/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There's already a thread on this my friend

>>683121

you mean the one the mods nuked?

Will be interesting to see what happens when Dr. Feser wakes up to this news.

>>683127

Heh. Look up Malachi Martin. He was a Vatican enforcer. Used to take Cardinals out to dinner and then throw a dossier full of compromising testimony and photos. Said it was the best part of his job making them sweat.

"I saw cardinals sweating in front of me," Martin recalled. "And I began to enjoy it." …

Pedo McCarrick probably has a library full of such files. If they attack him, he'll go nuclear.

>>683120

It is a total nothingburger.

>According to Ladaria, the new formulation of the Catechism expresses “an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.”

Their entire reasoning behind the change is the prisons are so good we no longer have to worry about them escaping and hurting the innocent and that all men should be given a chance to redeem themselves. Hell awaits them otherwise.

Okay if you want to talk about the pedo scandal then make a thread about that. This news is literally nothing.

Francis is a corrupt pope, the protestants were right all along

>>683122

oh… huh

>>683129

Really looking forward to it tbh

He predicted this already (for those who didn't know): http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/

>>683147

I don't think according to some sources he is actually really annoyed at all the homosexuals in the clergy and is telling seminaries to stop letting gays in. The issue is the gay bishops who are ignoring the Pope in favor of promoting the Gay Agenda.

Here Punished Voris talks about it a lot.

>>683120

All the big religions (except one that is) are bleeding followers and participants to capitalism. The Catholics for example haven't preached morals into a world in dire need of it and are instead busy gambling the real estate market for decades now. So of course now, while everything comes crumbling down, they desperately try to appease anyone even if it means pissing on their own scriptures and values.

>>683136

This, and said fact was already a part of the catechism beforehand, they just changed it from "practically speaking, there are no points where the death penalty is permissable" to "the death penalty is not permissable." Sure people will point fingers at historical inconsistency but given the current culture of death I don't care; this is a firm stance on an issue that needs and iron, unbending stance.

>>683154

>practically speaking, there are no points where the death penalty is permissable

That isn't what it said, it actually said;"an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good". The absolute state of Catholic casuistry

>>683154

No, this is definitely a change in teaching. The previous canon said the death penalty was allowable in given circumstances but emphasized that these circumstances were practically non-existent in today's world - but if they were to change (say, war, societal breakdown etc), the DP could be allowed.

This change, however, is a categorical NO. We were wrong in executing Nazi war criminals and we will be wrong if, in the case society breaks down and we become unable to effectively hold dangerous criminals, we execute them.

The Church is supposed to be infallible and unchanging in the dominion of morals and this most definitely is a change in moral teaching. I am afraid of what might come after this.

>>683148

Yeah it's actually all just 4d chess goyim. He does not speak against it, makes statements that can be interpreted as confirming the agenda(You were born this way, muh who am I to judge). I don't buy this. France is a terrible, terrible pope.

They are reaping what they sowed.

>>683120

Most Catholics have been against the death penalty since the beginning. I fail to see the problem. Unless you're a blood-thirsty ragemonger, why is this a problem?

>>683179

Because tradition and teachings have always allowed it, even if conditionally.

>>683181

Tradition and teachings change. Maybe you haven't noticed.

>>683188

They can be clarified, but not changed.

>>683193

Apparently they can

>>683193

I take it maybe you're not Catholic? The teachings of the Church have changed a lot over the centuries. The best example is right in front of you in the OP. Pope Francis didn't pull this out of his ass, but rather altered something that John Paul II already put into place.

>>683204

>does that mean theoretically that anything not dogmatized can be changed?

Well, yes. That's kind of the Pope's job. It's not like the entire Catechism was written by Peter on his first day on the rock.

>>683212

>Well, yes.

So, tell me anon.

Is the fact that sodomy is a sin dogmatized?

>>683224

You have to define "sodomy". The Church holds that sodomy is homosexuality, but there are those who claim that any sexual act that isn't designed to produce offspring is "sodomy". So, it really depends on how you define sodomy.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_014.htm

Have an article.

>>683159

>We were wrong in executing Nazi

Did Francis just admitted Hitler did nothing wrong?

>>683224

Yes. Sexual intercourse only between a man and a woman married to each other is a dogma. Plus the commandment against adultery also applies.

If I remember correctly God forgive me if I'm wrong there was sodomite Pope back in middle ages. Even he didn't change that precept to his own profit.

I guess that even if you want something doesn't let you.

>>683250

No.

>>683160

OKAY. So the

>You were born this way, muh who am I to judge

was him talking to a priest who was molested for years by a bishop and was afraid of becoming like that bishop. It was taken so far out of context it is ridiculous. Yes a Gay man can get into heaven as long as he does not give into the sinful nature of his homosexuality that is his cross to bear.

>>683160

In the Pope's defense he actually said he wouldn't judge a gay fag who was trying to come to the Lord provided he wouldn't sin again. But once again the meme news agencies only took the judge not out of context.

But now with this shit of death penalty I'm mad.

>>683252

Which one of the 255 dogmas is that?

>>683270

None. But the church teaching about death penalty goes back a very long way and this Pope thinks he should change it. It doesn't even make logical sense, since for example in France terrorists can escape from jail and kill more people. DP is essential in that case.

The true catechism of THE church already stated it would be permissable as last resort, what this Pope says now is that it never should be used.

Criminals today had a good day.

>>683273

Don't know why THE came out capitalised. winnie the pooh gay phones.

>>683131

even if what he wrote was right I would never be able to trust him since he was a known mossad infiltrator

Wake me up when Francis is gonna do another council.

>>683212

Ordinary magisterium can be changed, extraordinary can't. In history, even ordinary magisterium was very rarely changed, but post 1958 popes went full nuclear.

>>683193

>>683298

> ordinary universal magesterium is infallable

> ordinary universal magesterium can change

> God does not change

Pick 2

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_the_Papal_States

Shouldn't Francis be addressing the scandal today?

>>683313

The only way out is that Francis is teaching error but then he's not infallible when teaching on faith or morals

>>683313

He did address the scandal by declaring the death penalty inadmissible. What else do you want him to do? Apologize?

>>683328

Throw bishops in prison.

>>683193

But they just were changed. Unless Bergoglio is an antipope.

>>683355

>the pope is always infallible when he teaches about faith or morals

<but when the pope teaches something I don't like about faith or morals he's #notmypope

kek, never change papists

>>683356

Oh but you see, he didn't stand in the right place, didn't say the right words, didn't wear the special shoes, and it wasn't the night of the full moon when it's in Scorpio.

Or in other words not ex cathedra

>>683136

The problem with this is it's only true about the 1st world, and most Catholics live in the 3rd world

>>683339

You want him to throw bishops from the 1800s in prison? Did you read the link you posted? The last execution was in 1870.

>>683374

All the ones who knew about mccarrick and sat on it. Laicized, in prison

>>683376

For the salvation of their souls, if nothing else.

>>683376

What does McCarrick have to do with the death penalty in Papal states? Did you read the thread or do you just post about kiddie diddlers in every thread that has a pic of the Pope in it?

>>683383

No. I'm saying the timing is wrong. He should speak on the scandal, not the death penalty. The RCC's moral authority is shot.

>>683385

Diddling kids is obviously against the christian moral, there's no reason to even talk about it.

>>683388

BECAUSE BISHOPS KNEW AND DID NOTHING

BECAUSE IT'S SCANDAL: IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE NO SUPERNATURAL FAITH WHATSOEVER

BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE NO FEAR OF HELL

THAT'S WHY

AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL YOU

>>683120

Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God. (Genesis 9:6 DRA)

What the winnie the pooh is this cuck doing?

>>683390

Your capslock just cost you all credibility.

>>683391

So, the guy who sheds the blood of the guy who sheds the blood has to have his blood shed, but then the guy who sheds his blood further has to shed his blood. Pretty vicious cycle. It's a wonder we've survived as a species. Or … that verse doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>683154

No you're missing the point. It's the wording that makes it so problematic. Against the death penalty? Fine, whatever, the Catholic church has always been for the sanctity of human life. It's this

>Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

>Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

What is this implying? That Catholic morality is subordinate to western culture? That somehow the Catholic church was wrong in the past and it knows that " the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes" thanks to liberal western ethics? This is a wedge in the door because it's testing the waters and seeing whether they can alter Catholic doctrine to something more agreeable to modern western culture. Make no mistake if this is accepted in a few years we will be seeing a change saying that homosexuality must be accepted as normal and natural because "there is an increasing awareness that homosexuality is the natural state of some individuals, inherited at birth"

>>683396

>So, the guy who sheds the blood of the guy who sheds the blood has to have his blood shed, but then the guy who sheds his blood further has to shed his blood. Pretty vicious cycle. It's a wonder we've survived as a species. Or … that verse doesn't mean what you think it means.

Posts like this make me wonder if RCs even read the bible. No you know exactly what that verse means but you are more interested in defending your political institution than the truth.

>>683475

>Posts like this make me wonder if RCs even read the bible

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Shall-His-Blood-Shed/dp/1621641260

>>683476

Your ordinary magisterium now disagrees

>>683403

>In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

All of your claim rests on whatever this means. What emerged to disagree with data used in the original teaching? The idea of "awareness" increasing to leverage a change of doctrine is nonsense and lends itself to what you're saying but without the latter part explained your view makes no sense.

>it's a slippery slope from here

shitty argument

>>683475

>Why won't Christianity support "an eye for an eye" views!

>>683513

Which would be defying the Tradition. It cancels out.

>>683514

>shitty argument

Hardly. I've listened to liberals spout "mul slippery slope" for the better part of 15 years and we went from "Maybe gays should be allowed to marry" to "Child drag queens" in a matter of a decade. F*ck you and f*ck your slippery slope "fallacy", it's an entirely valid concern when you're living in clown world

>>683396

>Your capslock just cost you all credibility.

His frustration is exceedingly valid here. Not only should he use capslock but he and every good Catholic should be pounding down the door to his Bishop's office to demand justice. What the pope has done by creating this dust up is to prevent people from talking about the pedo issue; many were calling for the pedo priests to be hanged, you see.

You poor bastards will be in my prayers.

>ruling elites are pedophiles or harbor them knowingly

>laity demand justice and punishment

>ruling elites outlaw capital punishment just to be safe

makes sense

Feser's article.

> If Pope Francis really is claiming that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, then either scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all previous popes were wrong—or Pope Francis is. There is no third alternative.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/pope-francis-and-capital-punishment

>>683579

Wrath is a sin and sin has zero credibility.

>>683519

Quick rundown?

>>683390

>BECAUSE BISHOPS KNEW AND DID NOTHING

How do you know what they really know and what they really do.

>>683741

Popes from 200+ years ago executed criminals so Popes now aren't allowed to call for abolition of the death penalty. That is literally the argument they're making. It's a childish and silly argument that contains zero knowledge of Papal history.

>>683744

It seems that Francis is saying that capital punishment is never justified, which would not only run contrary to tradition but also the bible itself and God's judgment. i.e Genesis 9:6 and others. And this is prior to the "mosaic law" so you can't use the ceremonial vs moral split.

What Francis is doing is really not surprising given the trajectory of the Church post Vatican 2

>>683771

Yep. While Francis hasn't declared anything ex cathedra, he's quite clearly guilty of a doctrinal error as Feser states.

>>683835

The Vatican said that Francis had amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church — the compilation of official Catholic teaching — to say that capital punishment can never be sanctioned because it constitutes an "attack" on the dignity of human beings.

>>683835

"Consequently, the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide," reads the new text, which was approved in May but only published Thursday.

This wasn't a private musing. He's changing your catechism and the beliefs of the entire church. Enjoy.

>>683744

If Francis' justification for abolishing the death penalty were solely pragmatic, he could get away with it. It's acceptable to say modern states aren't capable of justly applying the death penalty. He couldn't resist doing more than that, though.

>the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes

This breaks the whole thing. Francis is claiming that the RCC previously allowed the death penalty because it had an inadequate understanding of the dignity of persons, and that all his predecessors with the possible exception of JPII were in error.

Isn't this the only consistent option regarding abortion? Either life is sacred or it isn't. I get that death penalty can be used to prevent the death of their people, but technically so can abortion.

>>683869

No, fetuses are innocent and thus the punishments dealt to criminals have no bearing on them.

>>683862

>>683863

I've been considering becoming Catholic for awhile while generally looking into Christianity but honestly the twisted reasoning required to justify submitting to the Pope when he does stuff like this doesn't make sense to me.

So I see two options:

1) The Pope is an anti-pope and there's someway to reason your way to this through Sedevacantist logic (even though it seems to contradict the idea of "the gates of hell never prevailing against the church"). And in that case, if the people are just able to declare a state of necessity whenever and decide to go against the pope, what's the fundamental difference between that and people arguing for Reformation?

2) Or Roman Catholicism isn't the correct choice. I feel like I'm attracted more to its aesthetics and practices than anything else, because Orthodoxy always felt too foreign and decentralized and I've always been wary of Protestants not really having an overarching authority. However those mental blocks for me are far less glaring than all of the contradictions since Vatican II as well as the almost anti-Christ behavior of the popes.

Anyone have have any advice? I'm feeling pretty gaslit here.

I don't think I can justify supporting this Pope anymore, because it goes beyond political differences (which is how I've written it off in the past). What should I do, anyone have any good recommendations for stuff to read that might help me?

>>683899

Become Orthodox. New Mass is literally masonic and this was proven by honest Catholics.

>>683869

What crime have the unborn committed?

It is perfectly consistent to be against abortion and in favor of the death penalty.

I guess you crusader larpers better listen to your papa

>>683947

That is why papal infallibility is a joke

>>683947

> How stupid can you be to trust human authority? Only God has the right to kill someone

Romans 13:3-4

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

>>683867

Hundreds of previous Popes also had no understanding of electricity, so should Catholics all get rid of their computers?

>>683962

Paul does not refer to individual rulers, but the concept of rulers.

You should read John Chrysostom's homilies on Romans 13 to understand better.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210223.htm

i desperately want these homo priests to be executed. funny that pope francis now says that people can't kill these people.

>>683979

gay people only care about disgusting depraved sex for the most part. have you ever heard of bug catching in the straight normal world? they are majority pedophile abusers, they are sick, ideally they should be stoned to death and publicly shamed. they are arguably amongst the most disgusting people in the world.

>>683994

You should pray for the wrath and bloodlust to be lifted from you.

>>683957

The physical details of electricity are not a matter of faith or morals. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

>>683944

What if that unborn directly threatens the life of the mother?

>>683899

If people think Francis is bad, then they really need to look at some of the abysmal (if not satanic) popes we have had in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

This might not be the most compelling argument, but it should put things into perspective. We have survived Benedixt IX, we have survived John XII, we survived Arianism, we will survive modernism, too.

What you might also notice is the unity in the Church in these times. There were no antipopes, no schisms, no condemnations of the Papacy. just quiet perseverance in the hope of God that He would guide the Church through these tribulations. If it was done then, then impatient modern man can certainly slow down and do it again.

Otherwise I have some advice for you:

1. Whether the RCC is a choice or not for you isn't up to you. Pray earnestly to Him to guide you.

2. If you are solely or more into aesthetics, you will be dissatisfied no matter what church you end up in. You must search for the Truth, not for muh smells and bells. Aesthetics are important to a degree, sure, but if you are deciding your commitment to the Faith based on this, then you are akin to the 19th Century French decadents who went to mass to witness a show, not the Sacrifice of Calvary.

3. You don't have to be a Reformer to reform the Church. It is eminently possible to reform her and remain within her, as attested by the many doctors and saints who have done just that. It's even possible to start in your own local parish.

4. Look past the politics and seek the Kingdom first. You apear to have a preoccupation with worldly ideas. I suggest you try to overcome that, because it will be a stumbling block for you (if it hasn't become so already).

5. Disrespect for the person of the Pope easily leads to the disrespect of the Office of the Papacy, then the episcopacy and then the priesthood in genenral, and then you are in real trouble.

I will offer my mass intentions for you that you may find what you are looking for, anon.

Did he invoke his infallibility spell or did he declare this change while fallible? I need to know.

Like their stance on Jews and Heresy the Catholic Church changes its stance and in doing so debases itself. If the Pope won't protect his flock from the wolves then he deserves a speedy trip to hell.

>>684232

Fallible. The infallibility part only comes in ex cathedra.

>>684271

Lamo Caths think the pope has to say "btw guys this is ex cathedra" for it to count. Read your own councils buddy.

>>684275

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

>>683122

>>683144

they're papist shills, we need a new board. ban whoever disagrees with them, delete the posts, board log is private, nobody will know

to clear this up for people, there are far and more enough orthodox non sede people saying this is a serious error, if read in any sort of natural sense. from edward feser to several priests, theologians etc, even on EWTN. the only idiots defending the way it was written are idiots who have no brain other than to support everything francis does, probably high on social justice kool aid.

here is the thing though. any teaching from the church *has* to be read in light of all the other teachings, and if there is even the slightest possibility that it can be interpreted in a way that is non-heretical, then you have to read it that way - even if it isn't the intent of the author of it. it does seem very likely that pope francis actually wants to say that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral - however this is clear heresy so we can never read it that way. probably because of the holy spirit, the wording is barely ambiguous enough that we can say that this is simply prudential judgement, which is something that we are free to reject if we feel it is not applicable (and it is clearly a nonsense statement - there are several murderers who have escaped many times, el chapo is one who you should know the easiest, prisoners who have killed multiple people in even american prisons, even killed guards etc. my family is from a third world country and i can tell you that the prisons there are a joke. we do hang and execute people there because it's necessary and we are poor we can't be housing people for free for life. also it's hilarious that people think that executing someone is more expensive than life imprisonment. it screams western bias - rope is very cheap i'll tell you that much).

anyways, i digress. the point is that unless pope francis says explicitly when asked for clarification (which he will never respond to anyways) that he is saying that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral and this is actually doctrine, then we are actually obligated to take the only non-heretical interpretation, that is that he is merely giving prudential judgement, something we are free to reject and be in good standing (as cardinal ratzinger at the time stated).

to be honest when i heard this, i was actually sort of happy. i have quite a few other issues with the catechism (stemming mostly from VII garbagio), but since the issues were with matters that i was very familiar with but other people didn't and didn't care, it was hard to raise awareness that the catechism firstly is not infallible, and has a bunch of nonsense in it. now amongst anyone who's tried to pay attention to this matter at all, they've all come to see that the catechism is fallible, and people have even started to notice that the JPII additions such as the stuff about the death penalty was nonsense to begin with. also more and more catholics who actually care are starting to learn more about how doctrine and infallibility works. there are these so-called checks and balances. it's not pretty, but it is what it is.

the original purpose, if i am to believe correctly, for these rules of interpretation are more just to prevent people from trying to come up with wacky interpretations of church teaching. however it has come to the point where it seems that the people running the church are trying their best to preach heresy, and it's just narrowly being avoided because of these clauses. almost as if satan is doing his best. however what it does result is that to the average non-educated person, confusion seems to be being taught by the church, and that's quite sad.

in a time when we already have massive issues with the vast majority of catholics being extremely lukewarm and terribly catechized, faith falling in many parts of the world, and then on top of this this disgusting and seemingly never ending pedo/fag scandal, we have to have this happening. however like i said, there has been a lot of nonsense being promulgated as church teaching since VII, so it's good for more people's eyes to be opened. at least amongst more people today, they aren't just going to say "ITS IN THE CATECHISM" like it's definitive now. their eyes have been opened more.

tl;dr even if it takes mental gymnastics, church teaching requires us to read church teaching in a non-heretical position if it exists at all. the best we can say now is that this is just prudential judgement. ideally when we get better leadership they'll expunge all the trash "teachings" and make it clear again. Lord knows when that will happen.

when all these things are happening, i keep getting reminded of a line from the revelation of st. john. "this calls for perseverance of the saints"

>>684288

>series error

>already an approved dogma since May

>made a public teaching now.

enjoy.

"Consequently, the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide," reads the new text, which was approved in May but only published Thursday."

>>683120

>Has the Catholic church lost magisterium

No, the catechism is only a compendious compilation that isn't above what it is in it or promote what is in it to a higher level of doctrinal weight than of the individual sources themselves have. The altered part of the catechism only cites a random speech the pope made at some audience, its hardly carries the weight of a de fide teaching as much as they try to make it out as, one can disagree with the pope on this matter if it cannot be interpreted in a orthodox light it can be disregarded. The pope is at worst abusing his power and his lackies are letting him do his bidding under the guise of 'development of doctrine' with no sign of resistence, he desperately needs to be rebuked by his fellow bishops but alas they sleep.

>>684290

that isn't dogma you brainlet

>>684313

ok you're right, maybe it's one of the church truths that will change again in the future. who knows? the innovations are coming so fast.

>>683120

>another thinly-veiled "let's attack Catholics" thread

I wish Francis would stop… being Francis so this crap would stop. Praying that my Catholic friends, neighbors, and family members weather this storm and the future storms this man creates.

pope Sarah when?

t. Orthodox

>>684350

>t. Orthodox

That means you wouldn't care either way, so no need to pray.

>>684353

Don't tell me what I care about, fool

>>684271

This is not exactly true. Extraordinary magisterium on matters of faith and morals is not what we commonly call ex cathedra pronouncements, but they are still incapable of error (as expressed by Pius's X Syllabus). This is exactly what makes Francis's pronouncement so troublesome that we need to bend the hermeneutics of continuity until they snap so it is compatible with previous teaching.

https://thejosias.com/2018/08/05/the-magisterial-weight-of-the-new-text-of-the-catechism-on-the-death-penalty/

>>684086

But that is no crime.

>>684381

I'm a little unclear here; how can this suddenly change when as recently as a few years ago you had Benedict in '04 take a completely different position, the old one (see >>683519). Clearly he was not pope then but he was; furthermore what could have changed in just 10-15 years so suddenly? The world is little different, it is still in the miasma of the post 9/11 environment. And Benedict is not even dead yet!

This whole situation seems very strange.

>>683997

You should pull your head out of your ass

>>684920

Benedict was a V2 Pope, so anti-Papists won't care.

Er giorno che impiccòrno Gammardella

io m'èro propio allora accresimato.

Me pare mó, ch'er zàntolo a mmercato

me pagò un zartapicchio e 'na sciammèlla.

Mi' padre pijjò ppòi la carrettèlla,

ma pprima vòrze gòde l'impiccato:

e mme teneva in arto inarberato

discènno: «Va' la forca quant'è bbèlla!».

Tutt'a un tèmpo ar paziènte Mastro Titta

j'appoggiò un carcio in culo, e Ttata a mmene

un schiaffone a la guancia de mandritta.

«Pijja», me disse, «e aricòrdete bbène

che sta fine medema sce stà scritta

pe mmill'antri che ssò mmèjjo de tene.»

>>685805

Someone seems to have redacted your post.

>>685807

no it's just spoilered

>>685807

>>685808

It's a joke

Ihihih

That's so funny and ridiculous.

Now as a catholisc I'm confirmed in the fact I can be against some parts of the catechism (notably the part about the Jews not serving evil).

The eternal Jesuits always wanted to change that. And now thanks to them something is clear : ultramontanism was a mistake.

>>683997

God required the blood of that person

Why do you hate god? Dont you know he wants us to seek his ways and love his commandments.

>>685805

Bloody Romanists are everywhere ho letto "padre pijjò" come Padre Pio

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-church-and-capital-punishment

>This teaching cannot change.

So who wants to break the news to Mr. Staples?

>>684354

Well surely if you believe that the eastern Orthodox are the true Church of Christ, you ought to hope that compounding confusion and scandal such as this are what drive them to orthodoxy, no?

>>684091

>Disrespect for the person of the Pope easily leads to the disrespect of the Office of the Papacy, then the episcopacy and then the priesthood in general, and then you are in real trouble

Didn't you just ponder the possible satanic nature of previous popes? Well I've never been accused of being too soft on Francis, but I can't recall ever calling him a Satanist.

In any case, musing about how worse we've had in the past is precious little comfort to people in a seemingly hopeless situation.

A better thing to keep in mind is not that others have overcome worse, but that Christ told us that we WILL overcome whatever may come, for ours is the true Church of Christ, for progressives and soft marxists (like Francis potentially is?) to Triumph in the end is impossible.

Inadmissable means not allowed, not immoral. This is a matter of application rather than morality

>>686426

That same article has:

>Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father (John Paul II) on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

>>683136

Wrong wrong wrong

That's what it CURRENTLY says, ie that you shouldn't need it because prisons are sufficient punishment but ultimately in certain cases it provides a necessary punishment and atonement on the part of the sinner

What Frank is shoving into the catechism is that even in the most heinous circumstances you can't kill them.

So consider this moral dilemma:

>guy kills 10 people

>if you do nothing, he kills 10 more

>put him in jail for life and he kills 3 more in there

>execute him and he kills 0 more

Which is the best outcome?

Aquinas and Augustine both stated that the death penalty was just in certain conditions. Frank is saying they're wrong and he's smarter than them, and we just hadn't figured this out for 2 millenia.

>>687704

Only God may punish men for their sins. The death penalty was always against Church teaching but was allowed because of the time and state of imprisong the offenders. The Pope is allowed to change doctrine if it was an organic process and this was it is not dogma this thread is pure overreaction and baiting. Go pray to the Lord and stop wasting your own time on his earth that could end at any moment.

>>687704

Are you going to defend slavery next? That used to be okay in Catholic doctrine.

>>687726

Retarded and false. Your nonsensicla logic leads to abolishing any law. The death penalty is identified as legitimate by several popes and councils. It has nothing to do with self defense.

Your appeals to slavery impress nobody since we are not in reddit

>>687727

Chattel slavery is very different from the slavery in Roman times

>>683330

>deprive yourself of the right to life

If Pius XII thinks that's possible, then why isn't it possible to deprive yourself of the right not to be tortured too?

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/an-open-appeal-to-the-cardinals-of-the-catholic-church

A few Catholic priests, journalists and theologians have published a letter demanding the change to the Catechism be reversed.

Of course the Vatican will ignore this like it ignored the Dubia relating to Amoris laetitia

>>686651

The problem is that later on he says it goes against some vague dignity of the human person. So yeah, hermeneutics of continuity impose your reading (even if it is a terrible prudential judgment on the Pope's part), but the literality of his statement also condemns the death penalty on moral grounds.

>>687727

Popes have been condemning chattel slavery ever since the 1400s at least. Problem is that by that time kings had enough temporal power to tell him to go away.