Religion Christian Society Grooming (or Lack Thereof)

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
I mean they are supposed to obey. To use an example from the Bible, did Moses try to "address the doctrinal questions" of Korah and their ilk? Here is the thing, worship of God is not a democracy. It is an autocracy, you must obey God, and you must also obey those God has put in positions of authority.

There wasn't any doctrinal dispute - they were simply challenging Moses' authority, not accusing of giving teaching that contradicted his previous teaching (which would have been a problem!)
And Moses certainly didn't stand there going "but you're got to accept my authority over you because it comes from God and you must believe that because I say it and..." in a loop like the RCC does.



I mean if you are a Catholic who accepted the 1st Vatican council but not the 2nd it's not circular. Because they already fell into the trap by accepting papal infallibility.

Well there's the problem. If a "true Pope" cannot teach error, than someone who is teaching error cannot be a true Pope. That's the simple logic.

Of course the problem just goes away if they stop believing in the concept of an infallible pope.

I mean again Christianity is not about being a "free thinker" Like you can look at the Bible the faithful are described as a flock of sheep. What do sheep do, they follow. We are supposed to be sheeple heh. God does punish rebellion, so the sheep are expected to obey the shepherd, and those who are set to watch over the flock, but God also punished harshly false teachers who lead the sheep astray. Their punishment is much worse than one who simply sins. Leading others into sin is a compound sin, especially if you are in a position of authority.

Sheep get fleeced, and ultimately they are meat animals destined for the table. Don't push Biblical metaphors too far, or take isolated verses in a way that contradicts the rest of Scripture.

4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

The true "sheep" will exercise some discernment over whose voice they will follow!
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
I love to see a Protestant heretic arguing with an Orthodox schismatic about Catholic dogma.
Truly, you guys got into a brilliant discussion. None of you are one, and you are concerned about it terribly.

Why don't you go to your churches and argue from your positions? That will make a lot more sense than arguing between a blind man and a deaf man. None of you are Catholic theologians and don't know enough about this theology to understand it, but you usurp the right to talk about its meaning or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
I love to see a Protestant heretic arguing with an Orthodox schismatic about Catholic dogma.

And I "love" to see a papal cultist come in and tell us that we just don't understand the teachings of his sect, while tacitly admitting that he himself doesn't either!

Truly, you guys got into a brilliant discussion. None of you are one, and you are concerned about it terribly.

Each of us is distinct individual with an independent intellect, and that is how it should be. That is how God created us. Wanting to lose your individuality into some great cosmic "oneness" is a goal of certain Eastern religions, not of Christianity.

Why don't you go to your churches and argue from your positions? That will make a lot more sense than arguing between a blind man and a deaf man.

Because the matter we've been discussing is not our problem. Neither Protestants nor (as far as I'm aware) the Orthodox consider their leadership to be infallible, and so if said leadership start contradicting what they previously taught, we don't have to go into cognitive dissonance over it.

None of you are Catholic theologians and don't know enough about this theology to understand it, but you usurp the right to talk about its meaning or not.

"Usurp the right"?
Dude, we are free to discuss whatever we like, and so are you. If the people in robes and pointy hats don't like it, why should we care? If they didn't want those ideas examined critically, they should have tried to keep them secret.

Not that it would have helped! There are religious groups with secret doctrines, teachings that you'd have to go quite far in the religion to be considered worthy of learning about, with all sort of secret oaths and so...
... and you can simply go to a library and read all about those supposed-to-be-secret teachings, for free! :)
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
And I "love" to see a papal cultist come in and tell us that we just don't understand the teachings of his sect, while tacitly admitting that he himself doesn't either!



Each of us is distinct individual with an independent intellect, and that is how it should be. That is how God created us. Wanting to lose your individuality into some great cosmic "oneness" is a goal of certain Eastern religions, not of Christianity.



Because the matter we've been discussing is not our problem. Neither Protestants nor (as far as I'm aware) the Orthodox consider their leadership to be infallible, and so if said leadership start contradicting what they previously taught, we don't have to go into cognitive dissonance over it.



"Usurp the right"?
Dude, we are free to discuss whatever we like, and so are you. If the people in robes and pointy hats don't like it, why should we care? If they didn't want those ideas examined critically, they should have tried to keep them secret.

Not that it would have helped! There are religious groups with secret doctrines, teachings that you'd have to go quite far in the religion to be considered worthy of learning about, with all sort of secret oaths and so...
... and you can simply go to a library and read all about those supposed-to-be-secret teachings, for free! :)

1.Dear heretic,popes are infallable,but only when they speak officially about Dogma.
Last time it happened was before 1960.
So ,current pope praing to pachamama is not problem for us,becouse it was not infallable teaching.

You really do not knew about what are you saing.

2.You could worry about bad papists - but,as heretic,should thing about protestants first.Our pope at least do not made woman priests yet !



3.And we consider popes as infaiinible only in very rare occasions.Current pope never used it,nor any other since Pius XII.

4.You could talk about everytching...but,if you talk about infallable teaching witchout knowing what it means,you only made yourself look stupid.
But,you have right to do so,so please continue,i could laugh more !
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
And I "love" to see a papal cultist come in and tell us that we just don't understand the teachings of his sect, while tacitly admitting that he himself doesn't either!
Because it is the truth? You don't understand and you're making excuses.
Anyway, why do you assume I don't understand the point? I understand where the steorotype of the "ignorant" Catholic comes from, it's just that here you miss the point. I just see that the explanation is pointless in this case, for every sentence I say, you will find a thousand excuses.

To me, it's just to let you know that all your discussion, is not worth the time spent.
Each of us is distinct individual with an independent intellect, and that is how it should be. That is how God created us. Wanting to lose your individuality into some great cosmic "oneness" is a goal of certain Eastern religions, not of Christianity.
Oh, and that entitles you to discuss the Catholic Church and its "heresies"? I'll ask you this question, what does it interest you? After all, you will never be a Catholic, so why care what Catholics say?

And I don't know where your, pardon, bullshit about the paganism of the East comes from. I don't know what logical sequence must have occurred in your mind to give such an answer and acknowledge it. Yes, this is a good answer to this stupid papist.
Because the matter we've been discussing is not our problem. Neither Protestants nor (as far as I'm aware) the Orthodox consider their leadership to be infallible, and so if said leadership start contradicting what they previously taught, we don't have to go into cognitive dissonance over it.
Tell me that you do not understand what the Infallibility of the Pope means, without saying that you do not understand what he means by the Catholic Church recognizes that the Pope in a certain matter, infallibility.

Oh, and I'd forget, since it's not your problem. Then why are you really concerned about it? Literally, it makes me wonder what train of thought must have occurred for you to be concerned about the dogma of papal infallibility, which is false from your point of view.

After all, it makes no sense. I have no interest in the dogmas of heretics and shismatics beyond mere curiosity. So I don't care what they think up. I don't try to waste my time with fruitless filibusters.
"Usurp the right"?
Dude, we are free to discuss whatever we like, and so are you. If the people in robes and pointy hats don't like it, why should we care? If they didn't want those ideas examined critically, they should have tried to keep them secret.

Not that it would have helped! There are religious groups with secret doctrines, teachings that you'd have to go quite far in the religion to be considered worthy of learning about, with all sort of secret oaths and so...
... and you can simply go to a library and read all about those supposed-to-be-secret teachings, for free! :)
Yes, you are usurping. You discuss this topic as if the existence of your churches depended on it, although actually it does not. While not knowing what Catholics actually think about it.

I suggest you just let it go, because you actually agree. So why all the damn discussion? In the name of what? In the name of your own well-being?

Because not to get to the truth, or at least I don't see anything like that.

Of course, not to be. I'm not defending you to criticize, the problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It won't save you, it won't help convince anyone. Instead of dealing with really serious topics, you are concerned about Catholicism and its problems and how much you think Catholics are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Because it is the truth? You don't understand and you're making excuses.
Anyway, why do you assume I don't understand the point? I understand where the steorotype of the "ignorant" Catholic comes from, it's just that here you miss the point. I just see that the explanation is pointless in this case, for every sentence I say, you will find a thousand excuses.

To me, it's just to let you know that all your discussion, is not worth the time spent.

Oh, and that entitles you to discuss the Catholic Church and its "heresies"? I'll ask you this question, what does it interest you? After all, you will never be a Catholic, so why care what Catholics say?

And I don't know where your, pardon, bullshit about the paganism of the East comes from. I don't know what logical sequence must have occurred in your mind to give such an answer and acknowledge it. Yes, this is a good answer to this stupid papist.

Tell me that you do not understand what the Infallibility of the Pope means, without saying that you do not understand what he means by the Catholic Church recognizes that the Pope in a certain matter, infallibility.

Oh, and I'd forget, since it's not your problem. Then why are you really concerned about it? Literally, it makes me wonder what train of thought must have occurred for you to be concerned about the dogma of papal infallibility, which is false from your point of view.

After all, it makes no sense. I have no interest in the dogmas of heretics and shismatics beyond mere curiosity. So I don't care what they think up. I don't try to waste my time with fruitless filibusters.

Yes, you are usurping. You discuss this topic as if the existence of your churches depended on it, although actually it does not. While not knowing what Catholics actually think about it.

I suggest you just let it go, because you actually agree. So why all the damn discussion? In the name of what? In the name of your own well-being?

Because not to get to the truth, or at least I don't see anything like that.

Of course, not to be. I'm not defending you to criticize, the problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It won't save you, it won't help convince anyone. Instead of dealing with really serious topics, you are concerned about Catholicism and its problems and how much you think Catholics are wrong.

I think I see what the problem is here - you are coming in at the tail-end of the discussion, missing the context, and therefore not understanding why we happened to be discussing the topic at all.
To read yourself in, I suggest starting at page 2 of this thread. Here's some of the relevant postings:

Likewise in the Catholic Church you have the Church, then you have the Jesuit Order. They are not the same.

There's a reason that the FBI is afraid of traditional Catholics.

Why are they afraid of traditional Catholics?

The Catholics that the FBI is scared of are the "hardline" ones, meaning the ones that are actually paying attention and don't trust Francis shit. Along with people who have issues with Vatican II and such, like ones that prefere Latin mass.

A Catholic not trusting the pope that’s pretty ironic shouldn’t they become Orthodox or Protestant then since the Pope is supposed to be infallible?

It's rather more complicated than that.

Pope Francis, for all of his flaws, is not the 'raging liberal' many in the media portray him as. He has refrained from speaking ex cathedra, and has confirmed a number of very 'traditionalist' friendly practices. The main issue is that the German church has this nasty habit of making grand pronouncements about 'Church Policy' celebrating homosexuality, female priests, wokeness, etc in press statements, which the media runs with, with the first the Vatican finds out about it all being said press statements about policies they'd supposedly approved, leading to Francis *constantly* having to disavow the German church's actions. At this time, the German church is very much in schism on just about every issue imaginable, the Curia has just been unwilling to aggressively challenge them (Jesuit influence, the Jesuit order is equally corrupt).

I'm imagining an FBI guy cowering in a basement, shivering in terror at the thought of those oldschool trad Roman Catholics with their Latin Mass, and those oldschool independent Baptists with their KJV Bibles.
So scaaaaary!



The conclusion they tend to move towards is Sedevacantism: that the current Pope is not a genuine one. Which as far as I can tell would mean that whatever sort of Divine blessing a "real" Pope is suppose to have, the current incumbent doesn't.
They aren't quite willing to go all the way to the conclusion that the whole concept of someone being elected "Pope" meaning that they become incapable of error being flawed at its foundation.

And it goes from there.
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
I think I see what the problem is here - you are coming in at the tail-end of the discussion, missing the context, and therefore not understanding why we happened to be discussing the topic at all.
To read yourself in, I suggest starting at page 2 of this thread. Here's some of the relevant postings:













And it goes from there.
Thanks I read, do you think I would have just walked in without knowing what it was about?

You think why am I giving the idea that this discussion has become.... fruitless? Because what does the Pope's fallibility or lack thereof (which, by the way, is typical nonsense, exposing a lack of knowledge of what exactly is at stake) have to do with the main point of the whole thread?
 
Last edited:

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Thanks I read, do you think I would have just walked in without knowing what it was about?

You think why am I giving the idea that this discussion has become.... fruitless? Because what does the Pope's fallibility or lack thereof (which, by the way, is typical nonsense, exposing a lack of knowledge of what exactly is at stake) have to do with the main point of the whole thread?
So ,current pope praing to pachamama is not problem for us,becouse it was not infallable teaching.

That you think your sect's leader openly praying to a pagan goddess would be no big deal... is disturbing. That not just "is the pope Catholic?"... it goes all the way into "is that guy a serious Christian at all?"
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
That you think your sect's leader openly praying to a pagan goddess would be no big deal... is disturbing. That not just "is the pope Catholic?"... it goes all the way into "is that guy a serious Christian at all?"
Is this the first bad pope? No.

Should I listen to him by virtue of infallibility? Also no! Because that is no longer covered by the dogma of infallibility!

He is valid if and only if he teaches in a certain way, and in a way that is binding on the whole church. When he fails to meet even one of the conditions, it automatically means that he has no infallibility and speaks only on his own behalf.

So it doesn't matter what he comes up with, how beautifully he tells the story. If he teaches in a non-Christian way, he is fallible and heretical.

In turn, our task is to wait until the hubris that has gripped this false modesty perishes him like the previous heretics on the throne.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Is this the first bad pope? No.

Should I listen to him by virtue of infallibility? Also no! Because that is no longer covered by the dogma of infallibility!

He is valid if and only if he teaches in a certain way, and in a way that is binding on the whole church. When he fails to meet even one of the conditions, it automatically means that he has no infallibility and speaks only on his own behalf.

So it doesn't matter what he comes up with, how beautifully he tells the story. If he teaches in a non-Christian way, he is fallible and heretical.

In turn, our task is to wait until the hubris that has gripped this false modesty perishes him like the previous heretics on the throne.
Problem is that the very idea of papal infallibility makes it difficult for average believer to understand that. So they tend to regurgate all the BS that Pope says.
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Problem is that the very idea of papal infallibility makes it difficult for average believer to understand that. So they tend to regurgate all the BS that Pope says.
No, this is only due to a lack of explanation of what exactly papal infallibility consists of.

It does not consist in the fact that the pope is infallible, it consists in the fact that the pope is infallible only in a certain way. If he transgresses this, he does something wrong. He is no longer infallible because he speaks for himself and in his own words, instead of for Christ and in his words.

He is infallible only when he speaks like Christ. Read, he quotes him, in a strong simplification of course.

If he adds something from himself, he automatically ceases to be infallible.

Which, of course, makes it very rare for Popes to invoke this authority/dogma.

It is important to remember that not everything a Pope says has the rank of infallible teaching.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
No, this is only due to a lack of explanation of what exactly papal infallibility consists of.

It does not consist in the fact that the pope is infallible, it consists in the fact that the pope is infallible only in a certain way. If he transgresses this, he does something wrong. He is no longer infallible because he speaks for himself and in his own words, instead of for Christ and in his words.

He is infallible only when he speaks like Christ. Read, he quotes him, in a strong simplification of course.

If he adds something from himself, he automatically ceases to be infallible.

Which, of course, makes it very rare for Popes to invoke this authority/dogma.

It is important to remember that not everything a Pope says has the rank of infallible teaching.
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?

Not to mention that your average Catholic believer does not understand this. I kid you not: I had people arguing at me that we should be completely kosher with mass immigration because that is what Pope Francis says and Pope is infallible!
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
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?

Not to mention that your average Catholic believer does not understand this. I kid you not: I had people arguing at me that we should be completely kosher with mass immigration because that is what Pope Francis says and Pope is infallible!
And that's what this dogma has been about from the very beginning!

The Pope as successor to Christ's appointed confidant, St. Peter. He has the duty to guard the truthfulness of the faith and in any important dispute, by quoting Christ as he said it and not as some one made up to himself, to settle disputes.

Which, of course, limits the frequency of use of this authority, only to the most important matters.

If someone told you so, he was misled. Infallibility does not apply to these matters, here Francis was presenting his opinion, as a bishop how the words of Christ should be interpreted. An erroneous one to say the least, but nevertheless his own, erroneous opinion.

More importantly, Francis is just hiding behind this every time someone tells him that he is wrong about one thing or another, saying that he is not. He did not speak from the rank of this dogma here.

Which, of course, is false, because he deliberately exploits people's ignorance in favor of false statements. I know many priests who openly reproach him for this, without hiding it.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Is this the first bad pope? No.

This brings us to the question: just how bad does a pope have to be, in order to cease to be one?

Should I listen to him by virtue of infallibility? Also no! Because that is no longer covered by the dogma of infallibility!

He is valid if and only if he teaches in a certain way, and in a way that is binding on the whole church. When he fails to meet even one of the conditions, it automatically means that he has no infallibility and speaks only on his own behalf.

So it doesn't matter what he comes up with, how beautifully he tells the story. If he teaches in a non-Christian way, he is fallible and heretical.

In turn, our task is to wait until the hubris that has gripped this false modesty perishes him like the previous heretics on the throne.

What I am getting from this is that you, as an ordinary believer, are expected to exercise discernment as to when to believe what your denomination's clergy tell you.
They are not to be followed if they are in error. And you think there are ways that Francis is in error.
But you still think he's a valid pope.
Do I get you correctly?
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
This brings us to the question: just how bad does a pope have to be, in order to cease to be one?
He doesn't have to be bad, it's enough that he stumbles enough to find a reason to accuse him of modernist heresy. The problem is, however, that he is a very crafty man, doing evasions time and again when he seems close to defeat.

So for the time being, one is left waiting for him to make a serious mistake.
What I am getting from this is that you, as an ordinary believer, are expected to exercise discernment as to when to believe what your denomination's clergy tell you.
They are not to be followed if they are in error. And you think there are ways that Francis is in error.
But you still think he's a valid pope.
Do I get you correctly?
Yes. The Pope is, simply put, a modernist heretic. Not the first heretic to be placed on this throne and not the last.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
That you think your sect's leader openly praying to a pagan goddess would be no big deal... is disturbing. That not just "is the pope Catholic?"... it goes all the way into "is that guy a serious Christian at all?"
Sigh.You heretics do not undarstandt what dogma means.
If pope teached to pray for demons as part of Church teaching,it would be problem.
Now,he is just another bad pope.


Problem is that the very idea of papal infallibility makes it difficult for average believer to understand that. So they tend to regurgate all the BS that Pope says.
No,it is very easy for those who go to church more then once per year.
When pope teach Ex Cathedra and say that it is Dogma,then and only then he is infallable.Last time did it Pius XII.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
He doesn't have to be bad, it's enough that he stumbles enough to find a reason to accuse him of modernist heresy. The problem is, however, that he is a very crafty man, doing evasions time and again when he seems close to defeat.

So for the time being, one is left waiting for him to make a serious mistake.

Yes. The Pope is, simply put, a modernist heretic. Not the first heretic to be placed on this throne and not the last.

And when and if he slips up and says the quiet part out aloud, what happens?
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
And when and if he slips up and says the quiet part out aloud, what happens?
On a good hunch, I would say that he would be brought before an ecclesiastical synod and eventually criminally removed from the throne and excluded from the church. If, of course, he does not disavow his erroneous theses, which I believe he will do but at the same time continue to muddy the waters only more carefully.

In fact, I rather don't think it will go so easily. Francis has spent quite a bit of time to centralize his power as part of "decentralization" and move the unruly to positions from which they cannot harm him. It will take a really serious incident, one that will make it impossible for Francis to get out of it. Otherwise, it's like that damned heretical synod in South America.

He will say and nothing will happen to him. After all, that's not why there was a drive to take over the Church to let it get away so easily.

Nevertheless, looking at what's going on, I can say with certainty that the wave of rebellion and unrest is slowly rising among the faithful and the hierarchy. And Francis' recent actions only seemingly pacify these moods, de facto rather giving them strength.

The pope's authority from the outside looks strong but inside it crackles. Nonetheless, I won't put any timelines on when Francis will eventually cross that step, that there will be a dropping of the eye flaps and an attempt to remove heresy from the church will begin.

Therefore, I will only say, you have to wait. For there is a saying in Poland, God is patient but fair.

Until then, should only deal with what have influence over.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
He doesn't have to be bad, it's enough that he stumbles enough to find a reason to accuse him of modernist heresy. The problem is, however, that he is a very crafty man, doing evasions time and again when he seems close to defeat.

So for the time being, one is left waiting for him to make a serious mistake.

Yes. The Pope is, simply put, a modernist heretic. Not the first heretic to be placed on this throne and not the last.
And who are you that you have the authority to declare anyone a heretic let alone the leader of your faith?

Sigh.You heretics do not undarstandt what dogma means.
If pope teached to pray for demons as part of Church teaching,it would be problem.
Now,he is just another bad pope.



No,it is very easy for those who go to church more then once per year.
When pope teach Ex Cathedra and say that it is Dogma,then and only then he is infallable.Last time did it Pius XII.
What happens if the pope is sitting on Saint peters throne says he is speaking ex cathedra about morals and faith then says “praying to demons is morally acceptable.” What happens then I know last time a pope was ex cathedral it was Piues but a pope CAN use ex cathedra whenever they want it may not be a good idea but they can do it.
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
And who are you that you have the authority to declare anyone a heretic let alone the leader of your faith?
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.

What happens if the pope is sitting on Saint peters throne says he is speaking ex cathedra about morals and faith then says “praying to demons is morally acceptable.” What happens then I know last time a pope was ex cathedral it was Piues but a pope CAN use ex cathedra whenever they want it may not be a good idea but they can do it.
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top