/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>770822

That might as well already happened, and some people don't care. There was statue of Buddha placed over the tabernacle at during the "Assisi" conference during JP2's papacy (the video is a long exploration into various ecumenical abominations). I know the memes of JP2 kissing the Quran, but it's even worse than that. He made room for all kinds of religions during this conference and they used prized churches for their pagan services, covered up Christian symbols, and then replaced them with their own.

And now JP2 is a "saint".

And sadly, Catholics here, despite having their own hearts in the right place (it seems), want the rest of us to convert to Catholicism and be part of this. I don't know why they don't run away themselves.

>>770836

Yeah, well I'm wondering what people will say if the Pope is extremely explicit, without a shadow of a doubt saying what I said earlier. Since they say no one can judge a Pope except another Pope, what happens?

>>770836

>JP2

>two covenants man

Worst pope.

>>770836

Vid related.

Papacy is usually circular reasoning.

It would just be a funny way to excommunicate himself tbh.

The Swiss guard would have all the authority to lock him up in his room until his death or repentance, because I think unless the pope accepts his excommunication he cannot be kicked out.

Look at story of the only excommunicated pope, Honorius I.

That is implying God wouldn't zap him first.

>Who can judge him?

The same who gave him his mission

Jesus Christ.

>>770844

Except He didn't say that.

He only said that the conevant of Abraham was the old convant he refereed to later on (in Sydney I think). And that conevant his our conevant.

In later documents he states the good ol' truth, that if Jews don't BEGOME GATHOLIC they are going to hell.

Stop saying shit out of your ass next time.

The more I think about this the less it makes sense. It stands to reason that an apostate cannot be Pope. But who can judge his apostasy? What if the pope claim that Buddha is more supreme than Jesus but claims that he is still Catholic? No one can judge the pope so he's still pope? Then what if he appoints the next pope who is also just like him and so on? Choosing a pope is a discipline it's not dogma so the pope can technically change the rules (as it has been done before) and select someone personally and so on.

On the other hand it does stand to reason that any old meme master can't just judge the Pope claiming them to be a heretic or apostate, that would cause so much confusion. So what is it then though? This system seems to imply we could have like hundreds of anti popes and no one would be able to know. This system is pretty confusing.

>>770869

God didn't zap the Avignon anti popes, so God clearly allows anti popes. How can anyone say he excommunicates himself? He can just claim that this is the right interpretation of doctrine or whatever. Who can judge him and say he is wrong? No one - so the pope can openly say Jesus is just a Myth and then appoint his own Pope and so on?

I can judge him, because I own a bible. He's a heretic with a false gospel.

>>770895

A pope doesn't have to die to appoint their successor and a pope can appoint their successor if they want to. Appointing a pope is a discipline and they can pick whatever thing they want. So how what does this mean? How is anyone to tell if someone is a pope or not? Literally a pope can claim they don't believe in Jesus and we can't say that person is not a pope?

>>770958

"Everyone has to bench 225 to be saved" -me

>>770874

The avignon popes weren't heretics only schismatics. There's a difference. There was a true roman pope, but he later resigned so everyone could come to an agreement and summon a new conclave to end the schism.

>How can anyone say he excommunicates himself?

No one can say that. Everything he does later is illicit, like masses or ordinations.

In that case if the heresies are big enough to leave no room for misinterpretations it's the Swiss guard duty to protect the church and lock up the pope.

>No one - so the pope can openly say Jesus is just a Myth and then appoint his own Pope and so on?

If God didn't exist yes he could (still everything he did would be illicit by the Canon law), but He does exist so it wouldn't last long.

>I can judge him, because I own a bible

Compiled and made availible to you by the bishops and popes of the Catholic Church.

>>771039

>>770906

>>771037

>The avignon popes weren't heretics only schismatics. There's a difference.

That doesn't have anything to do with my question. There were anti-popes and real popes at the same time. God didn't zap an anti-pope, and if I'm not mistaken there were even canonized saints (now) who were under one of the anti-popes. Only one was a valid pope - how were the people to choose which pope to follow? Both claim to be the pope, this lasted for many years. Who could judge then?

>In that case if the heresies are big enough to leave no room for misinterpretations it's the Swiss guard duty to protect the church and lock up the pope.

Again who judges if the misinterpretations are 'too big' or that these are even misinterpretations at all? You aren't making sense.

>If God didn't exist yes he could (still everything he did would be illicit by the Canon law), but He does exist so it wouldn't last long.

Based on what? And what does 'last long' mean even? You're just making this stuff up. Last for what, 100 years, 300 years? No where in the Church does it ever teach that 'it won't last long' or anything like that, you're just pulling that out of thin air or supposing God will stop that but you have no idea. In that case you're adding a new clause that a pope can never proclaim heresy, but no one actually believes this. The most people say is that a pope can't infallibly declare heresy, but sure he doesn't have to do that. He can just solemly proclaim that he doesn't believe that Jesus is a real person. Now no one can judge him and say he is a heretic, so he's still pope. Then he is still pope and has the rights to appoint someone else as pope who is just as much a heretic as he is, and then no one can judge this person and so on, and this can go on and on.

You're just making this up that God will do something about it but this is not a teaching of the church at all, and there is no clause at as to how long God will let it go on. If he let the Western Schism go on for like 70 years, with fake popes, how do you know how long he will let things go on again? What's the upper limit, 90 years? 150? 229?

Here's another question. What if I'm some altar server for the Pope so I know the Pope and then the pope tells me to do something wrong, like I dunno - lets say to make it simple like something sexually wrong, like I can masturbate without thinking about lust. So I'm like what? And he is like yes this is right, this is development of doctrine, this doesn't conflict with anything at all (Pope Francis literally says his death penalty thing doesn't contradict at all either). Okay so I feel weird about this but I'm not smart I dunno, so what do I do, do I listen to him or not? I ask someone else and they say no this is wrong, but who do I listen to, the Pope, or some other random person? If I think the pope is wrong, am I "becoming my own Magisterium?"

I think most people would say that you should test every Spirit, doesn't matter who is saying it. If someone tells you to do something which is clearly wrong you shouldn't listen. But then am I placing my theological assessment above the Pope?

Clearly no one can give an answer - based on people's logic a Pope can openly apostatize and no one can say anything, and you'll just expect God to do something about it based on nothing. Say the pope openly became a Buddhist but said a Buddhist is the higher form of a Catholic, and then made ex cathedra statements. Would you accept them as binding? Who are you to judge that the Pope is wrong? You're simply assuming that God will do something about it but no where is it in our faith that God will do something like this. If there were false Popes for decades with no way of us telling that they were false Popes it could easily go on for longer or at least the same time.

>>771054

>and if I'm not mistaken there were even canonized saints (now) who were under one of the anti-popes.

None of them preached heresy, so of course there could be saints under those anti popes, since it even took a council for the Holy Spirit tell us how to procede.

No man could without extensive research come to the right conclusion.

It only lasted 40 years though.

>Again who judges if the misinterpretations are 'too big' or that these are even misinterpretations at all? You aren't making sense.

One thing is the pope saying something heretical without realising, another thing is the pope explicitly rejecting a dogmata necessaria like saying Jesus ain't God or something or a violation of the natural law.

>He can just solemly proclaim that he doesn't believe that Jesus is a real person.

Those are really the things that matter.

Other declarations are merely his own opinion.

>Then he is still pope and has the rights to appoint someone else as pope who is just as much a heretic as he is, and then no one can judge this person and so on, and this can go on and on.

That's really up to God to decide to stop the madness, but it will probably end the shit soon since He doesn't want souls to be lost.

>If he let the Western Schism go on for like 70 years

Are you assuming the dates since the avignon papacy started. The first pope that ran away to avignon was the true pope. Thus it makes some 40 years since the schism properly said.

And fortunatly none of them were heretics, if they were heretics God would probably intervene earlier.

>What if I'm some altar server for the Pope so I know the Pope and then the pope tells me to do something wrong, like I dunno - lets say to make it simple like something sexually wrong, like I can masturbate without thinking about lust. So I'm like what?

You refuse to obey because he commanded you to violate the natural law. Simple as that.

Anda popes do err when talking as private theologians ie when not talking from the chair. If he tried to command you in the name of God by the authority of Peter he would be zapped instantly.

>And he is like yes this is right, this is development of doctrine, this doesn't conflict with anything at all

That's clearly a change in the moral law.

>Pope Francis literally says his death penalty thing doesn't contradict at all either

And he is right. He just says a certain punishment isn't needed today.

He never says its evil or even a sin.

One can disagree with the Pope about death penalty and still go to communion as Ratzinger said before being pope.

>but who do I listen to, the Pope, or some other random person?

The pope, when not in his teaching office can say wtv he wants and he is not right than you.

Pope Benedictus in his books, he says he writes as a theologian and not as pope so he himself says we are free to disagree with him.

>But then am I placing my theological assessment above the Pope?

That's why the pope isn't alone.

When there came the divorce controversy over some footnote in amoris laetitiae the bishops voiced their opinion against the pope and the shit died there.

That's why God gave us bishops as well.

Cont.

>>770967

"Everyone has to be able to compute l-adic cohomology to be saved."

Cont.

>>771054

>Say the pope openly became a Buddhist but said a Buddhist is the higher form of a Catholic, and then made ex cathedra statements. Would you accept them as binding?

Of course not. To make a statement ex cathedra the pope derives the authority from Christ and he would never help him doing that.

But such a thing never happened.

The proof the church isn't a political institution and blessed by God is looking at the 10th century or the renaissense popes and see the church didn't change.

Those men could do nothing against God's will.

So one of the two would help.

>By being auto excommunicated the cardinals would arrest the pope and his statement since he was excommunicated would be void.

>he would be killed or stopped somehow by God

Because if none of the above happened God would have lied when he said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail over the church. And God cannot lie. Never.

So don't worry about that. The pope can never state error ex cathedra. Believing in this is almost an act of faith in the dogma of papal infallibility.

If the pope says something in an unnoficial way the rest of the bishops are there to help you.

Honorius I was even excommunicated by the bishops and well the church resumed normal life. No problem happened. Although it wasn't for heresy as it was thought, but by remaining silent while heresy was spreading like wildfire.

Kinda if most bishops in the Vatican were saying being gay was not a sin and Popoe Francis remained silent.

>>770967

Jesus would be the best spotter.

>>771058

>>771054

Who can judge if he's asking me to do something against the natural or divine law? Pope says to me it's not against natural or divine law, I don't know if it's right or wrong.

>>771065

The natural law is something written in your heart. We all know deep inside if that action is right or wrong.

As for the divine law, well opinions vary.

For example in the middle ages rural priests were extremely poorly educated so of course they said one or two things wrong or more.

The laity respected him as the authority there, so it wasn't their fault to follow their priest in his errors in good faith. They would go to heaven regardless. Only if one of them knew the priest was in error and decided to follow him regardless.

So in doubt look at the bible and the writings of the church fathers (or check the Catholic encyclopedia which is approved by the Church and includes biblical arguments and patristic ones) and/or talk with your priest and if you suspect he is wrong write to you Bishop or others after making a very good research.

>>770967

You forgot to add as a 5rm

>>770967

>Heaven's now a sausagefest

>>771041

Repent of what? That I want to proclaim Christ as the one and only Lord over all? That I don't want heathen idols in his churches?

I'm willing to listen, but you guys need better pastoral methods than just threats. You're basically telling people to "repent" by jumping into a fire full of indifferentism and pluralism, where Christ is merely one among many. This isn't "repenting".

It'd be different if your church promoted Christ alone and wasn't so apostate at the highest levels… then people may very well convert to it. But this isn't it. Whatever fantasy church you have in your head isn't the reality.

And I don't doubt that there are segments of Catholicism that don't fall into this. But then you still expect people to repent, where they'd have to traipse about hundreds of miles to even find one of these special places. The more likely scenario for average people is all they have is these official churches.. in which case, you're just showing how careless you are that you'd thrust innocent Christians inside of them, with little to fall back on.

>>771170

>I guess he is, but he's a bad one.

I thought a non-Catholic can't be a pope. How on earth can a non-Catholic apostate be a pope. Nothing else makes sense if you tell me that a non Cathoilc can be pope.

And wait you're a prot why are you even on this thread :O

>>771067

>The natural law is something written in your heart. We all know deep inside if that action is right or wrong.

No this is nonsense. Just cause technically that's supposed to be the case doesn't mean Natural Law is obvious. If that were the case there would be no debate about natural law, it would all be obvious to everyone, but it clearly isn't. Many people feel like contraception isn't against natural law, but the church says it is. In the end you have to use your own judgement. But then what about hurrdurr you're your own magisterium. Guess what, for literally everything you have to make your own judgements, including if you even believe Catholicism or whatnot.

If the pope openly says I never believed in this BS religion, Jesus is fake worship Buddha, are you still going to tell me that dude is pope and he can make ex cathedra statements? Good luck convincing people of that, no one will listen to you. But oh what, who can judge the Pope! We cannot judge him for heresy. See how stupid this argument is? People will say oh no oh no well that is obviously clear, so you can go with that. Then the question becomes, what is "obvious". Again you have to judge by yourself.

By my judgement I could easily say it's more than obvious that certain Popes were open apostates and did not believe in the faith at all. People rail on sedes saying ohhh you can't judge the Pope, but literally who on earth is still going to follow a Pope who openly and plainly says they have never believed in the faith they don't believe in the faith and to worship rocks. You are still gonna sit there and tell me oh no he is still pope, and then this Pope goes and says I'm electing another Pope directly after me, and that dude also says they don't even believe in God but believe in marshmallows and to worship marshmallows. You really gonna tell me that Pope Marshmallow is the legit pope and we can't judge him either? Give me a break, no one will believe you.

So it all comes down to what you consider "obvious" apostasy. So the argument against sedes saying you can't judge a pope is utter nonsense. You have to literally judge every pope yourself - just like you have to judge the claim of every religion yourself as well. We are literally told to judge every spirit.

>So in doubt look at the bible and the writings of the church fathers (or check the Catholic encyclopedia which is approved by the Church and includes biblical arguments and patristic ones)

The catholic encyclopedia, even the old one (I'm sure you have never read the 2006 one but I have it in PDF) is full of modernist trash. But on another note, so who is to judge then what is what? Who tells me what the right interpretation of things are? Literally no one can tell you cause I can ask a bishop and he can tell me no this is the wrong interpretation etc (Like those German Bishops). You have to be the judge of everything, the sede argument saying they can't judge a pope is stupid.

>>771262

The fact that the Church is in crisis today should be considered an honor for the faithful, to stay and fight the modernist heresies and carry their cross even if they don't like the way it has become. There have been abuses before that have come and gone, and there will be more.

Unless you were born out of Catholicism, maybe you should strongly consider why you're willing to -under any condition- separate from the only Church that Christ explicitely instituted.

Mark 4:

>Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

>He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

>He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

No matter how violent the storm is, Christ is with you in the boat, as He promised. Don't jump off the boat just because you fear the storm.

>>771291

No one is saying to leave the church. It's a question of what is the actual church. In short I don't care what anyone says, if a pope comes out and says that he solemnly swears he never believed in Jesus and always worshipped a Pumpkin, that dude is not the pope and could never have been pope. Based on the anti sede logic, you can't judge the pope. Blah blah if a pope says that only papolators will still stay in the holy Catholic pumpkin church. Just saying the sede argument isn't that wacky as I thought it was.

I wouldn't be shocked if I find out Paul VI and forward were not believers. I

>>771301

Having said that I find sedes like Most Holy Family as kinda wacky but maybe I shouldn't be so harsh considering what happened to the church. I don't really get why SSPX aren't sedes though. They reject the real bad parts of VII and doubt canonizations which are the biggest problems. Would it really surprise people of Bergoglio was a non believer or a Mason? Seriously would any half smart person be shocked if he was a Mason?

>>771303

I mean sorry what did I mean by "bad parts" or VII. Literally nothing is good in VII it's either totally unnecessary or just terrible. I'm fairly certain VII was created maliciously. The canonizations are wack. We have to assume that they hated the church and had a deathbed conversion. A still no one that the church should publicly venerate. JPII destroyed the rosary openly proclaimed heresy and so on.

>>771305

Saint John Paul II hated the rosary so much, that he prayed the 15 decades everyday while wearing his hair shirt.

>>771351

Hahahaha 15 Decades, you have to be kidding me right?

Dude is an open blasphemer who never publicly repented (who is to say privately?) and two popes since hasn't corrected him.

The majority of bishops would very quickly condemn him as a heretic, and they'd under a ring leader call a council to discuss the issue, which would lead to a lot of shitflinging and factions taking advantage of the situation.

Best case scenario, they elect a new Pope, declaring the previous has automatically resigned his post. Worst case, it ends up in a bunch of radical groups splintering off

>>771540

To be fair, he probably did 20 decades. He was also consecrate to Mary in his youth so he was also a slave of Mary. He used discipline and hair shirt. You can call him an apostate all you want, you can criticize his decisions for the Church as much as you want, call him a blapshemer (?) but in the end, this apostate seemed more devoted to Our Lady and God than many of his detractors.

I'm not even sure you're a catholic, but let's all take a look in the mirror before calling people names.

The same goes for Archbishop Lefebvre, you may not like him or call him a schimastic, that doesn't mean he hated God and Our Lady.

>>771577

>The same goes for Archbishop Lefebvre, you may not like him or call him a schimastic

you phrase that as it is a matter of opinion, which he was in fact a schismatic

>>771577

He openly prayed for St. John Baptist to *PROTECT ISLAM*. The prayer is still up on the Vatican website. He openly blasphemed. I doubt he believed in God or was a freemason. It seems clear to me from his life he hated the church with a passion and did what he could to destroy it. But that's just my opinion.

>>771677

Wooosh. The dude who mutilated the Divinely revealed Rosary.

Anyways enough about the (by all visibile actions )evil man JPII (maybe he converted on his deathbed or something. I doubt whether the canonizations are valid or not).

>>771554

>The majority of bishops would very quickly condemn him as a heretic

Wrong. No one can judge the pope according to anti-sedes and the like. So no one can actually call him a heretic. The whole thing seems idiotic. If a Pope openly says they don't believe in Jesus no one is going to believe they are still a Pope. To make it spicier, let that pope appoint another pope that says the same thing. You think that catholics should continue to say that new pope is also a pope and so on? Literally no one is going to recognize that pope.

The whole you can't judge a pope thing is totally flawed. Therefore the anti sede argument is flawed too. If pope(s) start teaching a new religion and speak blashphemy consistently what are people supposed to believe?

apostate Pope is ipso facto out of the church and thus not Pope, look it up, theres bulls on that

>>772075

Exactly, but who judges if they are an apostate? In the end every person has to judge for themselves really

If Benedict was coerced into resigning, and they replaced him with Francis… Good God, I am worried about the state of the bishops, cardinals and pope. Is there any real hope of saving the Church from their errors? Did freemasonry conquer Her from within? Is our Church in the hands of the Evil One? The pope is the pope and we should pray for him every day, and I will do so, but where will this madness end? The dubia has failed… the counterattack has been inflicted… God's people labor in agony it seems to me.

>>772100

The laity needs to speak up and let their voices be heard.

>>772100

Currently my viewpoint is that while I wouldn't claim to be a sede, I don't think their views are that crazy. I don't think we have enough information to be held accountable to not take the sede route. I have a lot more respect for SSPX too, and at this point I don't trust anything coming out of the church. I expect things to only get worse though and not better - there are a lot of people who think these things will be cleared up and we'll have some sort of widespread trad revival or something but I am quite confident that we have entered end times. If you consider the world was supposed to be for only around 6000 years the timing makes perfect sense too. I also view the canonizations as highly suspicious. It's a possibility that they had deathbed conversions but by no means are their lives worthy of heroic virtue, and they are political. I believe a large amount of bishops and cardinals do not believe the catholic faith. It may be a majority of them actually.

As for winning the battle we first of all have to work very hard on ourselves to become holy, lots of prayer and penance first of all. Once we reach a sufficient state of holiness we evangelize more. We cannot fix the corruption the the church. The antichrist is coming soon and the great apostasy is underway. We can save some people from falling away and there are still people who are converting into the church. But there will be no big fixes, the mass apostasy will come into full effect, and then the antichrist will come and majority of people will worship him as God. Then Elias and Enoch will show up and help us out. We have to keep the faith and stay strong.

>>770825

>Believe it.

Thanks, Naruto.

considering the joke of the pope we have, and the fact there was a coup against benedict, I can say I don't feel very confident for the future of the catholic church. There's literally an army of atheist faggots running seminaries especially in the united states who groom and perpetuate more faggot pedophile clergy.