Religion Christian Society Grooming (or Lack Thereof)

[King Arts]

Me? The one who quotes smarter people than himself. They, in turn, note that in many places, Francis coincides with modernist tendencies, another heresy that has become popular among the more liberal members of the Church. What's more, his barely concealed hostility to Church tradition is plain to see.

He would not be surprised if Francis's people actively collaborate with the CIA on Catholic traditionalists.

On the other hand, from my point of view. Whoever is not a Catholic is a heretic.* Simply put. Without any pretense and nice words intended to cover this fact.

*I am only referring to other Christians who are not part of the church. Pagans are pagans.

Funny I think Catholics are schismatics who are trying to get the Bishop of Rome more power than he actually has.

Say you don't understand the dogma of infallibility without saying so.

If he said that, then the dogma of infallibility does not apply, for that dogma applies only when he is preaching ex cathedra, quoting Christ to resolve some matter concerning matters of faith. That is, to put it simply, he is infallible if and only if he speaks like Christ. That is, the dogma of infallibility.

If he adds something from himself, it is no longer infallibility but his opinion. Whereas if using it, he says heresy. Well, I don't think I need to say what this means?

That's why, Popes rarely invoke it. And no, the Pope can't when he wants to. If that were the case, Francis would have used it all the time long ago to push through what he wants.

You have basically made the doctrine useless.

Who decides if a statement from the Pope is infallible or not? You? You get to decide whether something is ex cathedra? You are basically a protestant at this point who doesn't want to call himself that.

 

[Batrix2070]

Funny I think Catholics are schismatics who are trying to get the Bishop of Rome more power than he actually has.

Okay schismatic, from what I saw. One Bishop of Rome, has done far more for Christendom than four patriachs combined. So maybe your way, is.... of no effect?

So, maybe a church with one head presiding over the whole is just more effective?

You have basically made the doctrine useless.

No, that's the whole point of the doctrine. It's just that in your mind, it's apparently beyond comprehension. If you think it's useless, go ahead. I'll just remind you that the principle of de facto infallibility has been in effect since the Middle Ages, it was only in the 19th century that the exact rules of how it works were established.

Looking at the history of Orthodoxy and how poorly it has done in resolving disputes within its own cluster, and the world in general. I have to admit that the 'usurpation' of the Bishop of Rome that he is the most important, has proven to be much more practical and useful.

Who decides if a statement from the Pope is infallible or not? You? You get to decide whether something is ex cathedra? You are basically a protestant at this point who doesn't want to call himself that.

XD, you really made me laugh. No, it's not me who decides, it's the dogma that makes it clear when and where it works.

Francis has not once so far, invoked this authority. He consciously avoids it because it would be the end for him. So stop the bullshit about me deciding for myself when the Pope is infallible. For clearly, you further fail to understand the principle behind it.

 

[Aldarion]

Except, if pope quotes Christ, then that is no longer Pope's words but rather Christ's words. Which, considering the guy is son of God and had created Christianity in the first place, are infallible by default.

So what is the point of the Papal infallibility to begin with?

Can somebody explain me the above? Because as it is, I see no point in the concept of papal infallibility...

 

[Batrix2070]

Can somebody explain me the above? Because as it is, I see no point in the concept of papal infallibility...

Apparently, it wasn't too obvious to many that the Pope was tasked with such a job. So, in order to remind people what this role is, de facto standardized what it is about rather than introducing something new. In order to be able to silence fruitless disputes in this way, with one decisive blow.

My guess is that at the time there were so many, wise otherwise in the Church, trying to turn upside down the meaning of not only Catholicism as well as Christianity as a whole. That is, proto-modernists, so it was decided that the best way was to prevent the use of papal authority for direct heresies as well as to shake off unnecessary discussions, through the Pope is right because as the successor of St. Peter, he is the successor to his role as the trustee of Christ's truth.

As I said, this is nothing new, for this has already manifested itself in St. Thomas Aquinas and has continued for centuries. It's just that in the spirit of the 19th century, the whole thing was standardized. For note, the Pope is infallible only when he speaks Christ, if he doesn't. He is not infallible but fallible, that is, an error can be pointed out to him without hindrance and a heretic on the throne cannot use the fullness of his authority to suppress voices noticing it.

So by elevating the Pope's Position, they have de facto imprisoned him so that the Pope cannot, as before, use his authority to interject his thoughts on those in force.

Not that this can't be circumvented, it can be done by creatively playing with words which, depending on your views, can be interpreted in two different ways. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are a blatant example of this, they can be interpreted simultaneously as calling for orthodoxy as well as this modernization.

 

[Scottty]

Can somebody explain me the above? Because as it is, I see no point in the concept of papal infallibility...

I think I get it.

Roman Catholics will sometimes talk as if the dude in the big hat is The Decider, as if the Pope speaks like a prophet or an oracle, and they must all accept his pronouncements.

But in reality, no man rules alone, and the pope can lead only insofar as he is followed. Which means that he cannot speak "infallibly" except when all the cardinals have discussed it, and he speaks the agreed consensus.

So in practical terms, if Jorge Borgoglio aka Pope Francis were to sit down on his big chair and tell them all to worship Mother Earth rather than Father God, or something like that.. then it automatically does not count as ex cathedra, simply because it's obvious nonsense.

It would not be a "Fatal Error in RomanCatholicism.exe, program has halted execution" but merely a "Warning! Invalid data returned from call to library Pope.dll, the file is corrupt and needs to be updated"

 

[Scottty]

@Batrix2070 If the "modernists" play it smart, they won't let Francis or whoever they put in after him fully "drop the mask" until all of the people whose job it would be to impeach a heretical pope have already been replaced by fellow modernists. Then they will, in merrily Orwellian fashion, tell everyone that their modernist teachings are what have always been the Teaching Of The Church.

I'm guessing that they really did expect all the laity to follow without question, and don't know how to deal with the amount of pushback that they are already getting.

This whole topic of RCC "modernists" is bringing back memories from a previous century for me, of dealing with liberal Anglican clergy. One of the things I noticed back then is that there were questions on which they would never give a plain answer, but would talk a paragraph of waffle that evaded the actual question.
Imagine if you asked a bishop: "Do you believe that Jesus is God?" and he told you that you had no standing to ask him such questions, and that you were a bad person for caring about questions of abstract doctrine rather than about the human rights of The Poor.
What would you conclude from that?

I think I posted somewhere already about it - a large part of the Anglican communion is in the early stages of the process of repudiating the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, basically because he is what you would call a modernist heretic.

 

[Batrix2070]

@Batrix2070 If the "modernists" play it smart, they won't let Francis or whoever they put in after him fully "drop the mask" until all of the people whose job it would be to impeach a heretical pope have already been replaced by fellow modernists. Then they will, in merrily Orwellian fashion, tell everyone that their modernist teachings are what have always been the Teaching Of The Church.

Which, of course, is a heavily black and exaggerated scenario. Sooner there will be another schism, similar to the Great Western Schism, which will eventually end in a cleansing of the Church. As always, of course, there will always be some remnants left over from the "experiment," which will simply die off naturally over time, for modernist tendencies cause death over time.

But this is not surprising, they actually betray a lack of faith in God and his Son Christ. They think they can take and remodel the whole thing to suit the world. Without understanding one bit why they made the decisions they made centuries ago and not others. Nor having faith in Christ's words that Peter is the rock on which the church stands, led by his successors. Considering it a founding myth.

They think they can modernize what was a development of what was by removing all development.

The results ultimately show the perniciousness of this path.

I'm guessing that they really did expect all the laity to follow without question, and don't know how to deal with the amount of pushback that they are already getting.

It is not enough to dress in the robes of a monk to be one. You still have to speak and act like one, while understanding why they do it.

They thought that it was enough to enter the structures of the church and then gain its authority without knowing why they had it and the faithful would mindlessly follow them into any reformation.

They are apparently surprised that there are people taking this seriously, for whom Catholic theology, tradition and so on are not empty rituals that can be modernized and simplified but a living ancestral heritage that must be continued.

What would you conclude from that?

What would I infer? Other than wearing the robes of a heretical bishop, being a modern pagan, believing in atheistic/agnostic religions of human rights and trying to pretend that yes, that's what Jesus said. That's what he meant all along, not what St. Thomas, St. Augustine and so on said.

It would be best for the man to pull off this outfit. Let him stop pretending, however heretical, to be a bishop and admit that he is a pagan bishop, of a new false religion where man saves himself.

 

[Scottty]

@Batrix2070

Vatican’s ‘Human Fraternity’ day fails to mention Catholicism or draw crowds - LifeSite

LifeSite's sources noted that the World Meeting on Human Fraternity was given priority over Corpus Christi celebrations at the Vatican – both in planning and in taking place.

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[ATP]

@Batrix2070 If the "modernists" play it smart, they won't let Francis or whoever they put in after him fully "drop the mask" until all of the people whose job it would be to impeach a heretical pope have already been replaced by fellow modernists. Then they will, in merrily Orwellian fashion, tell everyone that their modernist teachings are what have always been the Teaching Of The Church.

I'm guessing that they really did expect all the laity to follow without question, and don't know how to deal with the amount of pushback that they are already getting.

This whole topic of RCC "modernists" is bringing back memories from a previous century for me, of dealing with liberal Anglican clergy. One of the things I noticed back then is that there were questions on which they would never give a plain answer, but would talk a paragraph of waffle that evaded the actual question.
Imagine if you asked a bishop: "Do you believe that Jesus is God?" and he told you that you had no standing to ask him such questions, and that you were a bad person for caring about questions of abstract doctrine rather than about the human rights of The Poor.
What would you conclude from that?

I think I posted somewhere already about it - a large part of the Anglican communion is in the early stages of the process of repudiating the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, basically because he is what you would call a modernist heretic.

Could be done,if they waited.Now,it is too late for that.
And,those heretics simply do not undarstandt what Catholic Faith really mean - pope is not head of protestant sect who could decide whatever he like, but Guardian of Church teaching.

If he start removing Church teaching,people who still belive do not follow him.And those who lack faith,have little reasons to remain there - unlesse they are sodomite mafia members.


@Batrix2070 ,there is good book "Era Antychrysta"/Era of Antichrist/ by Paweł Lisicki ,about something like that - after another progressive pope die,next,choosen by progressive/and partially female/ Cardinals decide to name himself as Judas and openly say that Jesus died and never Ressurected.Interesting book to read !

 

[ParadiseLost]

@Batrix2070

Vatican’s ‘Human Fraternity’ day fails to mention Catholicism or draw crowds - LifeSite

LifeSite's sources noted that the World Meeting on Human Fraternity was given priority over Corpus Christi celebrations at the Vatican – both in planning and in taking place.

www.lifesitenews.com

Very blatant heresy.

 

[Batrix2070]

@Batrix2070

Vatican’s ‘Human Fraternity’ day fails to mention Catholicism or draw crowds - LifeSite

LifeSite's sources noted that the World Meeting on Human Fraternity was given priority over Corpus Christi celebrations at the Vatican – both in planning and in taking place.

www.lifesitenews.com

Well, add. Heresy, I can see the extent of it every day. All I have to do is turn on my Twitter.

The recent synod in the Czech Republic, for example, was so cathartic it's a pity for words. English instead of Latin as the universal language used at Mass, despite the fact that Latin is the official language of the Church.

A chapel that looked like a lecture hall at a university, despite the fact that there was a really beautiful cathedral nearby. All you had to do was walk over there and celebrate Mass there.

In contrast, members sat and listened to lectures in equipment as if they were in school.

What the hell was that? A synod of the Catholic Church or a convention of some secular human rights organization?

In contrast, the less said about the German Catholic Church the better. He is already the Catholic Church in name only. Hell, they have gone so far in their hereticality that Fraciszek himself has to talk sense into them.

Ironic, isn't it?