/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Oh. Joy. Yet another Catholic hate thread.

>>847323

I'm a Thomist not a francist. Aliens are barred from receiving rights until the third generation because they might simply be invaders.

So why is the board dead other than for this thread?

Ah, let me guess. The new ads scared everyone away?

>>847328

The encyclical is depressing and globalist, no way around it. There is plenty to criticize in it.

Let us endure the cross.

s

>>847370

Your honesty is appreciated

>"its not ex cathedra!"

But it is, in practical terms ex cathedra means the pope acting as the pope rather than a private individual, that's why papists are able to say "it's ex cathedra not ex aeroplanum" or whatever with regards to the who am I to judge comment. If a papal encyclical is not him acting as the pope and speaking from the seat of Peter, what is?

>>847370

Affirming false doctrine is not suffering the burden of the cross.

Now there are plenty of people who will overlook false doctrines and compromise, essentially making a deal with the devil, antichrist, pope, for the sake of, power, prestige, siding with the worldly authorities, et cetera. None of those things is valid, nor is it suffering for others but only for oneself. It is a due recompense of "compromising" for the sake of worldly gain. They would rather affirm things knowingly false than give up their wretched worldly gain. I don't see the churches compromising with the world anywhere in Scripture.

James 2:1 - "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

Prov. 24:24 - "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him"

>>847476

To be infallible it has the encyclical has to:

1) the subject is a matter of faith or morals, 2) the pope must be teaching as supreme pastor, and 3) the pope must indicate that the teaching is infallible

Few papal encyclicals are ever considered infallible. This is one of those cases. It is NOT infallible as it does NOT meet the requirements for infallibility

>>847476

The encyclical it appears is a mere way for him to validate himself, MEANING he has lost credibility to a degree probably. The teaching is a mere compendium of previous statements are not to be considered infallible. why he may not out the door yet, it can be considered a capstone for his reign.

>>847659

>the subject is a matter of faith or morals

This would seem to be about morals

>the pope must be teaching as supreme pastor

If an encyclical is not that, then nothing ever is

>the pope must indicate that the teaching is infallible

What would constitute such an indication? How is it determined whether such an indication was made or not? How can the pope's teaching be protected by the intervention of the Holy Spirit if he must activate this protection? Does he hold authority over the Holy Spirit, to summon and dismiss Him whenever he so desires? What value is papal infallibility if it does not protect all teachings of the pope to the whole church? How could one ever avoid stepping into damnable heresies if they relying on the pope to guide them under these circumstances?

>>847663

1. It is not about morals, in fact few encyclicals can be considered about, it is simply his view on the world for the most part. Only 2 encyclicals have been found infallible since 1870. The most recent being about the immaculate conception. NOW an encyclical can have SOME things infallible, but to be COMPLETLY infallible, it MUST involve DOGMA of some sort and has to be something that ALL must assent to.

2. He is only infallible when speaking from the Chair of Peter, and that is VERY rare. Period. We are free to disagree with his interpretations

3. It has to align with the deposit of faith and the tradition given to us by the apostles. Which has NOT and will NEVER change.

>Does he have authority over the holy spirit

that is such a STUPID and ABSURD question no offense. NO, he does NOT have control over the holy spirit. Anyone with a basic understanding of Catholicism, or Christianity in general, would know that.

>How can one avoid stepping into damnable heresies

one way is to study the Church Fathers, study the deposit of faith, which was finished by the death of the last apostle, and moree or less tradition

>>847672

>It is not about morals

It is abundantly obvious that it is about morality

>it is simply his view on the world for the most part

Yes, specifically his moral views on it

>Only 2 encyclicals have been found infallible

Who finds such things to be infallible?

>NOW an encyclical can have SOME things infallible

How and by whom is it determined when it is partially infallible, and which parts?

>He is only infallible when speaking from the Chair of Peter

I repeat: if a papal encyclical is not that, then that is a subjective and inherently meaningless determination.

>It has to align with the deposit of faith and the tradition given to us by the apostles

Who determines the content and meaning of scripture and tradition?

>one way is to study the Church Fathers, study the deposit of faith, which was finished by the death of the last apostle, and moree or less tradition

So the method you are proposing is to form a personal interpretation of the ancient documents, and should that interpretation diverge from the interpretation of the church expressed authoritatively by the pope, reject the interpretation of the church?

>>847691

HE MUST be saying that it is infallible EXPLICITLY. WHICH has only been done twice in the past 200 something years. NOT EVERYTHING THE POPE SAYS IS INFALLIBLE

He MUST

>it is obvious it is about morals.

But NOT about Dogma. NOTHING he has written involves dogma.

>

>So the Method is to involve personal interpretation of ancient of documents.

NO, you look at the deposit faith which has NOT changed and cannot change

this should shed some light

https://www.simplycatholic.com/what-is-an-encyclical/

>>847323

Stuff on migrations and how much a country should open is a political opinion not morals.

>>847485

>>847474

It has some decent stuff too after all, i'll have to read it in its totality and see what's the general tone before mouthing off like i did by saying it was definitely globalist:

" The solution is not an openness that spurns its own richness. Just as there can be no dialogue with “others” without a sense of our own identity, so there can be no openness between peoples except on the basis of love for one’s own land, one’s own people, one’s own cultural roots. I cannot truly encounter another unless I stand on firm foundations…

Everyone loves and cares for his or her native land and village, just as they love and care for their home and are personally responsible for its upkeep. The common good likewise requires that we protect and love our native land. Otherwise, the consequences of a disaster in one country will end up affecting the entire planet. All this brings out the positive meaning of the right to property: I care for and cultivate something that I possess, in such a way that it can contribute to the good of all.

(….)Such was the temptation referred to in the ancient account of the Tower of Babel. The attempt to build a tower that would reach to heaven was not an expression of unity between various peoples speaking to one another from their diversity. Instead, it was a misguided attempt, born of pride and ambition, to create a unity other than that willed by God in his providential plan for the nations (cf. Gen 11:1-9).

The common good likewise requires that we protect and love our native land. Otherwise, the consequences of a disaster in one country will end up affecting the entire planet. All this brings out the positive meaning of the right to property: I care for and cultivate something that I possess, in such a way that it can contribute to the good of all. "

>>847732

Egalitarian stuff like this usually is partly rooted in truth, like compassion for the needy

>>847733

Christians don't care about helping others. Christians are narcissists who larp as followers of a dead religion that created great nations while doing typical narcissist things and never studying the Saints and only studying scripture enough to manipulate good people. If a modern Christian met a real one the real one would throw him in a gas chamber and do the same to all his followers and children to prevent the moral sickness from spreading.

>>847734

[-]

>>847734

Blow it out your ass.

>>847734

>Fake Christians don't learn from the example of the Saints

>Whose primary concern was abolishing the nations of man

Incredible projection, you're an antisocial freak 100%

>>847733

Egalitarian s— like this is usually rooted in evil, like greed for other people's riches, or ethnic hatred and a wish to punish your ethnic enemies and usurp their society. Or in Papa Frank's case just ingratiating yourself to worldly powers. Helping the needy is a laughable argument for mass immigration, needy people aren't obese; show me these millions of people who would have starved if not for that timely flight across half the Earth.

>>847968

>the Saints primary concern was abolishing the nations of man

WAT? Is this trolling? If not explain yourself.

>>847323

Pope Francis will cause a second schism. Which might be a good thing.

>>848317

For all I know there is a Pope, Pope Benedict and Jorge is doing what he's told to bring out all the cardinals and bishops who are in error so Pope Benedict can excommunicate them; they're playing out the 3rd prophesy to clean out the Church.