/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>566615

Come home, brother.

>meme militant

>>566617

>Go to the church that already allows what anti-pope Bergoglio allows

>>566617

>come to the Church where giving communion to the remarried isn't controversial at all

nani?

>>566623

>God has warned us for a century now through Mary

Please explain.

>>566624

People are allowed remarriage in case their partner is a adulterer, this is said in the bible itself. Sorry, mate.

>>566615

Well, the good news is that this will mean excommunication and we can start electing a new pope by the end of next week I guessI hope soPlease send help.

>>566626

NOTHING WILL HAPPEN

>>566626

What do we do?

>>566625

>this is said in the bible

What's that?

>>566615

Congrats, you finally realized what everybody else has known for 4 years

So, Catholics, will you stop spinning things like "Who am I to judge?" or will you just start spinning this?

>>566615

>Those digits

Nice try, Satan

>>566627

>A pope literally excommunicates himself

>Nothing will happen lol

>>566628

Well ehh, good question.

What did they do back when we had this Arian pope?

I guess we wait and pray.

>>566636

Hey Calvinbro, you're pretty nice.

Don't come to Rome next week.

>>566625

>moving the goalposts

You don't have to be with that person if she turns out to be adulterous, but you cannot remarry and still take communion, you must remain celibate

>>566639

but nothing will actually happen though

>>566639

>A pope literally excommunicates himself

Except every single post-Vatican II pope has done this and nothing has happened. Are you forgetting that JPII and Benedict XVI BOTH taught that Jews can be saved outside the Church?

>>566654

Do you know what moving the goalposts means? You replied to a post saying that giving the communion to the remarried is wrong, by saying that there is nothing wrong with remarriage. That is literally moving the goalposts. But you can post me meme if that helps you hide your lack of arguments, to each their own.

>>566658

Explain how sedevecantists can be possibly be wrong when Lumen Gentium directly contradicts Cantate Domino and they are both dogmatic documents. The only way sedevecantists are wrong is if Catholicism is false.

>>566663

Should I just assume that you are actually illiterate then?

>>566615

>mother is a devout Catholic

>V2 Catholic

>Can't judge other religions

>Can't judge sinners

>Loves the new Pope and everything he does

>Won't budge on anything and just ignores arguments and "resets" no matter what

I have more respect for Orthodox than my family. How the fuck can ANYONE support V2 and this Pope? How can you be so fucking delusional to think "I'm a Catholic" to attend Church several times a week, then to support modernist attitudes, justify it, and argue how tradition and scriptural things are wrong/bad because you're a fucking liberal and it makes you feel uncomfortable to adhere to certain things like how fucked Non Christians are.

This is why no one cares about Christianity, it's so meek and limp, who wants to believe in a religion that clearly doesn't believe in itself?

What is the point of papal infallibility if everyone's going to sperg out whenever he makes a decision anyway? Either you trust that God will not allow the Pope to go astray, or you excommunicate him.

I'm not trying to start up a debate here - on the contrary, I find it remarkable when Catholics take papal infallibility seriously and actually show obedience to their bishop as we are suppposed to - but why does papal infallibility seem to only be a nuke when theorizing and debating, but not in practice? Trust your bishop, or recognize that he can be excommunicated as any other bishop.

>>566689

You don't seem to understand what papal infallibility actually is.

>>566692

It isn't that the Pope cannot teach heresy when intending to teach?

>>566694

No.

>>566698

>We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

What am I misunderstanding here?

>>566699

Exactly, it's not just "when intending to teach" or whenever he makes a decision.

>>566710

>by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church

How is this any different from "intending to teach or making a decision"? All teachings and decisions of a bishop are supposed to be binding on the faithful under their authority.

In the case of Pope Honorius, he was a heretic in that he was a monothelite, but he didn't express this view when teaching the Church - he expressed it in letters communicated to the other Patriarchs when they asked him about it. Thus this does not fit under the conditions of papal infallibility.

In comparison, this is Pope Francis defining a doctrine regarding morals, and putting it in the open for all to see, thus teaching the Church and not just giving his own personal opinion. Right?

>>566715

There are a very specific set of circumstances that need to fulfilled for a statement to be ex cathedra, again, you clearly don't understand this doctrine.

>>566717

I know I don't understand this doctrine, that's why I'm asking you for clarifications on what I'm getting wrong.

Why does Pope Francis declaring a particular interpretation of Amoris Laetitia as being part of the authentic Magisterium not fall under the conditions for papal infallibility?

>>566717

Also, why are Catholics asking left and right whether this means the Pope is a heretic or that he has ceased to be Pope, if infallibility is not on the table? If he hasn't messed up, there's no serious reason to think that he's a heretic, right?

>>566724

If someone gets heretical and refuses to recant when he is rebuked, he gets excommunicated.

Since this is a pope, that means his position will become vacant.

Infallibility doesn't even play into this right now.

>>566730

JPII literally worshipped in a synagogue and no-one ever said his position became vacant.

>>566737

It's kind of different with spreading doctrine.

What he did he has to account for on his own, but spreading false doctrine through official means is grounds for self-excommunication.

>>566743

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio

(#10), Dec. 7, 1990:

>“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church."

Now you HAVE to agree that he excommunicated himself, right? He is literally teaching the heresy of universal salvation here.

>>566623

Why hasn't this been made into a Gondola webm yet?

>>566626

>Well, the good news is that this will mean excommunication and we can start electing a new pope by the end of next week

Who are your picks for new Pope, anons?

>>566748

If I'm reading CCC 892, you have to assent to this, but you don't have to believe it, as this is ordinary magisterium.

CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”1 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

>>566748

>explicitly

There you have your explanation.

That baptism of implicit desire is valid is the actual traditional doctrine and has been taught by such authorities as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori or St. Pius X.

>>566615

>church militant

>>566670

That about sums it up…amen brother!

>>566685

>nothing happens