that was a long time ago. Now there’s separation of church and state and most people aren’t as fanatically religious as they were in the past. In the past, the way a crusade was declared is the pope would announce a holy war, and then thousands of random people from random European countries would travel thousands of miles, a bunch of them dying along the way from exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, disease, etc. and then they would die fighting Muslims in the Middle East because they thought if they died fighting for the religion they would instantly go to heaven. But nobody thinks that anymore.
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,515
@1,426,512 (A)
There’s a big difference between faith and fanatical obsession. Medieval Christian fanaticism isn’t a thing anymore and that’s probably a good thing.