Is the Palmarian Church the True Catholic Church?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Is the Palmarian Church the True Catholic Church?
📖Top 10 Lies About Pope Francis EXPOSED (Free Ebook): reason.podia.com/10-lies
📖Answering Orthodoxy: shop.catholic.com/answering-o...
🎓Logical Fallacies in Apologetics (Course): reason.podia.com/logical-fall...
🎓The Theological Notes (Course): reason.podia.com/the-theologi...
💰Go Fund Me: gofund.me/fb9dcd82
💰Donate: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
👪Patreon: patreon.com/reasonandtheology
👪Locals: reasonandtheology.locals.com
DON'T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE AND LIKE!
I refuse to submit to the Palmarian "Pope."
@@matthewwalczak5321 oh no that means your anathema, try not to lose sleep 😂
Lol, as you should!
u know u want 2
For many false prophets will arise says scriptures.... So yea..... He's not the real Pope..
The Palmarians sound like what Protestants talk about when describing Catholicism. Mary worship, different scripture, etc
Yeah, it's like they saw Protestant and Muslim anti-Catholic polemics and thought "yeah, let's put that in creed and then some" 😅
We do not worship Mary, and the Scripture is the same just with some new revelations that complete them according to the Catholic Tradition as in some many Council had been done.
So what is going on in the palmarian creed with calling her “Divine Mary,” mentioning her “divine soul,” that the soul of Mary pre-existed (though it was created, is that Arianism?), “a drop of Mary’s blood in Jesus,” something about the souls in the bosom of Abraham, those in purgatory, and children in limbo are given a drop of Mary’s blood for sanctifying grace, that baptism, confirmation, confession, and extreme unction involve a drop of Mary’s blood (not even mentioning Christ’s blood), the saved dwell in Mary’s heart, that you receive Mary body blood and soul in the Eucharist (I suppose you were careful not to include receiving her divinity), etc? Compared to official Catholic teaching (not Catholic pious opinion) this very much appears to go way beyond hyperdulia, it’s borderline idolatry.
A more precise accusation that Protestants use against Catholics is “adding to scripture.” Why does the Palmarian church have authority to edit the very text of Genesis after several millennia with “new revelations,” beyond just study notes? It seems the origin of the palmarian Bible is from Gregory XVII getting private revelations from Elijah, and somehow that is enough to override the traditional public revelation?
I’m now actually browsing though a scan of the palmarian Bible, and I’m having trouble seeing “scripture is the same just with some new revelations.” The text itself is so radically different to the traditional Bible, in some parts I actually cannot see any instance where the actual text of Genesis is written, especially the creation account. It literally looks like it was written by one modern theologian rather than a collection of ancient sources through history, as in I could understand this being an explicatory textbook, but to call it a Bible is absurd.
@@killianmiller6107 I remember dialoging with a protestant that Jesus did not have a drop of Mary's blood. I thought that sounded very hateful to Mary but maybe they confused Catholicism with this group?
If you have looked at Palmarian Church shorts, then you will see me try to defend Roman Catholicism
@@NotreDame4_Life-jk2gh just did, 😅
They're blinded, sadly.
Yet they're not the one flying rainbow flags but you Roman Catholics are and with papal blessings...care to explain or will you slink away into the darkness?
@@RockerfellerRothchild1776 I'll explain: Heresy in the Roman Catholic Church's case AND heresy in the case of the Palmarian Church. Easy.
@@alexanderhendry5819 explained nothing ...in fact to an outsider you made that Pal church look good. Smh
@@RockerfellerRothchild1776 For one: they claim Paul VI was the last true pope. To any traditionalist and sedevacantist that is so wrong. The man who completed VII? A true pope?
The man who founded the church was just someone who wanted to be worshipped. If you can't see that you are as blind as he was.
"I just had a vision. God made me the new papal head of the indefectible Palmarian Church! He's told me to dissolve it immediately and tell Christians to listen to the Catholic Church. Also, earthquake coming somewhere, sometime."
I believe!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
I understand that this was said in mockery, but Paul had visions that changed what the original apostles were doing. Why was his visions accepted when he did not know Jesus when he was alive and he went against what the apostles were doing in regards to the Jewish laws and the Gentiles. Look up the incident in Antioch and the council of Jerusalem.
@@BrownBessOwner Lot to bite into here:
1. My main point was that when someone uses personal revelation to contradict apostolic tradition to form a new Church, they are opening themselves up to identical claims of personal revelation to contradict them. Basically, my response to the Palmarian "Nah-uh" was a "Nah-ah-ah!" The measure by which they measure refutes them.
2. You should read those stories again. Paul has an encounter with Jesus and immediately goes and joins the Church. He is struck blind and doesn't receive his sight again until Ananias lays hands on him. He is then baptized into the Church. (Acts 9)
Who was Ananias? A convert under Peter, the first pope.
3. Paul did not change the teachings, nor did he claim to. The Judiazers were incorrectly teaching that converts should follow Levitical law, but Peter never did. Instead, Peter was acting hypocritically ("stood self-condemned" Gal 2:11). When disciples of James came around, he would not eat with the uncircumcised converts. Peter himself testifies that Jesus cleansed gentiles (Acts 15) and so there is no need for this. If this is a new teaching from Paul, why does Peter say he himself received it from Jesus?
However, it makes sense that the first Christians would fall into this habit. They regularly interacted with non-Christian Jews and leaders of the temple and synagogues who followed the practices of the Pharisees. Non-Christian Jews made this distinction and the first evangelists had to respect this to get in the door (1 Cor 9:20). Paul even has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.
4. Notice Paul's example in how even someone with a personal experience of Jesus treats the Church. He doesn't ignore what they teach and teach his own thing. He doesn't tell people to leave the Church and start a new one. He doesn't begin a new tradition, but points out when people are acting inconsistently with Church teaching. He doesn't make a drama about it, but debates, then goes to the leaders to address them privately on the issue. Even through all this, someone that had a personal revelation of Jesus works within the Church as an obedient servant.
Most importantly of all: Notice Paul doesn't suggest the line of succession (through which he was baptized) was cut off. He doesn't say the Apostles are no longer the Apostles. He takes his issue to the Church and accepts their judgement as Jesus commanded the Apostles (Matt 18:15-17).
Paul is actually a fantastic example of how a faithful Christian should deal with his leaders when he thinks they are acting inconsistently with Christian teaching. He wrote much of what the Church collated in the Bible as suitable to be read during their liturgy. Yet, he taught nothing new (Gal 1:9). Notice Paul went to the apostolic Church to be a part of Jesus' religion. He didn't start a Paularian Church. Paul considered the Church to be indefectible and united (Eph 4:10-16). The Church guided by God, not personal revelation, was the guard against heresy. If you read the Church fathers, you'll see they love Peter and Paul. They do not see them as rivals, but coworkers.
Bonus comment:
Notice the effect of someone that works within the Church as opposed to one that teaches it has fallen into apostasy. Michael, in this channel, often points out where he thinks Church leaders are acting imprudently (like Paul did with Peter). He never suggests that this nullifies the order Jesus established. He helps Christians wrestle with complex topics and encourages trust in the Church. This leads to unity and is a legacy that will outlast him. When Michael is gone, the Church will still be there.
Compare this to some of the false "traditionalists" who regularly suggest the Church is not infallibly guided or visibly known. They split into factions and are led into a paranoid worldview that the apostolic Church is heretical. They engage in superstitions like suggesting the 1962 missal has special efficacy. They make claims that are not consistent with the actual tradition of the Church or common sense, like suggesting the 1962 missal is "the Latin Mass" and is ancient. (Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak Latin. Latin was a vernacular translation.) They even cut up the Bible or add in their own teachings, as Luther did.
In the face of stormy heresies and imprudent acts, faithful Christians like Paul call for believers to take refuge with Jesus' Church. Those that reject the Church as indefectible shake like leaves and flee where no one pursues. As a non-Christian, I expect Christian traditions to split and diverge until they've disintegrated into nothing. When the Church persists, seems moved by one spirit, and holds to Jesus' original teachings, it gives me reason to suspect there is something peculiar about this Jesus fellow.
Final word:
I know it is common today for people to suggest Paul taught something new. That's not what Paul claimed. It is not what his disciples claimed. It is not what the Church fathers taught about him. Believing that Paul rejected the authority of the Church is something that can only be believed when you are unfamiliar with the traditions Paul was a part of. Don't take my word for it. I claim no special authority or insight. Go read some of the Church fathers. Might I suggest Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 "On the Unity of the Church."?
Good luck in your studies!
@@BrownBessOwner Lot to bite into here: 1. My main point was that when someone uses personal revelation to contradict apostolic tradition to form a new Church, they are opening themselves up to identical claims of personal revelation to contradict them. Basically, my response to the Palmarian "Nah-uh" was a "Nah-ah-ah!" The measure by which they measure refutes them. 2. You should read those stories again. Paul has an encounter with Jesus and immediately goes and joins the Church. He is struck blind and doesn't receive his sight again until Ananias lays hands on him. He is then baptized into the Church. (Acts 9) Who was Ananias? A convert under Peter, the first pope. 3. Paul did not change the teachings, nor did he claim to. The Judiazers were incorrectly teaching that converts should follow Levitical law, but Peter never did. Instead, Peter was acting hypocritically ("stood self-condemned" Gal 2:11). When disciples of James came around, he would not eat with the uncircumcised converts. Peter himself testifies that Jesus cleansed gentiles (Acts 15) and so there is no need for this. If this is a new teaching from Paul, why does Peter say he himself received it from Jesus? However, it makes sense that the first Christians would fall into this habit. They regularly interacted with non-Christian Jews and leaders of the temple and synagogues who followed the practices of the Pharisees. Non-Christian Jews made this distinction and the first evangelists had to respect this to get in the door (1 Cor 9:20). Paul even has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16. 4. Notice Paul's example in how even someone with a personal experience of Jesus treats the Church. He doesn't ignore what they teach and teach his own thing. He doesn't tell people to leave the Church and start a new one. He doesn't begin a new tradition, but points out when people are acting inconsistently with Church teaching. He doesn't make a drama about it, but debates, then goes to the leaders to address them privately on the issue. Even through all this, someone that had a personal revelation of Jesus works within the Church as an obedient servant. Most importantly of all: Notice Paul doesn't suggest the line of succession (through which he was baptized) was cut off. He doesn't say the Apostles are no longer the Apostles. He takes his issue to the Church and accepts their judgement as Jesus commanded the Apostles (Matt 18:15-17). Paul is actually a fantastic example of how a faithful Christian should deal with his leaders when he thinks they are acting inconsistently with Christian teaching. He wrote much of what the Church collated in the Bible as suitable to be read during their liturgy. Yet, he taught nothing new (Gal 1:9). Notice Paul went to the apostolic Church to be a part of Jesus' religion. He didn't start a Paularian Church. Paul considered the Church to be indefectible and united (Eph 4:10-16). The Church guided by God, not personal revelation, was the guard against heresy. If you read the Church fathers, you'll see they love Peter and Paul. They do not see them as rivals, but coworkers. Bonus comment: Notice the effect of someone that works within the Church as opposed to one that teaches it has fallen into apostasy. Michael, in this channel, often points out where he thinks Church leaders are acting imprudently (like Paul did with Peter). He never suggests that this nullifies the order Jesus established. He helps Christians wrestle with complex topics and encourages trust in the Church. This leads to unity and is a legacy that will outlast him. When Michael is gone, the Church will still be there. Compare this to some of the false "traditionalists" who regularly suggest the Church is not infallibly guided or visibly known. They split into factions and are led into a paranoid worldview that the apostolic Church is heretical. They engage in superstitions like suggesting the 1962 missal has special efficacy. They make claims that are not consistent with the actual tradition of the Church or common sense, like suggesting the 1962 missal is "the Latin Mass" and is ancient. (Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak Latin. Latin was a vernacular translation.) They even cut up the Bible or add in their own teachings, as Luther did. In the face of stormy heresies and imprudent acts, faithful Christians like Paul call for believers to take refuge with Jesus' Church. Those that reject the Church as indefectible shake like leaves and flee where no one pursues. As a non-Christian, I expect Christian traditions to split and diverge until they've disintegrated into nothing. When the Church persists, seems moved by one spirit, and holds to Jesus' original teachings, it gives me reason to suspect there is something peculiar about this Jesus fellow. Final word: I know it is common today for people to suggest Paul taught something new. That's not what Paul claimed. It is not what his disciples claimed. It is not what the Church fathers taught about him. Believing that Paul rejected the authority of the Church is something that can only be believed when you are unfamiliar with the traditions Paul was a part of. Don't take my word for it. I claim no special authority or insight. Go read some of the Church fathers. Might I suggest Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 "On the Unity of the Church."? Good luck in your studies!
(Repost because this was previously censored. If Someone dishonestly flags it, UA-cam needs to escalate the claim so that account will be flagged and my inoffensive academic points will not be censored. Sorry this version doesn't have the same formatting.)
Lot to bite into here: 1. My main point was that when someone uses personal revelation to contradict apostolic tradition to form a new Church, they are opening themselves up to identical claims of personal revelation to contradict them. Basically, my response to the Palmarian "Nah-uh" was a "Nah-ah-ah!" The measure by which they measure refutes them. 2. You should read those stories again. Paul has an encounter with Jesus and immediately goes and joins the Church. He is struck blind and doesn't receive his sight again until Ananias lays hands on him. He is then baptized into the Church. (Acts 9) Who was Ananias? A convert under Peter, the first pope. 3. Paul did not change the teachings, nor did he claim to. The Judiazers were incorrectly teaching that converts should follow Levitical law, but Peter never did. Instead, Peter was acting hypocritically ("stood self-condemned" Gal 2:11). When disciples of James came around, he would not eat with the uncircumcised converts. Peter himself testifies that Jesus cleansed gentiles (Acts 15) and so there is no need for this. If this is a new teaching from Paul, why does Peter say he himself received it from Jesus? However, it makes sense that the first Christians would fall into this habit. They regularly interacted with non-Christian Jews and leaders of the temple and synagogues who followed the practices of the Pharisees. Non-Christian Jews made this distinction and the first evangelists had to respect this to get in the door (1 Cor 9:20). Paul even has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16. 4. Notice Paul's example in how even someone with a personal experience of Jesus treats the Church. He doesn't ignore what they teach and teach his own thing. He doesn't tell people to leave the Church and start a new one. He doesn't begin a new tradition, but points out when people are acting inconsistently with Church teaching. He doesn't make a drama about it, but debates, then goes to the leaders to address them privately on the issue. Even through all this, someone that had a personal revelation of Jesus works within the Church as an obedient servant. Most importantly of all: Notice Paul doesn't suggest the line of succession (through which he was baptized) was cut off. He doesn't say the Apostles are no longer the Apostles. He takes his issue to the Church and accepts their judgement as Jesus commanded the Apostles (Matt 18:15-17). Paul is actually a fantastic example of how a faithful Christian should deal with his leaders when he thinks they are acting inconsistently with Christian teaching. He wrote much of what the Church collated in the Bible as suitable to be read during their liturgy. Yet, he taught nothing new (Gal 1:9). Notice Paul went to the apostolic Church to be a part of Jesus' religion. He didn't start a Paularian Church. Paul considered the Church to be indefectible and united (Eph 4:10-16). The Church guided by God, not personal revelation, was the guard against heresy. If you read the Church fathers, you'll see they love Peter and Paul. They do not see them as rivals, but coworkers. Bonus comment: Notice the effect of someone that works within the Church as opposed to one that teaches it has fallen into apostasy. Michael, in this channel, often points out where he thinks Church leaders are acting imprudently (like Paul did with Peter). He never suggests that this nullifies the order Jesus established. He helps Christians wrestle with complex topics and encourages trust in the Church. This leads to unity and is a legacy that will outlast him. When Michael is gone, the Church will still be there. Compare this to some of the false "traditionalists" who regularly suggest the Church is not infallibly guided or visibly known. They split into factions and are led into a paranoid worldview that the apostolic Church is heretical. They engage in superstitions like suggesting the 1962 missal has special efficacy. They make claims that are not consistent with the actual tradition of the Church or common sense, like suggesting the 1962 missal is "the Latin Mass" and is ancient. (Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak Latin. Latin was a vernacular translation.) They even cut up the Bible or add in their own teachings, as Luther did. In the face of stormy heresies and imprudent acts, faithful Christians like Paul call for believers to take refuge with Jesus' Church. Those that reject the Church as indefectible shake like leaves and flee where no one pursues. As a non-Christian, I expect Christian traditions to split and diverge until they've disintegrated into nothing. When the Church persists, seems moved by one spirit, and holds to Jesus' original teachings, it gives me reason to suspect there is something peculiar about this Jesus fellow. Final word: I know it is common today for people to suggest Paul taught something new. That's not what Paul claimed. It is not what his disciples claimed. It is not what the Church fathers taught about him. Believing that Paul rejected the authority of the Church is something that can only be believed when you are unfamiliar with the traditions Paul was a part of. Don't take my word for it. I claim no special authority or insight. Go read some of the Church fathers. Might I suggest Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 "On the Unity of the Church."? Good luck in your studies!
(This post keeps getting censored.)
Demons of old are back and brought 7 other demons to the pack. This generation is more wilder than I initially thought it was 10 years ago. Fight the good fight, everyone! If we wont be able to meet in this lifetime, See y’all in the pearly gates someday.
How many heresies do you want to profess?
Palmarians: yes
I laughed out loud
So "pride" mass is okay? Because your church has OKed it.
@@RockerfellerRothchild1776 That doesn't mean that the Palmarians are the true church either. You have to learn to argue better.
That is truly satanic. It’s a complete mockery of the True Holy Catholic Church in Rome.
You people do not understand the Palmarian Catholic doctrine. Pity you don´t love Our Lady as the Palmarians do.
@@IglesiaPalmariana La Santa Virgen María no es Dios, y tampoco es divina. Solo hay un Dios verdadero, y la Virgen está llena de gracia de ese Dios verdadero.
@@IglesiaPalmariana You people don't understand Christian doctrine. Pity you don't love our Lord and His Truth as the Catholics do.
You must leave your satanic cult and reconcile with Rome.
@@IglesiaPalmariana
They had the audacity to add 'Palmarian' to the original 4 marks of the church.
Whackadoodles!
Palmarians and Sedes are kind of like Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. They crossover into each other's influences and oppose the Bishop of Rome.
@@Aaryq but Presbyterians do not practice idolatry and have the same understanding of God.
@@mz2535 He meant doctrine.
@@CatholicCrusaderEditz I mean that too. The doctrine of Presbyterians isn't that strange. It's a simplified catholic doctrine eg no icons.
@@mz2535Catholics dont practice idolatry too
These dudes are crazy. I'm sticking with One True Church of Christ built on Peter and centered in Rome ✝
Agreed. Pray for them
I am so glad you made this video.
This is where insane sede trad beliefs lead
@@Mamagioski Hey. You guys need more prayers that we do.
@@IglesiaPalmariana Repent and leave your Satanic cult.
Looking up their beliefs, I have never seen a more blasphemous sect of “Catholicism” in my life!
Yep
@@ReasonandTheology You are mistaken. Never was St Joseph so loved as he is now in the Palmarian Catholic Church.
@@padrebrauliomaria it is a cult and that point is irrelevant. Schismatics love the saints too.
@@padrebrauliomariathe “palmerian church” loves the devil more than any Saint.
@@ReasonandTheology the padre braulio Maria person you’re talking to is actually a palmarian priest apparently
The live chat had like 5 or 6 palmarians in it, and their arguments were wild.
They sounded like the rad trads right? lol. Same exact stuff. Pachamama etc 😂
Sorry I missed that or maybe not
@ReasonandTheology a simple Google would disprove them. I believe these people who deny simple explanations are already taken by Satan. We should pray for them.
The Creed is sounding like it if someone read a Jack Chick track about Catholicism and decided to take his slander as gospel.
anyone who would defect to this must be more attached to the aesthetic of catholicism than the reality of it
@@johnhoelzeman6683 Anyone who would defect to this lot must be seriously bothered upstairs.
I'm calling it. This will be Vigano in about 5 years 😂
YES
Maybe
No way he ever gets quite this crazy
Think about it...Vigano knows he can not dismantle the Catholic Church. So he is just going to create this parallel "church" to do...what? I don't think he is just going to be quiet and ride off into the sunset, lol. He wants his own Church like Luther. I would not be surprised if he is trying to create his own hierarchy. It's very plausible.
I came here to say this, but knew in my heart that someone had already said it. 😂
I’m only about 18 minutes in so far, but it’s sounds like someone took Mormonism, and radical traditionalism and mashed them together. I think I’ll stick with Rome.
All that glitters is not gold.....that's why we need to remain with the Church of Rome of Pope Peter and Pope Francis
The third “Pope” defected! Praise God that they came back to the church!!
I sub to a number of different Trad yotubers and read there viewers comments. It blows my mind how a group of people that pride themselves on defending the church and traditions know so little about what the church teaches and what church documents actually say. All their opinions and responses are Francis said this. Saint so so said that. I stand with V for vendetta because Pope man bad, he seen with sinners. The irony...The lack of knowledge or curiosity for the truth is astounding in the so called Traditionalist. it's all feels like their LARPing being a contrarian because they think it wins the cool points on the internet. Not all but probably 99%
It honestly is like watching CNN. Just change orange man for Pope and it’s exactly the kind of stuff. It’s bad.
say our Beautiful Rosary 📿 our weapon against the devil .Stop the evil and lies of our jesus and our blessed mother mary.
These people have 5 minutes latin masses btw 😂
no way. is there proof of this claim?
@@ReasonandTheology yes. I have to go dig it up. They say because they are the true church and the only ones who have true mass that they need to offer as many masses as possible. They do just the consecration over and over.
A much greater change came on October 9, 1983, when Gregory XVIII promulgated a new, much briefer Mass Order, which is concentrated to offertory, consecration and sacrificial communion. Making it very brief, about five minutes long, each cleric could and should read several masses a day; in fact, they say turns of Masses, not individual ones. Likewise, concelebrating was banned, as it would lessen the number of Masses that could be read per day.
ua-cam.com/video/X87U_3zwAnc/v-deo.htmlsi=n6npnZx8Bl_zrTGi
Google 5 mintue palmarian mass
I think followers of these cults never pray for wisdom
Way too proud to do that.
lol, what is up with the "drop of Mary's blood" stuff, you're killing me dude 🤣🤣🤣
i hear you
Oh look! People playing "Catholic Church".
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church! Christ is King! ✝️ 👑
I had no idea this church existed. Thanks, Michael!
Thanks, Michael. You are becoming a Palmarian Apostle.
@@IglesiaPalmariana No - your "church" doesn't exist. You just have a social club lead by the devil. Will be praying for you.
"These people honor Me with their lips. But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me. Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:6-7). We must all submit to Pope Francis and the College of Bishops. It is not about how we FEEL, rather, it's obedience to the visible Church and her teachings.
Not true my friend. The Palmarians out shine the rest with their great love for God and His holy Mother.
@@IglesiaPalmariana False. Your "church" is an evil cult. I will pray for you to be able to get out.
@@IglesiaPalmarianaif you really loved God and Mary, you wouldn’t have separated yourselves from the One True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church
Maybe Viganò should join that church, he’ll have more of a chance to be pope than with Williamsons crew
True
Here’s an interesting fact: a group of schismatic Ukrainian Byzantine conclavists known as the “Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church” elected Vigano as their pope a few years ago, but Vigano obviously didn’t acknowledge the election.
According to Wikipedia Vigano was elected pope by a conclavist eastern Catholic group, he never responded to it
He’s got the rest of his life to ponder it.
These kinds of topics are fascinating to me.
I got another one for you, though I am loath to draw attention by mentioning names as they are not getting much traction and I aim to keep it that way.
However, consider this - the ULTIMATE in Protestant reasoning:
There are three guys, at least one of which hails from the UK, who have arrived to tell us the True Gospel (again) and it's wild! They reject ALL Traditions of Men. They will not hear of any creeds, any councils or the testimony of the Early Church or ANY Christian denominations - they are ALL "The Traditions of Men."(TM.)
Wait, didn't the councils of Hippo and Carthage compile/define the Bible? Yeah well, being remarkably consistent in this insanity, they REJECT THE CANON OF THE BIBLE! That was a Tradition of Men! They have their OWN CANON including the books of Enoch and Jubilees!
They reject the Trinity, declare Saturday the Sabbath which must be held according to the Jewish law, state the Jewish dietary laws still apply and we "cannot eat swine", and seem to think we have to act as 'Neo-Jews' since we must, and I quote, 'repent of being Gentiles.' (I haven't much deeper into the crazy. I have other things to do and it seems to go DEEP with these guys.)
They then anathematize the entire Christian world accordingly - and DELIGHT in it - declaring ALL 'so-called Christians' heretics and lacking "The Spirit of Truth" that they have and nobody else has had for over 2,000 years and they are happy to tell you just that!
(But they don't have miracles. Which I point out.)
The ultimate conclusion of Protestant logic.
Thanks for making this video!! Reason & Theology with the Receipts!
Thanks!
For some reason my youtube and instagram has been filled with this imposter
They are promoting him heavily right now
@@ReasonandTheologythe viganites can follow pope micheal then
@@ReasonandTheology We are nice people. Pity you don´t join us and become happy Catholics.
@@IglesiaPalmarianapoisonous doctrine cloaked in nice words. Your cult is not fooling us.
Because I claim to be king of England it doesn’t mean that I am. That is how I see the Palmarians. Rome does what it does best, ignore these sects and not draw attention to them. Pope Francis will not lose any sleep over this and other sects. But the origins of the Palmarians make quite an interesting story. What amazes me is how can a few thousand laity support all their cardinals, bishops, priests, brothers and sisters? Much of the research and writings about the group come from Swedish scholar, Magus Lundberg. No doubt most have already viewed the fascinating YT video “Cult of the Blind Pope “ which could be straight out of a novel. Much of the material for this came from Lundberg.
Their present Pope , Peter 111, is quite a young man but does not have anything like the appeal or charisma of Pope Francis, who is a very engaging person.
The complete rewriting of the holy scriptures puts them on the fringes of the Christian World as few other denominations would ever do this. It was all based on one man’s so called visions.
They have a “Pope Saint Gregory XVII, the Very Great” already? 😂 Wow…This stuff is WILD!
He was an extraordinary man, so full of love of God, for Mary and St. Joseph.
@@IglesiaPalmariana No, he is a fake pope and an imposter. Your whole "church" is fake and an imposter.
@@IglesiaPalmariana he was a mad man who wanted power. How can y’all not see through that?
This is idolatry
Does the palmarian church stand with vigano too?
in many ways they are similar
Similar, except I don’t think Vigano would accept a Pope other than himself.
They are completely overboard from the barque of Peter. So yes 😆
This is like an amalgamation of all the worst, most exaggerated Protestant straw-man talking points of what the Catholic Church is in religion form. Worships Mary, broke from the true faith, corrupted the Bible, makes the Pope more powerful than God, etc, etc.
"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission."
- CCC 811 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Why did you used the NIV translation of genesis 1? This "Catholic" church makes no sense and especially their "creed".
I didn't know you can fit that many heresies into a single document! 🤣
yeah lol
They seem to have done a pretty good job. 😂
Sorry for spamming comments lol but I keep forgetting to add stuff. The palmarians also teach that during the last supper, the apostles knelt down and received the Eucharist on the tongue 😂
@sasquatchdonut2674 : 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
How can anyone take these clowns seriously?
Literally the definition of whited sepulchres. Very beautiful church, vestments, etc. but it's dead and false.
Their writings remind me of some sort of alternate fantasy version of Christianity you'd find in Japanese media
Japanese animated cartoons 😂🤣😂😂
Anime Catholics are at least cool, if too frequently portrayed as bad guys.
Would it be accurate to say that there's a Jansenist streak that runs through these ultra-traditionalist sects?
yep
In fact, read up on the trajectory of Jansenism. Jeremiah Bannister had a series on it on this channel and another going through the book Enthusiasm by Ronald Knox. The similarities between the Jansenists and the rad trads are spooky at times. And they had similar offshoots as the Palmarians as well, weirdo cults with esoteric teachings.
I've been asking for this...ty for this video.
I'm imagining there being a controversy in the Palmarian church with fundamentalists on the one hand arguing that Mary didn't have the Beatific Vision for seven literal seconds, and progressives on the other hand saying it was purely allegorical and maybe it didn't even happen.
I once started following a page apparently it had information of our Lady of Fatima. It got weird when the gentleman started to say that Our Lord was Our Lady. That, that was the reason Our Lady was a virgin 😮
Didn’t they make their own very short liturgy?
yes, five minutes long
Don’t they also believe Mary is in the Eucharist? 😅
I see you covered that. This seems to be an example of why schism is worse than heresy, because schism itself leads to heresies.
But they have all the bells and whistles! So traditional and reverent. Oh wait...they're also pride filled heretics.
I haven’t watched the whole thing but I think you forgot to mention the first pope was blind and still claimed to get visions
They really are on the same level as Mormons.
I have been waiting for this video haha, I also did my research on the topic. I fux with the tiara tho, it’s fly
You should do a video on other western rites like the Mozarabic rite in Toledo, or the Ambrosian rite. I just thought of this because the Palmarians are in Spain, right?
It’s more like an occult
Thank you for doing this video @ReasonAndTheology. I have been hearing more about them lately (maybe because of algorithms on social media). These guys all say/do the same thing. 🙄
Thanks
@@ReasonandTheology You’re welcome!
This helped make sense on where some of these hostile traditionalist could be getting their information. That the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass nor the sacraments received. I say some ….because that doesn’t include all traditionalists.
I have never heard about this wild church!😮😮😮
It’s Idolatry.
Ok if mary is divine like they say, why wouldn’t her divinity be present in the Eucharist like Christ’s?
It is well never to forget that the Divine Mary is a creature, though a creature enthroned by Grace within the Triangle of the Most Blessed Trinity. She is the Mystical City of God. The Soul of Mary was created enthroned in the Most Holy Trinity by virtue of Her espousal with the Soul of Christ. The most singular Espousal of the Souls of Christ and Mary, is the Mystical Soul of the Church. She is also the Immaculate Conception, extent from all sin, extent from original sin. She is the only one that was freed from original sin. So the name Divine Mary is given to Her by the Church because of Her union and closeness to the Holy Trinity
@@IglesiaPalmariana Prove that from scripture and the Church Fathers. You can't.
@@IglesiaPalmariana@Reason and Theology they’re actually here 😂
@@IglesiaPalmariana By that argument, Jesus was a creature because He became man so His Divinity also shouldn’t be in the Eucharist
I don't stand with Pope Peter IIl. Sorry, but they retired Pope Peter's number after I.
Yeah, he’s been in the Pope hall of fame for about 2000 years haha
A lay person who is blind found the church, admitted that his seeing God was a fraud and has since left. The second pope comes about but he has to leave for messing around with a women.
I can't believe that's what they believe.
Wow! Michael got a message from Our Lady of Monroe! He's Pope now! Wiiiiiilllddddd!!! 😅
Yeah lol
@@ReasonandTheologygot to make a video showing Da' Ring!
There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Yes, now in El Palmar de Troya, Spain.
@@IglesiaPalmariana No, that is a diabolical deception.
This cult could be a good thing, to help awaken the Sede and others to where stubbornness and pride may lead you:
confusion, hate, divisions, confusion, absolute nonsense, etc.
What is a Palmarian? Where is Palmiria? It all sounds Greek to me.
It is a referrence to "Palmar de Troya" in spain
They have a defense of their “bible” on their website. Crazy!!
Their claims sound very familiar indeed.
saw lot on Facebook people like it nuns wear habits but need know the true catholic church love your Chanel God bless you your work
For all their splendor, they can't even vest properly...
"Properly"? From their point of view, the (apostate) Church of Rome does not vest properly.
Ngl bros, as a convert to EOrthodox, the Palmarians kinda freak me out
Matthew 23:27-28
'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of corruption.
In just the same way, from the outside you look upright, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Thank you for this interesting talk on the Palmarian church in Spain
I am recommending this church to Taylor Marshall, Anthony Stine and Joe McClane. Taylor Marshall can serve as a married priest in this church and at the same time still make money demonizing and defaming Pope Francis on UA-cam.
@BonifaceWilly: 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Down with Bahulalah!
All those supposed beautiful things that they have, the traditional communities within the true One holy apostolic Roman Catholic church also have them and in rome before second Vatican council it was done all the papal customs and I'm sure that a future pope will bring them back
It's not in union with Rome and has It's own pope
Peter the Third
will be succeeded by Carlo Maria the First.
Brod Michael, can you us the Creed of the Palmarian church, for us to compare the the Apostles Creed...
Watching this video I pray for the souls of those good and devout folks who have been lead astray by this sparkly heresy. I also pray for the repentance of those that mislead HIS flock. O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and ALL the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. 🙏
God is in charge 🙏
Thank you for the truth God's got your back❤ The father ❤ the son ❤and the holy Ghost
You are wonderful 👍🙏 WOW! Good job. Thank you. God bless you
Thank you
The words one, holy, catholic and apostolic are often called the four marks of the Church.
One: the Church is one. This means that it is a single, united and global Church which has its basis in Christ Jesus.
Holy: the Church is holy, because it is the Body of Christ with Jesus as the head. This does not mean that all members of the Church are sin free. It means that the Church and her sacraments help to make the faithful holy.
Catholic: the word catholic literally means ‘universal.’ The role of the Church is to spread the Word of God universally across the world.
Apostolic: the origins and beliefs of the Church started out with the apostles at Pentecost.
"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission."
- CCC 811 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Wildly ignorant to draw parallels to the specific issues today.
“His Holiness” 😂😂😂
Is this what the orthodoxy is similar to?
No, the Palmarian Church is very heretical.
@@CatholicCrusaderEditz no, there are esoteric tendencies in the orthodoxy too. There is also female diacony in some orthodox churches.
Interesting you brought up the Islamic view that the Bible is corrupted and comparing it to what Jesus said. However, it seems credible to dispute what Jesus actually said if there is no gospel of Jesus in writing and the gospels we do have now have anonymous unknown authors which we ascribe to the apostles. However please address John 21:24, it might make for a good show. It one of the last lines of the gospel of John and states “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”. My question is… Who is “we” and why has the language shifted to 3rd person? Also, if for arguments sake we accept all the scripture as not being corrupt, it still comes down to interpretation that Jesus’s referral to the spirit to come, the comforter, was not the angel Gabriel who reveled to Muhammad but instead the concept of the Holy Spirit as ascribed by the church. Just something to consider. Making the claim that the catholic interpretation of the Bible and scriptures negating another religions claim to be correcting error in that interpretation is, does not seem to be valid. It seems like we’re saying they’re wrong based on the fact that we are right? So there is no way God could try to correct our interpretation
Anatema sit to the palmarian!
MONROE LOUISIANA REFERENCE LETS GOOOOOO
The most important thing you all must do is PRAY THE PENITENTIAL ROSARY, and you’ll find a clear path to follow The True Church of Christ, now in El Palmar de Troya. I’d swear that all of modernists that attack Palmarian Church ignores lots of sin and don’t do enough penitence.
The most imoportant thing you can do is be in communion with the Catholic Church. I will pray for your deliverance from this demonic palmerian cult.
@@RobMcCarthy737 I’m actually in communion with the True Catholic Church
@@edurodriguezm_ Prove it. The Catholic Church is united around Pope Francis. Your own fake pope even admitted in the past your entire group is fake and a giant scam.
1. Either you are a bot from inside Palmar spreading propaganda
OR
2. You are commiting a mortal sin according to your cult because internet connection is forbidden
Dude, the guy that created your sect was literally a blind guy who claimed to still be able to see. Please come back to the ACTUAL Holy, Apostolic, catholic church
So wait...do they worship the little dog or what
@@daltonrul9692
Those are Pomeranians.
I think ima do a bit of trolling on the Palmatian UA-cam channels and recommend this video to the palmarians
we definitely need to correct them and evangelize them.
Hey now we can ALL be HIP edgelord orthobros!!! We now have our VERY OWN POPE to reject!!!!
Roma locuta.
Causa finita.
Rome has spoken. The matter is settled.
No
Crazy Pb my guy 💀
❤️
Do they actually believe that the primacy of Saint Peter was transferred to Palmar de Troya, like the Orthodox do with Constantinople, or they believe they are in a "Avignon Papacy" situation?
May God have mercy on their souls.
What is even similar? The real pope of Rome is kidnapped by the king of France in the 1300s; his successor, due to the political power of France (France was just about to win the Hundred Years’ War against Great Britain), was essentially a French national during so many times; political turmoil made the equivalent of the Roman Curia rebel against it and nominate another Pope, who was actually an antipope; two lines of succession come down simultaneously and at one point, in a time that there wasn’t press media, Internet or communication, both started to claim they were the true pope; at one time there were three claimants of the throne of the Roman bishop; and so forth. What’s even similar to the case of the “Palmarian Church”?
@@masterchief8179 It's similar as in they believe that the see of Rome transplanted to another location, instead of believing that the see of Rome forfeited its faith and thus another see holds the primacy, as the orthos believe. I'm not asking whether the situations are similar, of course they are not, but whether they still believe they are the "true" see of Rome
@@gabrieliusz No. In the Avignon Papacy, there is no such thing as “Rome’s apostasy” and, therefore, the Petrine ministry being transferred to another See (like Constantinople, Moscow or Palmar de Troya). The actual Roman bishop was living outside of Rome captive to the Kingdom of France: it’s NOT that the Bishop of Avignon became “the pope”. It’s not even close, my friend. Sorry.
@@masterchief8179 Dude I know it's not a similar situation. I'm asking whether they believe that Rome apostatized and thus the new pope is another see or whether they believe that they are the Bishop of Rome without being physically in Rome, as happened during the Avignon Papacy.