/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Not a Catholic but did a quick Google search because this did sound interesting:

>Pope Joan, 855–857, (Ioannes Anglicus) was, according to popular legend, a woman who reigned as pope for a few years during the Middle Ages. Her story first appeared in chronicles in the 13th century and subsequently spread throughout Europe. The story was widely believed for centuries, but most modern scholars regard it as fictional.[1][2][3]

Guess it's not true.

Don't anglicans do this since the queen is their pope?

>>734052

Delete this

>>734052

The actual truth is less stupid and makes a little more sense: pic related is a statue in Italy that spread around Europe. Because Jesus is wearing a robe, Germans believed it to be a dress and thus made up a legend about a Christian woman who miraculously grew a beard to get out of having to marry a Pagan and was then crucified.

>>734052

>>734056

>Because Jesus is wearing a robe, Germans believed it to be a dress and thus made up a legend about a Christian woman who miraculously grew a beard to get out of having to marry a Pagan and was then crucified.

That's Catholic theology for you. A bunch of made-up stuff.

Renounce papism.

>>734060

it was just a prank, bro

Here's what you need to understand about Catholicism: the laity doesn't make the doctrine, so they always make up dumb stuff like Wilgefortis or Santa Muerte. That's folk Catholicism, or what the church calls a "Catholic Cult," and they don't define Catholicism.

The clergy is corrupt and shiftless, but they also don't represent Catholicism. Judas was an apostle, and he didn't define Christ's ministry, did he? So even though a lot of the clergy is embroiled in abuse scandals, and the pope espouses liberal modernist universalism at every chance he gets, that's just the natural corruption of humans in power. It's a heresy (donatism) to believe the clergy must be blameless. The clergy is corrupt, and they don't define Catholicism.

What defines Catholicism is the dogmas, which you can read in the Catechisms. Just not the Vatican 2 ones. Those are modernist heresies, and if you take stuff like CCC 841 at face value, you're going to go wrong. Remember, that stuff was made by the corrupt clergy, and they don't define Catholicism.

Some people go to far here, and assume that we need to break away from the church because the clergy isn't even Catholic anymore. People like Sedevacantists, for example. Those guys are way off! Even though the clergy is corrupt and heretical, you can't break away from them. The Vatican still leads the church. If you're a sedevacantist, you're basically a protestant. You can't form your own church, even if you call it a Catholic church and you believe in traditional Catholic dogmas and you worship in a traditionally Catholic way and even if you trace your continuity to the Roman Catholic Church. Those guys are schismatics and they don't define Catholicism.

So what does define Catholicism? I do, and the Church Fathers (I haven't read all of them, but I know they are all in 100% agreement with both each other and with me) do, and all dogmas before Vatican II (such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception from 1854) do. Those sources are where you can find the church as it was preached by Jesus Christ to the apostles. Current estimates say that I'm the only Catholic who's real.

>>734060

> What kind of person sees Jesus in a robe and says “oh that’s a woman who grew a beard”?

The same kind of person that sees the Bishop of Rome and says "oh, that's the vicar of Christ".

>>734078

I see you brother, peace carry you through these hard days, Bless your soul.

>>734061

yeah, I call shenanigans on this >>734056 and this >>734052

And inevitably it leads to this conclusion:

>>734078

>Current estimates say that I'm the only Catholic who's real.

LOL

>>734078

>What defines Catholicism is the dogmas, which you can read in the Catechisms. Just not the Vatican 2 ones.

How many layers of cognitive dissonance are you on rn?

>>734078

>Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. - Ephesians 5:4

>nor foolish talk nor crude joking

otherwise a 10/10

>>734059

The level of retardeness of this post is so high its not even worth to reply.

>>734052

Wow this is just insulting to look at.

>>734096

>Current estimates say that I'm the only Catholic who's real.

t. Jimmy and Bimmy Dimond Brothers

>>734097

Even the Vatican II are valid. Its a council like any other. winnie the pooh sedevacant prots God dammit. As if the church wasn't attacked by the outsiders enough.

>>734078

Please explain how one can both eat at the table of devils and the table of the Lord

>Here's something people argued about in the medieval period

>Let's bicker too!

That's some oooooooooooolllldd copypasta.

>>734052

seems it's only saint Wilgeforte (strong virgin), a legend. How do you know it was an effeminate Jesus in the beginning ?

>>734356

It was Jesus in a robe, not effeminate Jesus

>>734385

ah ok.

Literally a myth

>>734682

If prots cared about history they wouldn't be prots is the first place.