God never said to conform to a religion. he said conform to me. whoever does that best, is someone worth following. Jesus comes to mind, but for people that are alive, i only listen to those that show you how to get to heaven and how to be a better Christian. anything more or less screams scam or satan to me
Every record we have of Jesus comes through tradition. The bible was created and handed down via tradition. Throwing out old traditions is a bad idea, but this pope is clearly a plant from some globalist system.
I recommend Orthodoxy to all my disillusioned Catholic friends.
Having become Catholic as an adult, I refuse to abandon my Church. I also refuse to recognize the illegitimate papacy of the false priest Bergoglio. I pray for a true Pope to rise soon.
That being said, nothing but love for faithful brothers and sisters in Christ of other denominations, be they Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, etc.
i figure anyone who understands who God and Jesus are and have adopted them into their life esp concering that you need God in order to get into heaven, not the other way around, is a person on the right path.
Jesus taught me that scripture is the clear, self-attesting and self-authenticating revelation of God about himself and the nature of reality. He condemned the Pharisees for elevating the traditions of the Jewish elders to a position of authority equal with or above scripture. The record of His teachings is self-attesting and self-authenticating, and thus my belief in the authority of Jesus to teach me this way of thinking comes from Jesus himself.
Thankfully God preserved this record for us through the love of scripture his people had as they copied and distributed these writings in an uncontrolled manner prior to the development of the institutional church. I am also thankful for the witness of the church fathers who confirm the preexistence of these texts through their interactions with them in their writings.
Now throw your graven images overboard along with your antichrist vicar and submit to the risen Christ and receive total forgiveness by faith in Christ alone, because "It is finished ".
That's why he's upset: he's just ass-blasted people are questioning his legitimacy and decisions.
Pope Frank, we are meant to be in the world, but not of the world.
The Catholic Church has been sliding to the left, and degradation, for years. You guys were given Vatican City as a country for the purpose of staying OUT of worldly politics.
Wow. I'm not a God fearing Christian man. And you could say I agree with this pope. But I'd have no desire to head a religion that claims the opposite. Way to much faggotry and buggering going on behind those walls
There was very little pedophilia in the Catholic Church. The scandal mostly involved predatory homosexual priests ordained in the 60s raping post-pubescent boys.
God bless you. It's so funny how all the Catholics who actually uphold the traditional teachings hate this pope (many of my family members included). They all hate him.
ya know, even the globalists hate Francis. They just want to use him to attack the Church from within. He thinks he's winning friends and influencing people and making Catholicism popular to the world. He's not. He has the mentality of a sixties radical trying to brow beat a young woman into sleeping with him by calling her a prude and telling her about her hangups. Sure, he might get the sex but she's not coming away with anything but a hatred for that guy and men in general. There's not a globalist or a tranny or a lefty who has met with him that respects him. We know this because the Democrat media continually sows discord and division for him. If they liked him, they would be talking about everything he does in glowing terms.
Francis has spent his whole life giving comfort to the elitists in Argentina, telling them that their sins are no big deal and they don't have to actually go to Mass every Sunday (not that they go at all which he well knew) and the rosary isn't all that and excusing their sexual trysts. He's done the same for fellow priests. He's never had a harsh word for sin and never a nice thing to say about the faithful. He comes from a nation that is 90% Catholic and never had to fight for its faith or answer objections to the faith. His Catholicism is the worst sort of cultural Catholicism that exists - he's a Catholic like a reform Jew atheist socialist is a Jew.
He's a plant by the evil ones and he's so dumb he doesn't even realize he is. He thinks they actually care what he has to say rather than they just want him to be used as a weapon against the faithful.
I don't know all the inner workings, but Francis is the first of the order of Jesuits to become Pope. It's long been known that the Jesuits are a black thorn in the side of Catholicism. They basically operate outside of the law (like the CIA or FBI), have their own rites and rituals, believe they answer to no one, and anything they do (ANYTHING) is excusable if it is for "the greater good."
They are dangerous and I'm sure they had a hand in getting Francis in, as well as getting Benedict out. I'd bet anything lives were taken and threatened to get him in. The Jesuits have been the black sheep of Catholicism basically since they existed.
My own hometown priest (who I loved) was a Franciscan by order. When I told him over 20 years ago I planned to attend a Jesuit run college, he warned me against it. It wasn't until years later that I started learning about them and understood why he said what he said. When I was 18 years old and clueless, my hometown priest just told me "They don't really stick to the truth. I think they are dangerous... for the church." Boy was he right.
I just found it confusing (from a non-Catholic point of view) how a Pope can change the rules that were followed for thousands of years so easily. If a pope can make the church into what he wants of it and strays away from Jesus it becomes like a cult. Ignoring the original teachings would encourage another protestant reformation, correct?
You're almost right. The Jesuits are indeed some bad people. But they are not the black sheep or black thorn. Maybe to the few priests who actually believe in Catholicism. But the Jesuits are the personal spies and assassins of the papacy. They literally swear allegiance to the pope. To the ones who are actually in the know within the Catholic church hierarchy, the Jesuits are indispensable.
There's been a concerted effort since the 20s or 30s by communist operatives to infiltrate the upper reaches of the clergy. Bergoglio (aka Francis) is one of the fruits of this labor. The sex abuse scandal is another (surprise, surprise, commies tend towards kid fucking, and actively enable others who do the same).
There is significant debate over whether or not Bergoglio was actually elected to the Papacy by the College of Cardinals because Pope Benedict XVI was still alive. There hadn't been a Pope to resign since... I think the 1200s, and back then there was significant debate over whether or not the Pope could resign.
So given Bergoglio's actions, how he came to power, and his background (explained by u/HeavenlyTrumpets) I do not see him as a legitimate Pope- he's just some guy put in the seat to drive people from the Church.
It's how the commies got commies into the Church. No normal man, even a communist, would agree to be a priest if his whole intention was to subvert the Church. The reason the pedophiles got into the Church is the commies helped the commie pedophiles. The pedophiles wanted the altar boys and the commies wanted the commies in.
St Gellen's mafia conspired behind the scenes to get him elected. The deceased Cardinal Danneels of Belgium admitted it and bragged about it. Cardinal McCarrick of the U.S. was also part of this "lavender mafia".
For those who don't know who McCarrick was, he was such an arch-pedo that "Francis" had to defrock him entirely (unprecedented for a Cardinal IIRC) after good guy Archbishop Vigano repeatedly forced the matter.
Benedict XVI had already put McCarrick into "retirement" in a hermitage. Francis pulled McCarrick out to do the disastrous China deal which handed control of the Catholic Church in China to the CCP. Because of the outrage, spearheaded by Archbishop Vigano, McCarrick was put into a monastary (and was much ignored and hated by the Franciscan brothers in that monastery) but was forced to entirely laicize McCarrick and now McCarrick is at an old folks home.
The Cardinals elect the Pope in a conclave. The rumor has it that the members of St. Gellen's mafia went around to other Cardinals outside of the conclave, both before Benedict stepped down and after, and lobbied for Francis (Bergoglio). According to rules put in place by JPII, it is violation to form a cabal to elect a Pope while the previous Pope is still reigning and it is violation to lobby for a candidate outside of the conclave.
God chooses the next Pope. It's the head of His Church, the unbroken successor to Jesus, of course it's not just up to some random high-ranking dudes. The priests are just the vessels for His will.
It's the College of Cardinals who elects the Pope, he isn't selected by God. If the cardinals have been infiltrated by a bunch of gay commie satanists for half a century, this is the results you get. They can ignore the will of God in that matter just as much as they can with every other rotten decision they've ever made in their lives.
They hate him for what they imagine him to be, not for what he is. Most Catholics are not well Catechized, unfortunately, and subtlety is lost in them. The worst I can say about him is he's not a great communicator.
I don't mean to be offensive, but only to speak the truth. If you believe the worst thing about him is that he's not a great communicator, you are very very ignorant.
Many say horrible things about him, but it's mostly name-calling (e.g. globalist, commie, anti-Christ), not actually related to anything he said. When they do give reasons, it's blatant misrepresentation, like the false assertion that he worships an idol called Pachamana. You guys hate the Pope, like you hate every Pope, we get it. Nothing new.
I don't hate the pope. I just believe the OFFICE of the papacy is the biblical antichrist power. Not an individual pope. All the popes. I dont personally hate Francis, or Benedict. Or John Paul II. I do believe them to be evil men in league with Satan himself.
The first Amendment has nothing to do with Catholicism. However, public schools were first created in east coast cities to suppress Catholicism which is why Catholics created their own school system.
My opinion is that Catholicism, minus the corruption of the clergy and the faithful, is exactly what Jesus intended. Protestantism in my opinion, is rebellion against the Church Jesus Christ founded upon Peter and the other Apostles. It was the usurping of lawful spiritual authority.
Protestantism's belief in Sola Scriptura, the very doctrine that unites all Protestants, is also the source of the division among Protestantants. If every person is their own final word on what the Scripture really teaches, than everyone becomes his or her own Pope. Thus whenever conflict or disagreement arises, Protestants spin off and create a new denomination. It's a never ending cycle of disagreement, disunion, splinters and fractures. In my opinion, no church with so much disunity can be led by the Holy Spirit.
The protestant people on the other hand, are still mostly members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but are the Separated Brothers and Sisters from Catholics. We are all one in the Mystical Body of Christ, but on Earth in the visible Church, we are separated and cannot be made whole, until God makes us such, if He ever does. We should pray for this unity.
You don’t know anything if you think that’s what Protestants believe. We don’t believe everyone is their own final word, but finding proper context in what the Bible is teaching us. You’d rather pray to men than Jesus. You have an apostate religion and it shows in your leadership. Tell me how does one enter heaven when they die?
I don’t have negative feelings for any authentic Christians as a Catholic myself. Denominational wars are very destructive and toxic. We need to focus on the real enemy which is militant communism, aka Satanism, rather then squabbling over petty differences in interpretations of how one ought to practice his or her Christian faith. Actual Christianity of course, outright heretical Christians should be seen as Communist infiltrators.
I hate to break it to you....but thats not a fantasy. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy, ( never got molested by a priest, thank God) lol. News flash, if you pray to someone that is a form of worship. Ever say a Hail Mary? Asking for intercession from Mary is idolatry. There is no intercession between us and Christ. He Himself is the intercessor and the mediator between us and the Father. Ever kiss the feet of a statue of St Joseph or Mary? That is also idolatry. These are the reasons I left the Catholic church and became a protestant. The Bible says what it says brother. We can't change what is written. God bless you nonetheless and I pray that you will dig into the scriptures regarding intercession and mediation.
No. If you ask me to pray for you I would, and you would not be worshipping me. But if you ask Mary, who is dead, yet worshipped by Catholics as being almost divine, then yes that is idolatry.
My faith was a huge part of my growing up and is still a big part of who I am, though I may not think of everything exactly the same now. But as long as there is someone like this in charge, I don't see how anyone who fell out of the Catholic church could "go back." It seems like any Catholic "growth" these days is coming from woke idiots who think this "Pope" is awesome (because he doesn't actually stick to true teachings).
I recently converted to Catholicism from being raised Methodist despite not liking this pope. Methodist has just fallen off the wheels with woke crap. But in the Catechism class they told us there are bad priests and bad popes, but the Church endures them.
Why not skip the middleman altogether and just have a relationship with God? The existence of the hierarchy itself is the issue, not who the current Head is.
The Body of Christ remains undefiled. The human creation that is the Catholic church doesn't leave room for that to be true, and current pope is a great example of that.
There is no Protestant Denomination that believes in Transubstantiation, that is what the Catholics call the Real Presence. Some denominations say they have the Real Presence, such as Lutherans, but they do not believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and do not worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox and the Apostolic Rites of the Roman Catholic do believe in transubstantiation and do believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Aside from two disagreements, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church believe the same things. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the filioque clause, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The eastern Orthodox also do not believe Papal Supremacy but that the Bishop of Rome is equal to Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox churches. To the EO, the bishop of Rome, that is the Pope, is the Patriarch of the Western Latin Church.
Aside from Lutherans and Episcopalians, there is no Protestant Church that even believes in any Real Presence at all. Some Protestant churches do not ever have communion at all.
I am a Seventh Day Adventist. We have communion every quarter. We do foot washing and eat the unleavened bread and drink the unfermented grape juice. We do not believe that it is the literal body and blood. We do as Christ commanded us..."do this in memory of me"
Not sure why downvoted. Anyone who's a Catholic, but opposes the Pope, is Protestant by definition.
If you are Catholic, you accept the hierarchy. That's the whole point of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is about gatekeeping. It inserts a hierarchy between the individual and God. This subverts spirituality to amass power in the material world. For proof, just look at the sumptuous St. Peter's Basilica, and the amount of land the Vatican owns.
Maybe they'd feel better if they wrote down a list of all their problems with the Pope? Oo, they can tape it to the door of their church for a real impact!
You're going to get downvoted by butthurt Catholics who don't like that they can't back up most of their beliefs with the Bible because most of it is human made hogwash. You're right though, before getting perverted by power hungry middlemen, Christianity was all about you, the individual, and your personal relationship with God. People who actually read their Bibles would know that.
Actually we can. It's just that we don't read the Bible to use it as a weapon. Rather it's part of our worship at Mass. Fun fact, that entire purpose of putting a canon of the Bible together was so that all Catholics would be doing the same readings at Mass every day. So if a person attending Mass every day for three years, that person would have read thru the entire Bible at least once and the gospels multiple times.
There is a Biblical basis for just about everything Catholics believe, it's just that if Protestants don't start from scratch, each on interpreting the Bible for themselves, they don't see how the build up of the church and Divine Revelation work. They impose a limited meaning on the Bible and then say their limited understanding is "pure" or "true".
Ya know how I know Protestants, most of them anyway, aren't really serious about the Bible? It's because they don't set up schools in which all their children learn Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin to translate it for themselves. up until Vatican II, Catholic school kids would learn Latin and we only did this because the language of the church is Latin, yet, Protestants don't even know or educated their children in at least one Biblical language but just assume the translation they like is right. Instead, Protestants rely on pastors or those who are educated to know the Bible, but even most of these, don't know a single Biblical language or the history of the canon at all. They won't even say the name of St. Jerome but there's no other person in history that is more responsible for the canon of the New Testament than St. Jerome.
Protestants don't deny hierarchy, esp. high church denoms. We deny works salvation (not to the point of antinomianism) and any need for intermediaries to Christ of any sort, whether priest, pope, or dead Catholic 'saint' (I imagine a twitter verified icon next to the names now in catholic writing lol), Immaculatr Conception and that whole Mary worshipping scandal, etc.
It’s almost like their real religion and focus in life is commie shit. And everything else in their mind is subservient to that. Following God is impossible to them, due to their priorities being opposed to God’s.
I haven't been to mass since the church selected this pope. When I return, and I will once the church returns to traditional values, I will confess my distain for this ungodly man. Still Catholic
I made some bad life choices and ended up in academic research with the wokest of the woke. None of them has ever mentioned Francis, let alone said he's "awesome."
find a priest that is not the pope. Simple enough. We listen to our priests on a weekly basis. Every so often this idiot pope shows up in news feeds and says something stupid. However it is a bit annoying that he is the one that may or may not hand down new doctrine....and according to this article he certainly thinks it is ok to change and evolve God's word and the Gospel to conform to today's society.
Be thankful that there are priests who are fighting back against this fool.
Didn't appreciate it until I got older. Religion classes were required (which I rebelled against but made their moral mark on me nonetheless) but religion was not shoehorned into any of the other classes.
We had morning prayer, weekly mass, and other church functions, but the education was high level and unbiased.
I don't know how woke or not woke they are now, but they weren't at all when I was a kid.
Some of the nuns were mean as hell, and some were the nicest people you could ever meet.
Send her to an SDA private school. She will get a good protestant Christian education and will know her Bible very well before she graduates. Just a suggestion brother.
I somehow think he was always a satanist actually. I don't think he turned his back on God, because he never had faith in him to begin with. Just feels like the type that was always a sockpuppet for self serving nihilism and thusly satanism.
Pagan is derived from the ancient Roman Latin word which simply means "country dweller". Since Christianity first came to the cities of the Roman empire, country dwellers often clung to the beliefs of the Roman and Greek pantheon on Gods and the Germanic (barbarian) tribes clung to the norse gods and beliefs.
Pagan became a short hand way of describing anyone who believed in the non-Christian tribal dieties or Greek and Roman Gods.
After a couple more centuries, it came to mean and is now defined as someone who is not baptized who worships tribal gods.
The people of the Amazon who brought the Pachamama idol to the Vatican were unbaptized people worshipping their version of a fertility goddess, Pachamama, which makes them pagan. That the pope also did this makes him Pagan insofar as he worshipped along with them and brought the image of Pachamama into St.Peter's Church and placed it on the altar. Worse, it makes Pope Francis an apostate as well. He or his press secretary initially lied about it too saying it was a primitive depiction of the Blessed Virgin Mary but later admitted the truth, it was a pagan fertility goddess. A month later, a group of young Catholics stole it from the altar and threw it in the Tiber River. The italian police fished it out of the Tiber River and gave it back to the Pope.
This is just one example. The pope himself wears the mitre of The High Priest of Dagon. The fish mouth miter. DAGON was a Philistine God. He wears the staff of Osiris on his vestments. There are so many pagan symbols in thr Catholic Church that are in plain sight.
That's such bullshit. I suppose you think Jack Chick is a scholar of Christianity, Hahahahaha. He's a prejudicial bigot who will say and write anything about negative about the RCC because he's just throwing out accusations and smears because he can convince a few people who don't understand anything about the history of the Church to believe lies.
well, I've seen some people defend him by saying he watched them worship the pachamama and didn't participate. I have never seen footage to the end of the entire ceremony but I do believe he was included in the ceremony and more to the fact, he put the idol on the altar knowing it was a pagan fertility goddess' symbol.
yeah, the left only thinks in terms of optics which is a public relations word to describe manipulation of the general public. I finally understood how lefties can't think straight when someone pointed out to me, it's because they think using words defines reality and not the other way around. To them, words aren't descriptions of reality that are meant to portray real things but rather, they use words to shape reality and control reality. That's what they think they are doing, causing reality to go this way and not that and change things simply by finding "magic" words to re-describe them. This is why they are always re-inventing themselves and re-introducing themselves etc. They think it's all about optics but don't seem to grasp that there's a reality beyond their control. They think word choice and phraseology creates reality. So they think Donald Trump created a reality by which we don't trust them. They don't see that we empowered Donald Trump BECAUSE we don't trust them. We just didn't realize how far the rot had spread and how much it taken root.
Very well said especially the public relations part. The initial person credited with PR made some longstanding social cultural damages to America. To give credit to did get Americans on board with ending the World War that was a feat America saved Europe's ass but created China we fought a war on 2 friends across the earth's largest oceans. Won both fronts. America's greatest product is leadership
The reference being truth is targeted and oppressed by lies. Corporatism takes over.
one journalist went against oppression by McCarthy became a stead fast symbol of journalistic independence. Then when Nixon entered the candidacy for president the media targeted him the same way that one journalist targeted mccarthyism
Marxism exists by infiltrating existing movements or systems. Initially they tried industry and conservative circles in Western Europe and Britain, they failed miserable decided to go the democratic liberal route. that's when early to midnight 1900s the world saw democrat socialist movement and even democratic communist movement.
progressive still has meaning in some parts of America. Places that saw the last remnants of independent candidates on the ballot getting elected to governors office.
Progressive is best fit in a conservathe government meaning slow steady progress
“I want to remind these people that backwardness is useless, and they must understand that there’s a correct evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals,” that allows for doctrine to progress and consolidate over time.
Francis has previously acknowledged the criticism directed at him from some U.S. conservatives, once quipping that it was an “honor” to be attacked by Americans.
That's not what that passage in the Bible means otherwise Christians wouldn't be calling their own biological fathers, fathers, daddy or papa. It means to not trust human authority blindly and to not put your whole trust into any human institution or authority but rather to trust only in God. It doesn't literally mean not to call anyone, Father. Otherwise we wouldn't refer to George Washington as the Father of our Country or talk about the Church Fathers or the Founding Fathers. We call them fathers because they generated us in some way, but we should not venerate them over and above God The Father. That's the point of that passage.
From a Protestant perspective, I believe Smurfection's reasoning is largely correct, but I'm not fully comfortable with how the Catholic Church goes right up to the line by applying it to a spiritual/religious context in the most formally titled way possible. The practice may be technically justifiable by the slightest possible margins, but it's so easily abused to cross the line that I question the wisdom of having ever instituted it. Ironically, it's only the lower title of Father that feels off to me though.
We can go up to that line and we know that we are because we believe the Pope is the head of the visible Church on Earth, not the mystical body of Christ which is the spiritual and invisible Church, but of the political institution which is the Church and must act in the visible political world.
We must be careful to distinguish tragic theological error in the minds of men from a disobedient and heretical heart that knowingly rejects Christ's authority. When a Catholic of great virtue like Archbishop Vigano comes face to face with the Lord, I have little doubt that his heart is submitted and faithful enough to accept Christ as He is, along with any judgment of sins and misconceptions both related and unrelated to Catholicism.
Then the Apostles were heretics since they referred to themselves as spiritual fathers to their brethren.
A more reasoned understanding of this verse is that we must not allow ourselves to be convinced that anyone on earth can be substituted for the Father.
Catholics agree entirely with the position you just laid out. You seem to be representing that Catholics believe the Pope to be a high priest of sorts.
I think some confusion may have occurred up above when two assertions were made and might be getting argued together when they should be looked at separately if possible, so ill try to address both that way. In short, Catholics both believe Peter is the first Vicar of Christ and that only Christ holds the position and title of high priest.
Bishop is just English for the Greek episkopos and describes the laity who have been conferred God's authority via Apostolic ordination over a Church or churches in an area. Every Apostle was ordained by Christ to "go ye and teach to all nations..." and to do so with His authority. We can see in Scripture that this office was further conferred by the laying on of hands, which we term ordination now. Here's some quotes from the earliest period of the Church that reflect the understanding of the offices of bishop, priest and deacon:
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. -Ignatius
When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
With regards to the Bishop of Rome, here are similar quotes indicating the primacy/deterrence given by the other churches to this seat:
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110])
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
In short sum, the Pope is the common name for the Bishop of Rome. Certainly Christ made a good choice deciding that among the equals he ordained as bishops that one would act as steward of His authority in absentia. Just as the Apostles deferred (to put it poorly) to Christ, the bishops are to defer to the particular authority given to the Vicar of Christ. For a through discourse on the Church's teaching on the topic search "unity of government council of trent". I hope I answered your question(s).
No. However, the socialism that pre-dated Marx was Christian socialism. In Christian socialism however, the emphasis wasn't on society and economics but on doing good for others and creating institutions and laws that had a social justice component. After the French Revolution and especially after Marx however, Christian socialism or what is more properly now called Paternalism, was mostly replaced by an atheist system of economics that envisions a constant social fight between capitalists, the rich on one hand and the oppressed worker and impoverished on the other. I don't know of a modern version of socialism that has existed for the last 150 years that isn't of the Marxist variety.
What distinguishes Paternalism from Marxism is that Paternalism (what you are thinking is Christian socialism) was voluntary, focused on religion, directly helped individuals in need as opposed to setting up programs and institutions to "advocate" for them, and also believed that some people need to be cared for and couldn't make decisions for themselves. That last point is part of modern Marxist socialism but rather than attributing this "natural slave state" to just a few individuals who have mental and/or physical problems, Marxism treats everyone as if they are nothing but cogs in the wheel that can't make good decisions for themselves.
Giving to the poor isn't communism. In fact, Jesus said that it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. Early Christians would give away all the property and make self sustaining communes where money wasn't accepted, which is the exact opposite of communism, which is the concentration of all the resources on the hands of a handful of powerful people. Communists are delusional, because they think they're helping the poor when in fact they're making them even poorer.
That is not entirely true.
Exact verse you are referring to is
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
And for reference the web page of the late Billy Graham also disagree with your statement
Q:
I've been very successful in business, and to be honest, this year has been an especially good one for me. But is it true that the Bible says a rich man can't go to heaven? I heard someone say that the other day, and I admit it's kind of upset me.
A:
No, the Bible doesn’t say that someone who is rich can never go to heaven. In fact, some of the Bible’s most faithful men and women were also wealthy (or at least prosperous)—people like Abraham and Job in the Old Testament, or Joanna and Lydia in the New Testament.
But the Bible does warn us about the dangers of wealth—and one of the greatest dangers is that it can keep us from God. Instead of putting God first in our lives, we put our money and wealth first, and end up ignoring God. We also can become proud, and we trust our money for our security. This is why the Bible warns us that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).
Never forget that everything you have—your health, your abilities, your money, everything—has been given to you by God. Don’t let money become your master, controlling everything you do. Instead thank God for what He has allowed you to have, and ask Him to help you use it wisely and for His glory.
Most of all, trust Jesus Christ alone for your salvation. No matter how good we are, or even how generous we are, we still fall short of God’s standard—which is perfection. Only Christ can save us, and He will as we trust Him alone for our salvation. Put your life into His hands today.
The retard who says gays and trannies and Sodom and Gomorrah are now okay? The same guy who said Sodom and Gomorrah fell not cause the explicit reason stated, but because citizens were not open to accepting diversity and immigrants?
Sorry for all the retards that thinks he is the pope.
He hasn't got that far yet. He said "Who am I to judge" regarding the perverts and queers but he hasn't actually changed the teachings of the Church.
Also, to those Catholics who want to know, the Synod on Synodality is not an ecumenical council. Synod by definition means small council which essentially means it is not binding on the faithful. Nothing that binds the faithful can come from this Synod on Synodality the Pope is doing. It is not part of the magisterium.
He said he's not a Marxist and that Catholicism cannot be Marxist, but I suspect he is not sincere in saying that. There's no evidence that Pope Francis is gay but he certainly does dote on known gays in the clergy. He does advance and promote faggots.
I'm not defending Pope Francis. I am simply pointing out, there's a line he hasn't actually crossed yet, but I do suspect he wants to cross.
Yep. As I said, I don't know how sincere Pope Francis is when he says he's not a Marxist. It is obvious though that he expects us to just believe that denial at face value. Your comment is the reason why we shouldn't.
If you have read and believe the Bible then 98% of catholicism traditions, ceremonies, practices, etc are all made up bullshit including the special man with the big hat dressed in white.
I don't think you know the Bible as well as you think you know the Bible. I just started taking the Bible seriously in 2019 and so far, I have found really fantastic reasons in the Bible for everything Catholics do. I had read the Bible in it's entirely three times prior but wasn't impressed with it all although found it way more impressive than the Koran. The Bible to me was just ancient books and maybe had some prehistoric lore in them.
I wasn't Catholic until 2019 but let me tell ya, the Bible and Catholicism are so in sync it's actually shocking to me sometimes. For instance, take the thing Catholics do that is an hour of adoration. It comes from the Garden of Gethsamene when Jesus said to Peter, John and James who had fallen asleep, "Can you not stay up and keep watch with me for one hour? The spirit is willing but the flesh is week". The whole point to Eucharistic Adoration and spending an hour in prayer is to keep watch with Jesus for one hour in lieu of Peter, James and John who did not. it is not binding on the faithful Catholic to do this ritual but wow, is it a powerful ritual, to put yourself in the place of the Apostles to "watch one hour" with Jesus. I don't know any protestants who do that or even think to do that. yet, it's based on the Bible and right at the beginning of Jesus' Passion, Death and Resurrection which will take place in the next three days. It's really a very cool ritual and totally biblically based.
Catholics don't say adoration is necessary at all. Some parishes don't even have it or offer it. however, it's an awesome ritual to have. Catholics themselves are free to do it or not do it. I don't really do it. I want to but my Church doesn't offer it all the time and it's inconvenient for me right now. I hope in a month or two my schedule will be rearranged and then I'd like to do it.
A lot of Catholicism isn't there because Catholics Have to do it on pain of sin. A lot of it is there because we want to do it to augment our faith or do more than just Sunday worship and daily solitary prayer. There's so much in Catholicism that you can never really be bored with all the things you can do. At first, I was overwhelmed by it and thought I had to do it all to be close to God but soon, I realized it's better to do the necessary things well and use the extras to augment what spiritual direction I'm going in. So I dropped some devotion and picked up others. I suspect it will take a life time or longer to go through them all. it's really rich because there's always something there and there's always a book on it, some group that is doing something with it, some way to adapt it to your life. I mean it's a great religion for anyone with spiritual onset ADHD.
Brothers and sisters in Aramaic can mean and often do mean, cousins and relatives. There's no indication in the Bible that Mary had any more children. Also, actual Protestant Biblical scholars don't bother arguing Mary had children other than Jesus because it's pretty clear that early Church didn't believe that. If they're going to try to say Jesus had half siblings, they usually pawn that off on St. Joseph and say he was widower before he married Mary. It runs into the same problem, but it's actually the more historical valid piece of imagined fiction because the early Church was silent about Joseph. However, the medieval church had a lot to say about Joseph, but much of it came by way of private revelation and therefore, is not doctrine, dogma and is not credited with veracity by the church, either at the time or now.
Catholics will continue to defend their idolatry of Mary and saints and see nothing wrong with it...just like confessing to some priest...adding in unnecessary and unBiblical steps in their walks
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.
James is part of the Bible. Confession is the practical way the Catholic Church follows James commandment to "confess your sins to one another".
Also, the word to pray simply means "to ask". Prayer by itself, isn't just worship. Worship is a type of prayer that is only given to God as the source and summation of all that is good. However, Just because God is the source and summation of all that is good, doesn't mean when my sister makes me cookies that the cookies came directly from God and therefore I shouldn't thank my sister. No, I should thank my sister and praise God both for the cookies and my sister. Thanking my sister doesn't detract from my thanks to God. In the same way, when I ask my sister to pray for me, it doesn't mean that I think I can't go to God directly in prayer. I'm just adding to the number of people who will pray to God for the same thing. So too with the Saints and with the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am simply asking those who already in heaven and therefore see God face-to-face, to pray for me and mine as well. I'm multiplying the spiritual power by including others in my prayers both by asking them to pray and praying for them. it's like adding force mulipliers, exponents if you will, to our prayers.
You don't have to do this. It's not a sin to not ask others to pray for you but James says the "fervent prayers of the righteous are powerful" right after telling us to confess to each other and to pray for each other. He's basically saying this is how to put more power in prayer. Of course, you don't have to, but it's better than going it alone in my experience. I have about 20 saints I ask for prayers daily and I think it works well. Plus, it means when and if I get to heaven, I'll have friends there. Yes, God will be there and yes, Heaven with just me or just any one person is still Heaven, but as Paul talks about a cloud of witnesses cheering us on from Heaven, it's nice to have a good cloud of witnesses helping us out.
21 Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they saw such a raiding band. So they cast the man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and got to his feet.
Elisha's bones acted like the relics of saints and brought a dead man back to life. In fact, read all of Chapter 13 because there's a few other miracles from Holy men that involve relics being used.
Furthermore, how about a shadow of a saint, because in Acts 5:15, Peter heals people in Jerusalem whom are covered by his shadow.
15 Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them.
Peter's not the only one. Paul heals people with his handkerchiefs.
Acts 19:11-12
11 So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Pau. 12 that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
btw, the "dead" who are in heaven, aren't dead. God says in the OT, that he is a the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But God isn't God of the dead but of the living. Jesus says this as much in the Gospels. Therefore, yeah, we can pray to the living saints in Heaven and ask them to pray for us.
It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; 4
I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord
No. You already proved that you will distort the Roman Catholics position to fit your biases and prejudices and that you do not have a firm understanding of the Bible. anyway, I have to make din din for family. I might came back later, if I have time.
Thanking my sister doesn't detract from my thanks to God. In the same way, when I ask my sister to pray for me, it doesn't mean that I think I can't go to God directly in prayer. I'm just adding to the number of people who will pray to God for the same thing.
So it’s a numbers game? This reasoning reminds me of Tibetan prayer wheels.
I dont hate Catholics...Im just saying the practice of praying to the dead is NOT in the Bible...if Jesus told us to do this anywhere I'll be glad to admit Im wrong...
John 20:23 is very clear. The disciples have the power to forgive sin through God. I don't think there's anything that could disabuse me of the glory and grace of the sacrament of confession.
Yes sir. And yes. The eucharist, communion, Lord's supper...whatever you want to call it, is symbolic and spiritual. Many things Jesus told us and taught us were physical analogies for spiritual matters. I value the taking of the Bread and Wine, but do not believe it literally, physically transforms into actual blood and flesh in my mouth as the papists do.
John 6:52-63 makes this clear. To summarize, Jesus is telling the jews and disciples that He is the bread of life, to eat Him and to drink His blood. The disciples are confused and Jesus senses this. So verse 63 is His clarification. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"
The belief in transubstantiation is silly and unbiblical. Much like most of catholic traditions.
Oh what a convincing argument. I'll throw out a 2,000 year old tradition because your novel understanding of the Bible you don't read anyway doesn't agree with it. /s
Nope. 2,000 years of tradition. If you want a 1,000 years of tradition, you can become Eastern Orthodox since they split from the RCC in 1054 in the Great Schism.
Ironically, the one religion that stays true to the old gospel is Islam, of all things.
They believe that Jesus was real, but Christians changed the word of Christ over the years and formed modern Christianity as we know it. The Catholic Church being one of the main corruptors of the text.
But Islam also believes Muhammad was a holy profit and to follow his lifestyle, which was that of a warlord pedophile.
I can hear the excuses already for praying to Mary and various saints. NO ONE reaches the Father except through Christ. They will twist more than circus performers to justify "asking" dead people to pray for them.
And if you knew anything about Catholics, you'd know that what you just said about them is completely untrue.
It's ironic, because you claim the Catholics are lying, but you're already either wrong or lying about the main thing you're taking issue with them on. 🤔🤔🤔
You're right, except I'm not arguing with an ignorant individual, I'm simply pointing out that they are ignorant.
The nature of the hatred is the same as what a lot of leftists have for conservatives/MAGA - they've simply been told to hate, and in a lot of cases what they hate isn't even a true thing.
I dont hate Catholics....Im merely pointing out theyve been fooled in to believing these rituals and prayers(to dead saints and Mary) are pointless idolatry
Except that's not what it is, so you're ignorant in what you're pointing out.
It's the equivalent of saying "MAGA is wrong because they want everyone to have a slave, and having slaves is wrong!" - except that's not what MAGA wants, so it's pointless to attack them over that.
Making some one a saint is like giving someone a nobel prize. To some in Catholicism is a big deal. Others are so what. Its back to being prideful. Hey isnt this guy great...lets put him on a pedestal
that argument has about as much depth as your analogy if you think about it
because its not about the nobel prize, its what was done to earn it. if you think the award is the important part youre missing the point. its a stringent recognition of what the person accomplished.
yeah, well, St.Peter fucked up too. Peter tried to convince Jesus not to go to Jerusalem and avoid the cross. Peter also denied he knew Jesus three times before Holy Saturday morning. Peter also cut off a guard's ear in the Garden of Gethsamene but I'm not sure that's a bad thing....I mean Jesus did say "those who live by the sword die by the sword" and then healed the Guard's ear but I'm not sure Peter was wholly wrong to do that. On the other hand, I'm American and Americans are more prone to violence. Also, instead of staying in Jerusalem, Peter went back to Galilee and started his fishing business again. That might have been Peter's worse sin, if it was a sin. I don't know.
They are carving up and sterilizing children. This "pope" should face his faith and explain to them why this is acceptable. And then why we should do nothing or why the Catholic church, historically known for intervening, should do nothing.
The Magisterium has already spoken about transgender children and adults. This is what it has said:
Gender is never in conflict with biological sex. Gender flows from biological sex. Gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder that needs to be treated as a problem with the brain, mind and soul and cannot be treated by bodily mutilation.
Parents have authority over their minor children to name them. Children who name themselves and refer to their given name as a dead name are dishonoring their parents and their authority. Likewise, the duty to honor parents does not cease when a child becomes an adult but even though the manner of honoring may change from obeying to discernment, a certain amount of respect must be shown. It is a sin against authority to treat the given name as a dead name and seek to erase one's past.
Compassion and understanding should be extended to those who struggle with gender dysphoria but it is not compassionate or understanding to aid them to persist in identifying as a gender or sex that they cannot be. It is an injustice to them to participate in their lie.
This isn't magisterial teaching in that it's not in the Catechism of the Catholic church but many theologians of the Church have stated that these three statements are a correct viewpoint for a Catholic to take on the issue of transgender children and adults.
The magisterium of the Church still defines homosexual sexual attraction as "inherently disordered". The act of homosexual sex is still considered a grave sin (mortal sin) that must be confessed to a priest in order to receive communion. As of 1994, JP II said any man with a persistent homosexual attraction cannot be receive Holy Orders, that is, become an ordained priest. If such were to happen, the ordination would still be valid but not licit.
The pope on being question about homosexuality responded "Who am I to judge?". In a Disney sponsored Q&A with teenagers and young adults, the Pope said that God made queers "perfect" and that they are "children of God" and did not condemn any queer things at all. Pope Francis met with three trannies in a general audience (anyone can get a general audience with the Pope if they pay $500-1,000 and show up to the Vatican while the Pope is in town and wait in line for a few hours.) The trannies gave Pope Francis a tranny book and Pope Francis smiled and thanked them for it and said their stories should be heard and known.
Pope Francis hasn't crossed the line, but he's dancing on it.
He's also come dangerously close to saying married and divorced and remarried Catholics can receive the Eucharist will persisting in their remarried state of life. The Catholic church's teaching is that a married, then divorced, then remarried Catholic must live a chaste life, either by leaving the new spouse or living in a brother/sister type of relation with the new spouse. The phrase he used in an encyclical was for a "pastoral understanding" used at the discretion of a priest, thus implying doctrine had changed which it can't because the Bible is pretty clear that divorce and remarriage isn't allowed. This is the encyclical that cause the war to erupt between the faithful in the church and the lefties in the clergy. Leftist Catholics who are not clergy really don't care about the Church at all because they don't follow the church's teachings anyway.
So some faithful catholics asked Francis to clarify his teaching on divorce/remarriage and communion in the encyclical Amoris Laetitia and so far Francis has not done so but started removing Cardinals who asked for clarification. Pope Francis went on a purge instead.
Actually breed is probably the wrong word, considering they don't have any children. The replacement blue hairs aren't even going to be religious (unless you count climate cult)
That's why the pope is working so hard against traditionalism, aka pre 1960s commie takeover; because those communities are absolutely thriving.
No, and even Catholics have a legal excuse to disown him under Catholic Canon Law:
Throughout his long and prestigious career as a Catholic theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI was the world's foremost expert on the difference between the "munus" (office) of the papacy and the "ministerium" (active ministry). In his legally binding Latin resignation, he "just so happened" to "accidentally" only resign the ministerium, not the munus, which made him legally still Pope until his recent death. That's not the kind of slip a man like him would have made by mistake, considering he had written on the subject at length and in depth and continued to live at the Vatican as long as possible, among other clues.
The College of Cardinals and Bergoglian sect ("Pope Francis" and his Satanist friends) did not catch this early on, largely because the translation into Benedict XVI's native German resignation sounded "proper" enough to accept it at face value. People only caught on to the loophole Benedict XVI gave them after the fact, but so far nobody has been willing enough to accept the embarrassment to admit their mistake and declare "Francis" one of the church's many antipopes.
Enough time has now passed since Pope Benedict XVI's death to legally complicate things further, but long-term, it's reasonable to expect that "Francis" will be eventually disavowed like the other antipopes.
IIRC some of the other articles I read a few years back on the same site had more links and everything for credible citation, but this one has a couple, and it should be a good starting point at least.
yes, he did. Paul was right and Peter was wrong. It was over whether those Christians who had been gentiles should observe the dietary law along with the Jews who became Christians were still doing in Galatia. Paul called Peter out by pointing out that Peter had already made a ruling recorded in Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter unilaterally made the decision that gentiles didn't have to follow the dietary laws. Notice, it was Peter that made the original decision and it was on the basis, that Paul called him out. Paul wasn't saying "I think blah blah blah blah" Paul said, Peter, you already said with all of the 10 present, (10 because Mathias had not been chosen to replace Judas Iscariot yet), ruled that gentiles don't have to follow the dietary laws of Judaism. Peter also corrected himself as he should.
That doesn't make Paul superior to Peter in authority. It means Paul was using Peter's authoritative teaching to question what Peter had said to Jews in Galatia. Paul was basically asking, "what authoritative teaching should we believe" and the response was, the authoritative teaching that Peter taught while he was presiding over the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem.
yeah, they called him by his title, the ROCK, which is Petros in Latin, Cephas in Greek and kepa in Aramaic.
Isaiah 22:21-22
21 I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.
Matthew 16:15-19
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The man who held the keys to Jerusalem was the steward of the King. The position was more like a chief of staff than a head butler. The chief of staff to the Roman Emperor was called the Pontifex Maximus.
The word "Pontiff" which refers to the Pope is basically calling him the chief of staff to the King, Jesus Christ.
However in Peter's time and first century or so of the Church, the word Rock in whatever language being used was, was used as a title, not a proper name. This is why the Bible calls him Peter (in English), Petros (in Latin), Cephas (in Greek) and Kepa (in Aramaic). It's a Title. So is Pontiff and so is Pope.
I'm sure your protestant translation of a translation of a translation of the bible is more accurate regarding Catholics than the 2000 year old institution full of religious scholars who have examined this exact issue.
Depending in which english translation of the bible you use... it really doesn't doesn't say anything concretely if you compare it to all the other bibles. I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but go and look up any part of the bible, and one of the first results will be one of the many sites which has at least a dozen different translations, sometimes with significant variations.
So don't try to definitively claim anything about specific words, when for all we know you're reading the Common Core edition.
You should be looking at the meaning and intent. Otherwise you're just like the leftists arguing about the location of the commas in the 2nd Amendment.
My translation is based on the compilation of all known manuscripts in the original Greek and Hebrew. Upon which manuscripts is your translation based?
It may seem like that because it's a difficult thing to grasp and I can't say I fully understand it either. The shorthand version of it is this: Whenever the Pope uses his position to teach about faith and morals along with the bishops, the traditions of the church and the Bible, it's an ex Cathedra statement" This rules out Pope giving impromptu interviews on planes, reports by journalists of what the Pope said off the record in an interview, the pope's private correspondence or his meeting with some person who came to visit him. It also rules out a synod that expressly excludes certain cardinals and certain bishops.
However, I can see why someone would think it's a "anything we like is ex cathedra and anything we don't like, isn't" but you'd have to make a study of all the Popes and all the teachings to really get at the heart of that. The thing is, I think very few that cynically reduce it to that, actually have looked at it closely.
Btw, I strongly suspect that Pope Francis really does want to change the church's teaching in regards to sexual morality as regards homosexuality. He seems to want to overturn prohibitions on contraception, birth control and divorce/remarriage and homosexual unions. He has flat out said that he is in favor of homosexual civil contracts but he also knows this is not the teaching of the Church. Despite his repeated de-emphasis on the Pro-Life issue in regards to abortion, he is still pro-life and has said several things in regards to the Pro-Life issue that are supportive. He has also preached against pornography. I think he is also may be in favor of married clergy, but that's not a doctrine or dogma of the Church. That's a discipline of the Church and the church has always acknowledged that.
I'm thinking back to how the Pope handled WWII. Issued an essay expressing "burning sorrow" about the whole German situation, without naming any specific bad people or doing anything extreme like declaring a crusade. Could've told the largely Catholic people of southern Germany they'd go to Heaven if they died overthrowing their government, but didn't want to go that far.
The Pope was virtually a prisoner of the Vatican in the lead up to WWII because Mussolini had made it a crime for he Pope to leave. Exactly how was the Pope supposed to raise an army to lead a crusade while imprisoned in the Vatican? Most Catholics, including clergy had already succumbed to modernist heresies.
He somehow got that "burning sorrow" essay out there. Couldn't personally have led an army but simply getting the word out to German Catholics to overthrow their government by any means in the name of God, as a crusade, would've created a possible uprising. The Church had done it for the sake of slaughtering the Cathar heretics centuries before.
I suppose he did the safe, politically helpful thing as opposed to taking a moral stand at all costs in the name of God. He had a massive palace full of gold and fine art; could he not bribe anybody to get a letter out the door? Or was keeping all the shiny things more important?
What army was the Vatican supposed to raise? I think it's preposterous to supposed that in the mid 20th century the Pope could have called any crusade or raised any army. He couldn't even leave the Vatican and for the century prior, the papal states were overrun by Garibaldi, The French had been in a constant state of rebellion against the ancien regime since the French Revolution, America-Canada-UK - Australia were all Protestant nations, Portugal-Mexico-Latin America were going through very violent times of anti clericalism, Spain had just recovered from a brutally violent civil war that the Nazis aligned with Franco in, Australia-Hungary-Romania-Czech had been ripped by the WWI and the overwhelmed by hoardes streaming out of the USSR, Ukraine was starving, the Nordic Countries were Protestant, so exactly where would this Catholic Army/crusade come from?
It's not a matter of letter writing or bartering fine art trinkets, and btw, there were enough of them going around in that time period.....it's a matter that the Christendom was totally fractured and most of the powers that be were hardly Christian anymore.
Exactly how much do you think it would have profited the Pope to sell Michaelangelo's David in 1940 to raise an army? The answer is not enough.
My gosh, under Pius XI, the future Pope, Pius the XII, had a gun put to his head while in Cologne by commies and when he reported to the Bavarian authorities, they made fun of him for not being a Nazi. Exactly how much power do you think Pius XII had?
I'm just imagining a scenario where Jesus or any saint got told, "Submit or die!" and he said, "Yeah OK, I'll do the safe thing and come back to offer some really mild rebuke while other people suffer. Wouldn't want to risk being killed or anything."
Fake ass pope.
Confirmed faggot.
ass grope 👍
God never said to conform to a religion. he said conform to me. whoever does that best, is someone worth following. Jesus comes to mind, but for people that are alive, i only listen to those that show you how to get to heaven and how to be a better Christian. anything more or less screams scam or satan to me
Every record we have of Jesus comes through tradition. The bible was created and handed down via tradition. Throwing out old traditions is a bad idea, but this pope is clearly a plant from some globalist system.
I recommend Orthodoxy to all my disillusioned Catholic friends.
Having become Catholic as an adult, I refuse to abandon my Church. I also refuse to recognize the illegitimate papacy of the false priest Bergoglio. I pray for a true Pope to rise soon.
That being said, nothing but love for faithful brothers and sisters in Christ of other denominations, be they Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, etc.
Regardless of who the pope is, the pope is a false idol in any way I can figure. He is hoisted like the golden calf and paraded around.
i figure anyone who understands who God and Jesus are and have adopted them into their life esp concering that you need God in order to get into heaven, not the other way around, is a person on the right path.
So stay on the Titanic as it goes under. The Catholic Church is a lost cause.
I guess for very narrow definitions of "by tradition."
The Crucifixion of Jesus: AD 33 is usually the number you see.
First few of the oldest New Testament books:
James: AD 44-49
Galatians: AD 49-50
Mark: AD 50-60
Matthew: AD 50-60
Source
So James could have been written within around 10 years of the Crucifixion. There's not a long tradition of oral history here, at least as I see it.
What was written in the books is the tradition.
No one talked about Jesus using the restroom or about the physical details of Jesus' ascendence into Heaven.
The tradition is the words written down, the translations, and which books were chosen.
I'm very happy with my Catholic Church, but thanks anyways
How is it just this one? They were protecting child rapists 50 years ago....and now you think just this one is fucked up? Do YOU rape little boys?
Oop! Ya got me!
Jesus taught me that scripture is the clear, self-attesting and self-authenticating revelation of God about himself and the nature of reality. He condemned the Pharisees for elevating the traditions of the Jewish elders to a position of authority equal with or above scripture. The record of His teachings is self-attesting and self-authenticating, and thus my belief in the authority of Jesus to teach me this way of thinking comes from Jesus himself.
Thankfully God preserved this record for us through the love of scripture his people had as they copied and distributed these writings in an uncontrolled manner prior to the development of the institutional church. I am also thankful for the witness of the church fathers who confirm the preexistence of these texts through their interactions with them in their writings.
Now throw your graven images overboard along with your antichrist vicar and submit to the risen Christ and receive total forgiveness by faith in Christ alone, because "It is finished ".
Amen!
I mean the pope is totally made up thing anyway. Never once is a pope mentioned im the Bible. It isn't biblical in any way.
Peter. You are the rock upon which I will build my church..
The Church is popeless for a bit every time a pope dies so yeah, the principal is up for discourse.
The pope is nothing more than the Bishop of Rome.
Did the Pope ever fly on Epsteins plane? is also a legitimate question.
Legitimate answer: no
Epstein specialized in young girls. Doubt the Pope swings that way.
Good point. Hmm. Did the pope ever hang out with Ed Buck?
More likely he visited the Neverland Ranch
Edgy
That's why he's upset: he's just ass-blasted people are questioning his legitimacy and decisions.
Pope Frank, we are meant to be in the world, but not of the world.
The Catholic Church has been sliding to the left, and degradation, for years. You guys were given Vatican City as a country for the purpose of staying OUT of worldly politics.
He may be catholic, but he doesn't seem to be Christian.
Wow. I'm not a God fearing Christian man. And you could say I agree with this pope. But I'd have no desire to head a religion that claims the opposite. Way to much faggotry and buggering going on behind those walls
You misspelled pedophile.
There was very little pedophilia in the Catholic Church. The scandal mostly involved predatory homosexual priests ordained in the 60s raping post-pubescent boys.
Semantics.
One of the hardest things about returning to the Catholic religion is this dipshit.
I converted to Catholicism in 2019, despite Pope Frank.
God bless you. It's so funny how all the Catholics who actually uphold the traditional teachings hate this pope (many of my family members included). They all hate him.
ya know, even the globalists hate Francis. They just want to use him to attack the Church from within. He thinks he's winning friends and influencing people and making Catholicism popular to the world. He's not. He has the mentality of a sixties radical trying to brow beat a young woman into sleeping with him by calling her a prude and telling her about her hangups. Sure, he might get the sex but she's not coming away with anything but a hatred for that guy and men in general. There's not a globalist or a tranny or a lefty who has met with him that respects him. We know this because the Democrat media continually sows discord and division for him. If they liked him, they would be talking about everything he does in glowing terms.
Francis has spent his whole life giving comfort to the elitists in Argentina, telling them that their sins are no big deal and they don't have to actually go to Mass every Sunday (not that they go at all which he well knew) and the rosary isn't all that and excusing their sexual trysts. He's done the same for fellow priests. He's never had a harsh word for sin and never a nice thing to say about the faithful. He comes from a nation that is 90% Catholic and never had to fight for its faith or answer objections to the faith. His Catholicism is the worst sort of cultural Catholicism that exists - he's a Catholic like a reform Jew atheist socialist is a Jew.
He's a plant by the evil ones and he's so dumb he doesn't even realize he is. He thinks they actually care what he has to say rather than they just want him to be used as a weapon against the faithful.
The last good pope was John Paul II.
Why did they choose him then? Don't all the head priests elect the next pope? Or are all the head guys rotten or have blackmail on them?
I don't know all the inner workings, but Francis is the first of the order of Jesuits to become Pope. It's long been known that the Jesuits are a black thorn in the side of Catholicism. They basically operate outside of the law (like the CIA or FBI), have their own rites and rituals, believe they answer to no one, and anything they do (ANYTHING) is excusable if it is for "the greater good."
They are dangerous and I'm sure they had a hand in getting Francis in, as well as getting Benedict out. I'd bet anything lives were taken and threatened to get him in. The Jesuits have been the black sheep of Catholicism basically since they existed.
My own hometown priest (who I loved) was a Franciscan by order. When I told him over 20 years ago I planned to attend a Jesuit run college, he warned me against it. It wasn't until years later that I started learning about them and understood why he said what he said. When I was 18 years old and clueless, my hometown priest just told me "They don't really stick to the truth. I think they are dangerous... for the church." Boy was he right.
I actually just made a post relating to this a minute ago. https://patriots.win/p/16c2WA6U3K/pope-benedict-the-one-before-fra/
I just found it confusing (from a non-Catholic point of view) how a Pope can change the rules that were followed for thousands of years so easily. If a pope can make the church into what he wants of it and strays away from Jesus it becomes like a cult. Ignoring the original teachings would encourage another protestant reformation, correct?
Something like this, yes.
You're almost right. The Jesuits are indeed some bad people. But they are not the black sheep or black thorn. Maybe to the few priests who actually believe in Catholicism. But the Jesuits are the personal spies and assassins of the papacy. They literally swear allegiance to the pope. To the ones who are actually in the know within the Catholic church hierarchy, the Jesuits are indispensable.
There's been a concerted effort since the 20s or 30s by communist operatives to infiltrate the upper reaches of the clergy. Bergoglio (aka Francis) is one of the fruits of this labor. The sex abuse scandal is another (surprise, surprise, commies tend towards kid fucking, and actively enable others who do the same).
There is significant debate over whether or not Bergoglio was actually elected to the Papacy by the College of Cardinals because Pope Benedict XVI was still alive. There hadn't been a Pope to resign since... I think the 1200s, and back then there was significant debate over whether or not the Pope could resign.
So given Bergoglio's actions, how he came to power, and his background (explained by u/HeavenlyTrumpets) I do not see him as a legitimate Pope- he's just some guy put in the seat to drive people from the Church.
It's how the commies got commies into the Church. No normal man, even a communist, would agree to be a priest if his whole intention was to subvert the Church. The reason the pedophiles got into the Church is the commies helped the commie pedophiles. The pedophiles wanted the altar boys and the commies wanted the commies in.
St Gellen's mafia conspired behind the scenes to get him elected. The deceased Cardinal Danneels of Belgium admitted it and bragged about it. Cardinal McCarrick of the U.S. was also part of this "lavender mafia".
For those who don't know who McCarrick was, he was such an arch-pedo that "Francis" had to defrock him entirely (unprecedented for a Cardinal IIRC) after good guy Archbishop Vigano repeatedly forced the matter.
Benedict XVI had already put McCarrick into "retirement" in a hermitage. Francis pulled McCarrick out to do the disastrous China deal which handed control of the Catholic Church in China to the CCP. Because of the outrage, spearheaded by Archbishop Vigano, McCarrick was put into a monastary (and was much ignored and hated by the Franciscan brothers in that monastery) but was forced to entirely laicize McCarrick and now McCarrick is at an old folks home.
The Cardinals elect the Pope in a conclave. The rumor has it that the members of St. Gellen's mafia went around to other Cardinals outside of the conclave, both before Benedict stepped down and after, and lobbied for Francis (Bergoglio). According to rules put in place by JPII, it is violation to form a cabal to elect a Pope while the previous Pope is still reigning and it is violation to lobby for a candidate outside of the conclave.
God chooses the next Pope. It's the head of His Church, the unbroken successor to Jesus, of course it's not just up to some random high-ranking dudes. The priests are just the vessels for His will.
It's the College of Cardinals who elects the Pope, he isn't selected by God. If the cardinals have been infiltrated by a bunch of gay commie satanists for half a century, this is the results you get. They can ignore the will of God in that matter just as much as they can with every other rotten decision they've ever made in their lives.
You can honestly look at the history of the papacy...the murders, intrigues and all that and still believe that God chooses the pope? Bro...
I think he means that everything happens because God allowed it to happen?
They hate him for what they imagine him to be, not for what he is. Most Catholics are not well Catechized, unfortunately, and subtlety is lost in them. The worst I can say about him is he's not a great communicator.
I don't mean to be offensive, but only to speak the truth. If you believe the worst thing about him is that he's not a great communicator, you are very very ignorant.
Many say horrible things about him, but it's mostly name-calling (e.g. globalist, commie, anti-Christ), not actually related to anything he said. When they do give reasons, it's blatant misrepresentation, like the false assertion that he worships an idol called Pachamana. You guys hate the Pope, like you hate every Pope, we get it. Nothing new.
I don't hate the pope. I just believe the OFFICE of the papacy is the biblical antichrist power. Not an individual pope. All the popes. I dont personally hate Francis, or Benedict. Or John Paul II. I do believe them to be evil men in league with Satan himself.
Welcome!
Thank you. I love being Catholic. It's brought so much joy to my life.
The first Amendment has nothing to do with Catholicism. However, public schools were first created in east coast cities to suppress Catholicism which is why Catholics created their own school system.
My opinion is that Catholicism, minus the corruption of the clergy and the faithful, is exactly what Jesus intended. Protestantism in my opinion, is rebellion against the Church Jesus Christ founded upon Peter and the other Apostles. It was the usurping of lawful spiritual authority.
Protestantism's belief in Sola Scriptura, the very doctrine that unites all Protestants, is also the source of the division among Protestantants. If every person is their own final word on what the Scripture really teaches, than everyone becomes his or her own Pope. Thus whenever conflict or disagreement arises, Protestants spin off and create a new denomination. It's a never ending cycle of disagreement, disunion, splinters and fractures. In my opinion, no church with so much disunity can be led by the Holy Spirit.
The protestant people on the other hand, are still mostly members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but are the Separated Brothers and Sisters from Catholics. We are all one in the Mystical Body of Christ, but on Earth in the visible Church, we are separated and cannot be made whole, until God makes us such, if He ever does. We should pray for this unity.
You don’t know anything if you think that’s what Protestants believe. We don’t believe everyone is their own final word, but finding proper context in what the Bible is teaching us. You’d rather pray to men than Jesus. You have an apostate religion and it shows in your leadership. Tell me how does one enter heaven when they die?
Well, then maybe argue less and pray more because fighting about theology isn't worship.
It’s not fighting it’s called debate, same thing the left is scared of
I don’t have negative feelings for any authentic Christians as a Catholic myself. Denominational wars are very destructive and toxic. We need to focus on the real enemy which is militant communism, aka Satanism, rather then squabbling over petty differences in interpretations of how one ought to practice his or her Christian faith. Actual Christianity of course, outright heretical Christians should be seen as Communist infiltrators.
What's an example of Catholic teaching being against Christ? Let me guess... the Protestant fantasy that we "worship" Mary?
The Trinity is against Jesus? Why do you think that?
I hate to break it to you....but thats not a fantasy. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy, ( never got molested by a priest, thank God) lol. News flash, if you pray to someone that is a form of worship. Ever say a Hail Mary? Asking for intercession from Mary is idolatry. There is no intercession between us and Christ. He Himself is the intercessor and the mediator between us and the Father. Ever kiss the feet of a statue of St Joseph or Mary? That is also idolatry. These are the reasons I left the Catholic church and became a protestant. The Bible says what it says brother. We can't change what is written. God bless you nonetheless and I pray that you will dig into the scriptures regarding intercession and mediation.
If I asked you to pray for me, does that mean I worship you?
Sorry you believed the Protestant lies and we would welcome you back.
No. If you ask me to pray for you I would, and you would not be worshipping me. But if you ask Mary, who is dead, yet worshipped by Catholics as being almost divine, then yes that is idolatry.
My faith was a huge part of my growing up and is still a big part of who I am, though I may not think of everything exactly the same now. But as long as there is someone like this in charge, I don't see how anyone who fell out of the Catholic church could "go back." It seems like any Catholic "growth" these days is coming from woke idiots who think this "Pope" is awesome (because he doesn't actually stick to true teachings).
I recently converted to Catholicism from being raised Methodist despite not liking this pope. Methodist has just fallen off the wheels with woke crap. But in the Catechism class they told us there are bad priests and bad popes, but the Church endures them.
"The road to hell is paved with bad priests with bishops as their signposts"
Have you heard of this cool new thing called Protestantism?
Just because you have an imposter as President doesn't stop you from being an American.
Just because the current pope is an imposter, doesn't stop me from being a Catholic.
Why not skip the middleman altogether and just have a relationship with God? The existence of the hierarchy itself is the issue, not who the current Head is.
The Body of Christ remains undefiled. The human creation that is the Catholic church doesn't leave room for that to be true, and current pope is a great example of that.
Winning.
Only created because the king of england wanted to divorce his wife. No thanks.
There's no Eucharist in Protestant mass, right?
There is no Protestant Denomination that believes in Transubstantiation, that is what the Catholics call the Real Presence. Some denominations say they have the Real Presence, such as Lutherans, but they do not believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and do not worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox and the Apostolic Rites of the Roman Catholic do believe in transubstantiation and do believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Aside from two disagreements, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church believe the same things. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the filioque clause, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The eastern Orthodox also do not believe Papal Supremacy but that the Bishop of Rome is equal to Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox churches. To the EO, the bishop of Rome, that is the Pope, is the Patriarch of the Western Latin Church.
Aside from Lutherans and Episcopalians, there is no Protestant Church that even believes in any Real Presence at all. Some Protestant churches do not ever have communion at all.
That is a good explanation.
We Lutherans believe in the real presence because Jesus said so. Simple enough.
Why do they even bother going to Church then? It seems like Bible study or social club rather than participation in Sacrament.
I am a Seventh Day Adventist. We have communion every quarter. We do foot washing and eat the unleavened bread and drink the unfermented grape juice. We do not believe that it is the literal body and blood. We do as Christ commanded us..."do this in memory of me"
Not sure why downvoted. Anyone who's a Catholic, but opposes the Pope, is Protestant by definition.
If you are Catholic, you accept the hierarchy. That's the whole point of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is about gatekeeping. It inserts a hierarchy between the individual and God. This subverts spirituality to amass power in the material world. For proof, just look at the sumptuous St. Peter's Basilica, and the amount of land the Vatican owns.
"They hated Jesus because he told the truth".png
Maybe they'd feel better if they wrote down a list of all their problems with the Pope? Oo, they can tape it to the door of their church for a real impact!
And anyone can misapply Biblical teachings for evil purposes Jesus told the truth, that's what set him aside from Catholicism.
You're going to get downvoted by butthurt Catholics who don't like that they can't back up most of their beliefs with the Bible because most of it is human made hogwash. You're right though, before getting perverted by power hungry middlemen, Christianity was all about you, the individual, and your personal relationship with God. People who actually read their Bibles would know that.
1 Cor 11:2 "hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
Actually we can. It's just that we don't read the Bible to use it as a weapon. Rather it's part of our worship at Mass. Fun fact, that entire purpose of putting a canon of the Bible together was so that all Catholics would be doing the same readings at Mass every day. So if a person attending Mass every day for three years, that person would have read thru the entire Bible at least once and the gospels multiple times.
There is a Biblical basis for just about everything Catholics believe, it's just that if Protestants don't start from scratch, each on interpreting the Bible for themselves, they don't see how the build up of the church and Divine Revelation work. They impose a limited meaning on the Bible and then say their limited understanding is "pure" or "true".
Ya know how I know Protestants, most of them anyway, aren't really serious about the Bible? It's because they don't set up schools in which all their children learn Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin to translate it for themselves. up until Vatican II, Catholic school kids would learn Latin and we only did this because the language of the church is Latin, yet, Protestants don't even know or educated their children in at least one Biblical language but just assume the translation they like is right. Instead, Protestants rely on pastors or those who are educated to know the Bible, but even most of these, don't know a single Biblical language or the history of the canon at all. They won't even say the name of St. Jerome but there's no other person in history that is more responsible for the canon of the New Testament than St. Jerome.
Protestants don't deny hierarchy, esp. high church denoms. We deny works salvation (not to the point of antinomianism) and any need for intermediaries to Christ of any sort, whether priest, pope, or dead Catholic 'saint' (I imagine a twitter verified icon next to the names now in catholic writing lol), Immaculatr Conception and that whole Mary worshipping scandal, etc.
James 2:
It’s almost like their real religion and focus in life is commie shit. And everything else in their mind is subservient to that. Following God is impossible to them, due to their priorities being opposed to God’s.
I haven't been to mass since the church selected this pope. When I return, and I will once the church returns to traditional values, I will confess my distain for this ungodly man. Still Catholic
Im not sure I understand your protest.
Who is mass for? You, God, or the Catholic church?
I made some bad life choices and ended up in academic research with the wokest of the woke. None of them has ever mentioned Francis, let alone said he's "awesome."
They said "liberals", not Marxists.
Seda vacante.
find a priest that is not the pope. Simple enough. We listen to our priests on a weekly basis. Every so often this idiot pope shows up in news feeds and says something stupid. However it is a bit annoying that he is the one that may or may not hand down new doctrine....and according to this article he certainly thinks it is ok to change and evolve God's word and the Gospel to conform to today's society.
Be thankful that there are priests who are fighting back against this fool.
Check out this letter by Bishop Strickland
You don't middle men, especially "diddle" men. The Father has direct dial.
How many trips did he make to Epstein's little kid island?
He got outcall service.
V for Vendetta got their caricature of the pope spot on.
None. Epstein was into little girls not boys.
BRING BACK BENEDICT!
He was based!
His egg recipe was pretty great too
im still sending my.daughter to catholic school. thanks Trump for school choice.
Product of Catholic school here. 12 years.
Didn't appreciate it until I got older. Religion classes were required (which I rebelled against but made their moral mark on me nonetheless) but religion was not shoehorned into any of the other classes.
We had morning prayer, weekly mass, and other church functions, but the education was high level and unbiased.
I don't know how woke or not woke they are now, but they weren't at all when I was a kid.
Some of the nuns were mean as hell, and some were the nicest people you could ever meet.
Send her to an SDA private school. She will get a good protestant Christian education and will know her Bible very well before she graduates. Just a suggestion brother.
And he replaced his faith with Satanism.
I somehow think he was always a satanist actually. I don't think he turned his back on God, because he never had faith in him to begin with. Just feels like the type that was always a sockpuppet for self serving nihilism and thusly satanism.
Look into his history. He's been a commie all along.
And pervert.
Oh he’s a man of faith alright, just not to God.
He worshipped Pachamama on the ground of the Vatican. That's what pagans do.
Question describe Pagans for me.
Pagan is derived from the ancient Roman Latin word which simply means "country dweller". Since Christianity first came to the cities of the Roman empire, country dwellers often clung to the beliefs of the Roman and Greek pantheon on Gods and the Germanic (barbarian) tribes clung to the norse gods and beliefs.
Pagan became a short hand way of describing anyone who believed in the non-Christian tribal dieties or Greek and Roman Gods.
After a couple more centuries, it came to mean and is now defined as someone who is not baptized who worships tribal gods.
The people of the Amazon who brought the Pachamama idol to the Vatican were unbaptized people worshipping their version of a fertility goddess, Pachamama, which makes them pagan. That the pope also did this makes him Pagan insofar as he worshipped along with them and brought the image of Pachamama into St.Peter's Church and placed it on the altar. Worse, it makes Pope Francis an apostate as well. He or his press secretary initially lied about it too saying it was a primitive depiction of the Blessed Virgin Mary but later admitted the truth, it was a pagan fertility goddess. A month later, a group of young Catholics stole it from the altar and threw it in the Tiber River. The italian police fished it out of the Tiber River and gave it back to the Pope.
This is just one example. The pope himself wears the mitre of The High Priest of Dagon. The fish mouth miter. DAGON was a Philistine God. He wears the staff of Osiris on his vestments. There are so many pagan symbols in thr Catholic Church that are in plain sight.
That's such bullshit. I suppose you think Jack Chick is a scholar of Christianity, Hahahahaha. He's a prejudicial bigot who will say and write anything about negative about the RCC because he's just throwing out accusations and smears because he can convince a few people who don't understand anything about the history of the Church to believe lies.
He never "worshipped" that cultural symbol or anything else but God
well, I've seen some people defend him by saying he watched them worship the pachamama and didn't participate. I have never seen footage to the end of the entire ceremony but I do believe he was included in the ceremony and more to the fact, he put the idol on the altar knowing it was a pagan fertility goddess' symbol.
I don't think he's a Satanist but he's doing the bidding of the evil one and those in his possession.
I mean, he's a Jesuit.
Well, sweeping the sexual assault of innocent minors under the rug and actively protecting the assailants for many decades is in all ways Satanism.
God: "I am the same yesterday, today and forever. My commandments are eternal."
Pope: "There’s a correct evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals"
God: "That's literally the exact opposite of what I said..."
Archbishop Viganò
Victor Davis Hanson VDH https://patriots.win/p/16bj0Z4cFj/x/c/4TvB5wtzWm8?d=50
Novak Djokovic, tennis https://patriots.win/p/16bj0aAXKe/x/c/4TvB5wwGJgU?d=50
This is whats many (leftists) sea. Reaction blinders and projections
SeawolfEmeralds 7 days ago +1 / -0
What do you make of it that Joe Biden seems to not have this ground swell of support right now
Do you think it's all age
No I think it's our system I think Donald Trump
And the republican party have poisoned it
No one trusts our institutions
No one trust Congress
No one trust any of us
Because all they do is attack on families
Those types of things
Minnesota Democrat Gov. Tim Walz says Biden's lack of support among Americans is because Republicans "have poisoned" the system
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1693261110059680113
https://patriots.win/p/16c2I9WTzk/x/c/4TwS5d67e0A?d=50
yeah, the left only thinks in terms of optics which is a public relations word to describe manipulation of the general public. I finally understood how lefties can't think straight when someone pointed out to me, it's because they think using words defines reality and not the other way around. To them, words aren't descriptions of reality that are meant to portray real things but rather, they use words to shape reality and control reality. That's what they think they are doing, causing reality to go this way and not that and change things simply by finding "magic" words to re-describe them. This is why they are always re-inventing themselves and re-introducing themselves etc. They think it's all about optics but don't seem to grasp that there's a reality beyond their control. They think word choice and phraseology creates reality. So they think Donald Trump created a reality by which we don't trust them. They don't see that we empowered Donald Trump BECAUSE we don't trust them. We just didn't realize how far the rot had spread and how much it taken root.
Very well said especially the public relations part. The initial person credited with PR made some longstanding social cultural damages to America. To give credit to did get Americans on board with ending the World War that was a feat America saved Europe's ass but created China we fought a war on 2 friends across the earth's largest oceans. Won both fronts. America's greatest product is leadership
The reference being truth is targeted and oppressed by lies. Corporatism takes over.
one journalist went against oppression by McCarthy became a stead fast symbol of journalistic independence. Then when Nixon entered the candidacy for president the media targeted him the same way that one journalist targeted mccarthyism
Marxism exists by infiltrating existing movements or systems. Initially they tried industry and conservative circles in Western Europe and Britain, they failed miserable decided to go the democratic liberal route. that's when early to midnight 1900s the world saw democrat socialist movement and even democratic communist movement.
progressive still has meaning in some parts of America. Places that saw the last remnants of independent candidates on the ballot getting elected to governors office.
Excellent comment and gives me a lot to think about.
It’s almost like the pope is anti Christ
Bingo!
The poster was saying anti-Christ as an adjective, not as a noun.
Bergoglio isn’t the antichrist. He just wants to be.
Well, what do you expect with a faggoty name like Francis
How would you say you measure up to St. Francis in terms of knowing God?
Since I don't know him it's hard to say. But given the fact he acts like a Godless commie, I'd say he operates in this world.
Edgy
His real name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
This ☝️☝️
How many people heard Will Farrell's voice?
Eat Shit, Pope.
Bingo.
Jesus said never to refer to any person on this earth as "Father" because the one true father is in heaven.
The word "Pope" came from an old translation of the word "Pappa", meaning father.
Relion has been twisted the moment greedy fucks got their hands on it and used it to control nations.
Trust in the Bible and trust in the LORD. The one true father is GOD and GOD is the holy Trinity.
That's not what that passage in the Bible means otherwise Christians wouldn't be calling their own biological fathers, fathers, daddy or papa. It means to not trust human authority blindly and to not put your whole trust into any human institution or authority but rather to trust only in God. It doesn't literally mean not to call anyone, Father. Otherwise we wouldn't refer to George Washington as the Father of our Country or talk about the Church Fathers or the Founding Fathers. We call them fathers because they generated us in some way, but we should not venerate them over and above God The Father. That's the point of that passage.
From a Protestant perspective, I believe Smurfection's reasoning is largely correct, but I'm not fully comfortable with how the Catholic Church goes right up to the line by applying it to a spiritual/religious context in the most formally titled way possible. The practice may be technically justifiable by the slightest possible margins, but it's so easily abused to cross the line that I question the wisdom of having ever instituted it. Ironically, it's only the lower title of Father that feels off to me though.
We can go up to that line and we know that we are because we believe the Pope is the head of the visible Church on Earth, not the mystical body of Christ which is the spiritual and invisible Church, but of the political institution which is the Church and must act in the visible political world.
They literally claim to absolve you from sin. Catholic priests are little anti-christs.
We must be careful to distinguish tragic theological error in the minds of men from a disobedient and heretical heart that knowingly rejects Christ's authority. When a Catholic of great virtue like Archbishop Vigano comes face to face with the Lord, I have little doubt that his heart is submitted and faithful enough to accept Christ as He is, along with any judgment of sins and misconceptions both related and unrelated to Catholicism.
Good point. I pray Christ is merciful in these errant instances.
Then the Apostles were heretics since they referred to themselves as spiritual fathers to their brethren.
A more reasoned understanding of this verse is that we must not allow ourselves to be convinced that anyone on earth can be substituted for the Father.
Peter
Catholics agree entirely with the position you just laid out. You seem to be representing that Catholics believe the Pope to be a high priest of sorts.
I think some confusion may have occurred up above when two assertions were made and might be getting argued together when they should be looked at separately if possible, so ill try to address both that way. In short, Catholics both believe Peter is the first Vicar of Christ and that only Christ holds the position and title of high priest.
Bishop is just English for the Greek episkopos and describes the laity who have been conferred God's authority via Apostolic ordination over a Church or churches in an area. Every Apostle was ordained by Christ to "go ye and teach to all nations..." and to do so with His authority. We can see in Scripture that this office was further conferred by the laying on of hands, which we term ordination now. Here's some quotes from the earliest period of the Church that reflect the understanding of the offices of bishop, priest and deacon:
With regards to the Bishop of Rome, here are similar quotes indicating the primacy/deterrence given by the other churches to this seat:
In short sum, the Pope is the common name for the Bishop of Rome. Certainly Christ made a good choice deciding that among the equals he ordained as bishops that one would act as steward of His authority in absentia. Just as the Apostles deferred (to put it poorly) to Christ, the bishops are to defer to the particular authority given to the Vicar of Christ. For a through discourse on the Church's teaching on the topic search "unity of government council of trent". I hope I answered your question(s).
Jesus has a team, which includes his mom, the 12 Apostles, and the church he instructed us to grow and lead
Paul’s awesome. Love me some Paul.
jokes on you thats his 2nd favorite hobby
No Christian would need an institution to show their love for their religion.
The Vicar of Christ? NO!! More like, The Mouthpiece of Satan.
Indeed.
He refuses to be called the Vicar of Christ. Telling.
This pope talking about "faith" is exactly like the Democrats talking about democracy.
The "faith" he wants to see is turning away from God's word and following woke human movements instead of following Jesus.
The "democracy" the Dems push involves cheating in elections, canceling civil rights, and arresting their political opponents.
Fake Christian pushes fake Christianity. News at 11.
Communist fake pope.
Pope sounds like grope 😳
Isn't most major organized religions based on socialism
No. However, the socialism that pre-dated Marx was Christian socialism. In Christian socialism however, the emphasis wasn't on society and economics but on doing good for others and creating institutions and laws that had a social justice component. After the French Revolution and especially after Marx however, Christian socialism or what is more properly now called Paternalism, was mostly replaced by an atheist system of economics that envisions a constant social fight between capitalists, the rich on one hand and the oppressed worker and impoverished on the other. I don't know of a modern version of socialism that has existed for the last 150 years that isn't of the Marxist variety.
What distinguishes Paternalism from Marxism is that Paternalism (what you are thinking is Christian socialism) was voluntary, focused on religion, directly helped individuals in need as opposed to setting up programs and institutions to "advocate" for them, and also believed that some people need to be cared for and couldn't make decisions for themselves. That last point is part of modern Marxist socialism but rather than attributing this "natural slave state" to just a few individuals who have mental and/or physical problems, Marxism treats everyone as if they are nothing but cogs in the wheel that can't make good decisions for themselves.
Giving to the poor isn't communism. In fact, Jesus said that it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. Early Christians would give away all the property and make self sustaining communes where money wasn't accepted, which is the exact opposite of communism, which is the concentration of all the resources on the hands of a handful of powerful people. Communists are delusional, because they think they're helping the poor when in fact they're making them even poorer.
That is not entirely true. Exact verse you are referring to is
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
And for reference the web page of the late Billy Graham also disagree with your statement Q: I've been very successful in business, and to be honest, this year has been an especially good one for me. But is it true that the Bible says a rich man can't go to heaven? I heard someone say that the other day, and I admit it's kind of upset me.
A: No, the Bible doesn’t say that someone who is rich can never go to heaven. In fact, some of the Bible’s most faithful men and women were also wealthy (or at least prosperous)—people like Abraham and Job in the Old Testament, or Joanna and Lydia in the New Testament.
But the Bible does warn us about the dangers of wealth—and one of the greatest dangers is that it can keep us from God. Instead of putting God first in our lives, we put our money and wealth first, and end up ignoring God. We also can become proud, and we trust our money for our security. This is why the Bible warns us that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).
Never forget that everything you have—your health, your abilities, your money, everything—has been given to you by God. Don’t let money become your master, controlling everything you do. Instead thank God for what He has allowed you to have, and ask Him to help you use it wisely and for His glory.
Most of all, trust Jesus Christ alone for your salvation. No matter how good we are, or even how generous we are, we still fall short of God’s standard—which is perfection. Only Christ can save us, and He will as we trust Him alone for our salvation. Put your life into His hands today.
Fuck this False Prophet into the lake of fire with a chainsaw
Edgy
The retard who says gays and trannies and Sodom and Gomorrah are now okay? The same guy who said Sodom and Gomorrah fell not cause the explicit reason stated, but because citizens were not open to accepting diversity and immigrants?
Sorry for all the retards that thinks he is the pope.
He hasn't got that far yet. He said "Who am I to judge" regarding the perverts and queers but he hasn't actually changed the teachings of the Church.
Also, to those Catholics who want to know, the Synod on Synodality is not an ecumenical council. Synod by definition means small council which essentially means it is not binding on the faithful. Nothing that binds the faithful can come from this Synod on Synodality the Pope is doing. It is not part of the magisterium.
He’s a faggot commie shitstain. Is that what you were trying to say? No??
He said he's not a Marxist and that Catholicism cannot be Marxist, but I suspect he is not sincere in saying that. There's no evidence that Pope Francis is gay but he certainly does dote on known gays in the clergy. He does advance and promote faggots.
I'm not defending Pope Francis. I am simply pointing out, there's a line he hasn't actually crossed yet, but I do suspect he wants to cross.
His favorite author brought critical theory to South American education with Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
He's absolutely a marxist.
He's also a liar.
Yep. As I said, I don't know how sincere Pope Francis is when he says he's not a Marxist. It is obvious though that he expects us to just believe that denial at face value. Your comment is the reason why we shouldn't.
I believe the Bible. It is my ideology. My faith is in God as it is something I cannot see. The pope believes in neither.
If you have read and believe the Bible then 98% of catholicism traditions, ceremonies, practices, etc are all made up bullshit including the special man with the big hat dressed in white.
I don't think you know the Bible as well as you think you know the Bible. I just started taking the Bible seriously in 2019 and so far, I have found really fantastic reasons in the Bible for everything Catholics do. I had read the Bible in it's entirely three times prior but wasn't impressed with it all although found it way more impressive than the Koran. The Bible to me was just ancient books and maybe had some prehistoric lore in them.
I wasn't Catholic until 2019 but let me tell ya, the Bible and Catholicism are so in sync it's actually shocking to me sometimes. For instance, take the thing Catholics do that is an hour of adoration. It comes from the Garden of Gethsamene when Jesus said to Peter, John and James who had fallen asleep, "Can you not stay up and keep watch with me for one hour? The spirit is willing but the flesh is week". The whole point to Eucharistic Adoration and spending an hour in prayer is to keep watch with Jesus for one hour in lieu of Peter, James and John who did not. it is not binding on the faithful Catholic to do this ritual but wow, is it a powerful ritual, to put yourself in the place of the Apostles to "watch one hour" with Jesus. I don't know any protestants who do that or even think to do that. yet, it's based on the Bible and right at the beginning of Jesus' Passion, Death and Resurrection which will take place in the next three days. It's really a very cool ritual and totally biblically based.
We live in an evil time which makes it even more important that we rise to the challenge.
Catholics don't say adoration is necessary at all. Some parishes don't even have it or offer it. however, it's an awesome ritual to have. Catholics themselves are free to do it or not do it. I don't really do it. I want to but my Church doesn't offer it all the time and it's inconvenient for me right now. I hope in a month or two my schedule will be rearranged and then I'd like to do it.
A lot of Catholicism isn't there because Catholics Have to do it on pain of sin. A lot of it is there because we want to do it to augment our faith or do more than just Sunday worship and daily solitary prayer. There's so much in Catholicism that you can never really be bored with all the things you can do. At first, I was overwhelmed by it and thought I had to do it all to be close to God but soon, I realized it's better to do the necessary things well and use the extras to augment what spiritual direction I'm going in. So I dropped some devotion and picked up others. I suspect it will take a life time or longer to go through them all. it's really rich because there's always something there and there's always a book on it, some group that is doing something with it, some way to adapt it to your life. I mean it's a great religion for anyone with spiritual onset ADHD.
Lmao!
Brothers and sisters in Aramaic can mean and often do mean, cousins and relatives. There's no indication in the Bible that Mary had any more children. Also, actual Protestant Biblical scholars don't bother arguing Mary had children other than Jesus because it's pretty clear that early Church didn't believe that. If they're going to try to say Jesus had half siblings, they usually pawn that off on St. Joseph and say he was widower before he married Mary. It runs into the same problem, but it's actually the more historical valid piece of imagined fiction because the early Church was silent about Joseph. However, the medieval church had a lot to say about Joseph, but much of it came by way of private revelation and therefore, is not doctrine, dogma and is not credited with veracity by the church, either at the time or now.
Catholics will continue to defend their idolatry of Mary and saints and see nothing wrong with it...just like confessing to some priest...adding in unnecessary and unBiblical steps in their walks
umm, hmm...
James 5:16
James is part of the Bible. Confession is the practical way the Catholic Church follows James commandment to "confess your sins to one another".
Also, the word to pray simply means "to ask". Prayer by itself, isn't just worship. Worship is a type of prayer that is only given to God as the source and summation of all that is good. However, Just because God is the source and summation of all that is good, doesn't mean when my sister makes me cookies that the cookies came directly from God and therefore I shouldn't thank my sister. No, I should thank my sister and praise God both for the cookies and my sister. Thanking my sister doesn't detract from my thanks to God. In the same way, when I ask my sister to pray for me, it doesn't mean that I think I can't go to God directly in prayer. I'm just adding to the number of people who will pray to God for the same thing. So too with the Saints and with the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am simply asking those who already in heaven and therefore see God face-to-face, to pray for me and mine as well. I'm multiplying the spiritual power by including others in my prayers both by asking them to pray and praying for them. it's like adding force mulipliers, exponents if you will, to our prayers.
You don't have to do this. It's not a sin to not ask others to pray for you but James says the "fervent prayers of the righteous are powerful" right after telling us to confess to each other and to pray for each other. He's basically saying this is how to put more power in prayer. Of course, you don't have to, but it's better than going it alone in my experience. I have about 20 saints I ask for prayers daily and I think it works well. Plus, it means when and if I get to heaven, I'll have friends there. Yes, God will be there and yes, Heaven with just me or just any one person is still Heaven, but as Paul talks about a cloud of witnesses cheering us on from Heaven, it's nice to have a good cloud of witnesses helping us out.
I dont see any Bible verses about asking the dead for anything...still waiting
umm, yes, it is in the Bible.
2 Kings 13:21
Elisha's bones acted like the relics of saints and brought a dead man back to life. In fact, read all of Chapter 13 because there's a few other miracles from Holy men that involve relics being used.
Furthermore, how about a shadow of a saint, because in Acts 5:15, Peter heals people in Jerusalem whom are covered by his shadow.
Peter's not the only one. Paul heals people with his handkerchiefs.
Acts 19:11-12
btw, the "dead" who are in heaven, aren't dead. God says in the OT, that he is a the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But God isn't God of the dead but of the living. Jesus says this as much in the Gospels. Therefore, yeah, we can pray to the living saints in Heaven and ask them to pray for us.
Also IF you get to Heaven? Sounds like you are quite unsure of your faith..
I'm as sure as St.Paul was.
1 Corinthians 4:3,4
Please do yourself a favor and read this with an open mind https://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html
No. You already proved that you will distort the Roman Catholics position to fit your biases and prejudices and that you do not have a firm understanding of the Bible. anyway, I have to make din din for family. I might came back later, if I have time.
k, read it. It's just a polemic diatribe by someone who thinks he knows the Bible and obviously doesn't.
So it’s a numbers game? This reasoning reminds me of Tibetan prayer wheels.
Well, numbers is one of the ways to think about it, but yeah, a multitude is better than a solitary person.
I dont hate Catholics...Im just saying the practice of praying to the dead is NOT in the Bible...if Jesus told us to do this anywhere I'll be glad to admit Im wrong...
You don't believe Jesus meant it when he bestowed on his disciples the power to forgive sin?
Only Jesus can forgive sins...and only Jesus ans the Father should be prayed to...period
John 20:23 is very clear. The disciples have the power to forgive sin through God. I don't think there's anything that could disabuse me of the glory and grace of the sacrament of confession.
Christians talking about idolatry live in glass houses.
First chunk read like copypasta lol
well, it's not.
Transubstantiation is fake just like your pope. I do see your worship of Mary as authentic though.
Do you believe in Jesus at all? Do you believe the Eucharists is merely symbolic of his body? Just curious why you say it's fake.
Yes sir. And yes. The eucharist, communion, Lord's supper...whatever you want to call it, is symbolic and spiritual. Many things Jesus told us and taught us were physical analogies for spiritual matters. I value the taking of the Bread and Wine, but do not believe it literally, physically transforms into actual blood and flesh in my mouth as the papists do.
John 6:52-63 makes this clear. To summarize, Jesus is telling the jews and disciples that He is the bread of life, to eat Him and to drink His blood. The disciples are confused and Jesus senses this. So verse 63 is His clarification. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"
The belief in transubstantiation is silly and unbiblical. Much like most of catholic traditions.
Oh what a convincing argument. I'll throw out a 2,000 year old tradition because your novel understanding of the Bible you don't read anyway doesn't agree with it. /s
More like 1100 years of tradition, built on faulty doctrines upon more faulty doctrines, with all refusal to reform.
Nope. 2,000 years of tradition. If you want a 1,000 years of tradition, you can become Eastern Orthodox since they split from the RCC in 1054 in the Great Schism.
Sola Traditio, per usual.
Sola Scriptura, the only reliable way to understand God.
I pray you turn from your reliance on men and lean on His Word. There is no mediator between you and Christ.
You sound more Catholic than almost any Catholic I know!
I'm going to take that as a compliment because I really really want to sound like a Catholic and be one too.
Username checks out
Same can be said about all religions.
Ironically, the one religion that stays true to the old gospel is Islam, of all things.
They believe that Jesus was real, but Christians changed the word of Christ over the years and formed modern Christianity as we know it. The Catholic Church being one of the main corruptors of the text.
But Islam also believes Muhammad was a holy profit and to follow his lifestyle, which was that of a warlord pedophile.
I can hear the excuses already for praying to Mary and various saints. NO ONE reaches the Father except through Christ. They will twist more than circus performers to justify "asking" dead people to pray for them.
And if you knew anything about Catholics, you'd know that what you just said about them is completely untrue.
It's ironic, because you claim the Catholics are lying, but you're already either wrong or lying about the main thing you're taking issue with them on. 🤔🤔🤔
She/he doesn’t even know enough to understand that orthodox are also Catholics… You’re arguing with an ignorant individual.
You're right, except I'm not arguing with an ignorant individual, I'm simply pointing out that they are ignorant.
The nature of the hatred is the same as what a lot of leftists have for conservatives/MAGA - they've simply been told to hate, and in a lot of cases what they hate isn't even a true thing.
I dont hate Catholics....Im merely pointing out theyve been fooled in to believing these rituals and prayers(to dead saints and Mary) are pointless idolatry
Except that's not what it is, so you're ignorant in what you're pointing out.
It's the equivalent of saying "MAGA is wrong because they want everyone to have a slave, and having slaves is wrong!" - except that's not what MAGA wants, so it's pointless to attack them over that.
Hail Mary.....end of argument
You mean the prayer that asks Mary to pray FOR the person praying?
Huh, why would you ask for Mary to pray FOR you? 🤔
Why would you ask anyone to pray FOR you? 🤔🤔
If I ask my friend to pray FOR me in my time of need, does that mean I worship and idolize my friend? 🤔🤔🤔
You're lacking logic.
The Word of God? That's where the Hail Mary is found. I'm not sure which position you're taking here.
Catholics dont say prayers to and ask for dead people(Mary, saints) to pray for them? Cuz I think they do...
No. They don't say prayers TO dead people.
Would you ask a family member or friend to pray with you, to pray FOR you?
ah yes talking with dead people. cope harder
Seethe more, protestant.
I've already explained, but you're too utterly retarded to understand the concept, so I'll leave it at that.
So there are no prayers for intercession to various saints and Mary that Catholics regularly do? Now who is lying?
Did you miss my last comment entirely?
Of course we believe in intercessionary prayer.
Making some one a saint is like giving someone a nobel prize. To some in Catholicism is a big deal. Others are so what. Its back to being prideful. Hey isnt this guy great...lets put him on a pedestal
that argument has about as much depth as your analogy if you think about it
because its not about the nobel prize, its what was done to earn it. if you think the award is the important part youre missing the point. its a stringent recognition of what the person accomplished.
stupid argument.
So are Orthodox and Protestant traditions. Except that it may be a local council of dour (mostly) women making up the bullshit.
#methodism
Boooooo fake pope.
JP2 was pretty good.
He really was. He’s been canonized as a Saint.
JP2 did a lot to heal orthodox and RC relations
I liked him even though I’m not RC
By the same mafia that gave us Bergoglio.
Really activates the almonds.
Well, there was that whole "venerating the Koran" issue...
Venerating is different than inviting them into churches to do their bizarre desert demon rituals
JP2 did that too. Assisi 1986. Kissing a koran and co-celebrating with the pagans, not that great of a pope.
Well... I'm not even Christian so.. idgaf he just seemed much better than the literally installed by evil monsters they got now
He was. Haters gonna hate.
yeah, well, St.Peter fucked up too. Peter tried to convince Jesus not to go to Jerusalem and avoid the cross. Peter also denied he knew Jesus three times before Holy Saturday morning. Peter also cut off a guard's ear in the Garden of Gethsamene but I'm not sure that's a bad thing....I mean Jesus did say "those who live by the sword die by the sword" and then healed the Guard's ear but I'm not sure Peter was wholly wrong to do that. On the other hand, I'm American and Americans are more prone to violence. Also, instead of staying in Jerusalem, Peter went back to Galilee and started his fishing business again. That might have been Peter's worse sin, if it was a sin. I don't know.
That's the weakest cope I've ever heard. It's the same spirit as "I don't do all the most horrible things I can imagine, so I'm a good person."
Ok Templar.
Hard to fight a legalistic Pharisee…. Or was it the Sadducees that were the legalists? I forgot… I need to brush up.
Pharisees
Bizarre shit like ritual cannibalism?
JP2 was a Commie as well!
Im confused -the post states the pope is involved but all i see is a commie in white
The Poop
Is the Pope Catholic? This question has been answered, and the answer is NO!
He catholic, he’s not Christian
I’m Catholic. This has been prophesied. The church has been infiltrated by commie homosexuals. The “Pope” Francis is a heretic.
Prophesied quite a few times, in manners that were unbelievable and made no sense when they were given. The fact we can see them all now is telling.
nows your chance begum protestant
Not my Pope.
I'm not even Catholic and I think this guy is the worst.
They are carving up and sterilizing children. This "pope" should face his faith and explain to them why this is acceptable. And then why we should do nothing or why the Catholic church, historically known for intervening, should do nothing.
The Magisterium has already spoken about transgender children and adults. This is what it has said:
Gender is never in conflict with biological sex. Gender flows from biological sex. Gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder that needs to be treated as a problem with the brain, mind and soul and cannot be treated by bodily mutilation.
Parents have authority over their minor children to name them. Children who name themselves and refer to their given name as a dead name are dishonoring their parents and their authority. Likewise, the duty to honor parents does not cease when a child becomes an adult but even though the manner of honoring may change from obeying to discernment, a certain amount of respect must be shown. It is a sin against authority to treat the given name as a dead name and seek to erase one's past.
Compassion and understanding should be extended to those who struggle with gender dysphoria but it is not compassionate or understanding to aid them to persist in identifying as a gender or sex that they cannot be. It is an injustice to them to participate in their lie.
This isn't magisterial teaching in that it's not in the Catechism of the Catholic church but many theologians of the Church have stated that these three statements are a correct viewpoint for a Catholic to take on the issue of transgender children and adults.
I'm not Catholic so perhaps you can explain to me where the Pope is going wrong here? This doesn't make sense.
The magisterium of the Church still defines homosexual sexual attraction as "inherently disordered". The act of homosexual sex is still considered a grave sin (mortal sin) that must be confessed to a priest in order to receive communion. As of 1994, JP II said any man with a persistent homosexual attraction cannot be receive Holy Orders, that is, become an ordained priest. If such were to happen, the ordination would still be valid but not licit.
The pope on being question about homosexuality responded "Who am I to judge?". In a Disney sponsored Q&A with teenagers and young adults, the Pope said that God made queers "perfect" and that they are "children of God" and did not condemn any queer things at all. Pope Francis met with three trannies in a general audience (anyone can get a general audience with the Pope if they pay $500-1,000 and show up to the Vatican while the Pope is in town and wait in line for a few hours.) The trannies gave Pope Francis a tranny book and Pope Francis smiled and thanked them for it and said their stories should be heard and known.
Pope Francis hasn't crossed the line, but he's dancing on it.
He's also come dangerously close to saying married and divorced and remarried Catholics can receive the Eucharist will persisting in their remarried state of life. The Catholic church's teaching is that a married, then divorced, then remarried Catholic must live a chaste life, either by leaving the new spouse or living in a brother/sister type of relation with the new spouse. The phrase he used in an encyclical was for a "pastoral understanding" used at the discretion of a priest, thus implying doctrine had changed which it can't because the Bible is pretty clear that divorce and remarriage isn't allowed. This is the encyclical that cause the war to erupt between the faithful in the church and the lefties in the clergy. Leftist Catholics who are not clergy really don't care about the Church at all because they don't follow the church's teachings anyway.
So some faithful catholics asked Francis to clarify his teaching on divorce/remarriage and communion in the encyclical Amoris Laetitia and so far Francis has not done so but started removing Cardinals who asked for clarification. Pope Francis went on a purge instead.
No Catholic that I know can stand the guy. Most think he's an anti-pope.
This "Pope" represents Catholics as well as Biden represents us.
He represents liberal boomer women Catholics.
Thankfully a dying breed.
Actually breed is probably the wrong word, considering they don't have any children. The replacement blue hairs aren't even going to be religious (unless you count climate cult)
That's why the pope is working so hard against traditionalism, aka pre 1960s commie takeover; because those communities are absolutely thriving.
Says the commie anti-pope. Thanks.
Eat a dick faggot fake pope
The opinion of a heretic doesn't concern me.
So, is he the Vicar of Christ and part of an unbroken line of Popes back to Peter, or not?
No, and even Catholics have a legal excuse to disown him under Catholic Canon Law:
Throughout his long and prestigious career as a Catholic theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI was the world's foremost expert on the difference between the "munus" (office) of the papacy and the "ministerium" (active ministry). In his legally binding Latin resignation, he "just so happened" to "accidentally" only resign the ministerium, not the munus, which made him legally still Pope until his recent death. That's not the kind of slip a man like him would have made by mistake, considering he had written on the subject at length and in depth and continued to live at the Vatican as long as possible, among other clues.
The College of Cardinals and Bergoglian sect ("Pope Francis" and his Satanist friends) did not catch this early on, largely because the translation into Benedict XVI's native German resignation sounded "proper" enough to accept it at face value. People only caught on to the loophole Benedict XVI gave them after the fact, but so far nobody has been willing enough to accept the embarrassment to admit their mistake and declare "Francis" one of the church's many antipopes.
Enough time has now passed since Pope Benedict XVI's death to legally complicate things further, but long-term, it's reasonable to expect that "Francis" will be eventually disavowed like the other antipopes.
Any sauce? Want to finally understand this. Thanks
It's been a few years since I've read about it, and this is a rather "radical" site to learn it from, but this is one of the site's many articles on the subject: https://www.fromrome.info/2020/03/08/at-an-answer-to-why-benedict-resigned-the-ministerium-not-the-munus/
IIRC some of the other articles I read a few years back on the same site had more links and everything for credible citation, but this one has a couple, and it should be a good starting point at least.
The author also has a video series on the topic, but I haven't watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PGmlQNSLWs&list=PLDfTuhppkmKpz9zyug050t-tmOcRqbuGU
Nope. Bergoglio was not validly elected according to Church Law. Benedict was still Pope until he died, and now there is no Pope.
Are you able to explain exactly which church law was not followed that was followed with Benedict?
Here is a very detailed explanation: https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/
The apostles would be infuriated by the idea of the papacy.
umm, the Apostles deferred to Peter, the first Pope.
Paul called Peter out to his face.
yes, he did. Paul was right and Peter was wrong. It was over whether those Christians who had been gentiles should observe the dietary law along with the Jews who became Christians were still doing in Galatia. Paul called Peter out by pointing out that Peter had already made a ruling recorded in Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter unilaterally made the decision that gentiles didn't have to follow the dietary laws. Notice, it was Peter that made the original decision and it was on the basis, that Paul called him out. Paul wasn't saying "I think blah blah blah blah" Paul said, Peter, you already said with all of the 10 present, (10 because Mathias had not been chosen to replace Judas Iscariot yet), ruled that gentiles don't have to follow the dietary laws of Judaism. Peter also corrected himself as he should.
That doesn't make Paul superior to Peter in authority. It means Paul was using Peter's authoritative teaching to question what Peter had said to Jews in Galatia. Paul was basically asking, "what authoritative teaching should we believe" and the response was, the authoritative teaching that Peter taught while he was presiding over the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem.
They never called Peter the first pope.
yeah, they called him by his title, the ROCK, which is Petros in Latin, Cephas in Greek and kepa in Aramaic.
Isaiah 22:21-22
Matthew 16:15-19
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The man who held the keys to Jerusalem was the steward of the King. The position was more like a chief of staff than a head butler. The chief of staff to the Roman Emperor was called the Pontifex Maximus.
The word "Pontiff" which refers to the Pope is basically calling him the chief of staff to the King, Jesus Christ.
However in Peter's time and first century or so of the Church, the word Rock in whatever language being used was, was used as a title, not a proper name. This is why the Bible calls him Peter (in English), Petros (in Latin), Cephas (in Greek) and Kepa (in Aramaic). It's a Title. So is Pontiff and so is Pope.
It's actually more like Rocky in Rocky Balboa. It was a nickname referring to his rough character
I'm sure your protestant translation of a translation of a translation of the bible is more accurate regarding Catholics than the 2000 year old institution full of religious scholars who have examined this exact issue.
Depending in which english translation of the bible you use... it really doesn't doesn't say anything concretely if you compare it to all the other bibles. I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but go and look up any part of the bible, and one of the first results will be one of the many sites which has at least a dozen different translations, sometimes with significant variations.
So don't try to definitively claim anything about specific words, when for all we know you're reading the Common Core edition.
You should be looking at the meaning and intent. Otherwise you're just like the leftists arguing about the location of the commas in the 2nd Amendment.
See this what I talk about. I'm right and your wrong. You are a apostate for not being Catholic
Fantastic argument you have there. Really covers all the bases. 😂
My translation is based on the compilation of all known manuscripts in the original Greek and Hebrew. Upon which manuscripts is your translation based?
Strange, that's what all the others claim too, and yet they're all different 🤔
Oh and which version would that be?
I asked you a question. This is potentially a conversation, not an interrogation where only you get to ask questions.
They'd be infuriated by the idea of the Incarnation then.
Not...
He is and he hasn't changed any of the Church's teachings. He's just making quips provocative quips so far.
Ah, the old convenient, "anything we disagree with is not ex cathedra, anything we do is."
It may seem like that because it's a difficult thing to grasp and I can't say I fully understand it either. The shorthand version of it is this: Whenever the Pope uses his position to teach about faith and morals along with the bishops, the traditions of the church and the Bible, it's an ex Cathedra statement" This rules out Pope giving impromptu interviews on planes, reports by journalists of what the Pope said off the record in an interview, the pope's private correspondence or his meeting with some person who came to visit him. It also rules out a synod that expressly excludes certain cardinals and certain bishops.
However, I can see why someone would think it's a "anything we like is ex cathedra and anything we don't like, isn't" but you'd have to make a study of all the Popes and all the teachings to really get at the heart of that. The thing is, I think very few that cynically reduce it to that, actually have looked at it closely.
Btw, I strongly suspect that Pope Francis really does want to change the church's teaching in regards to sexual morality as regards homosexuality. He seems to want to overturn prohibitions on contraception, birth control and divorce/remarriage and homosexual unions. He has flat out said that he is in favor of homosexual civil contracts but he also knows this is not the teaching of the Church. Despite his repeated de-emphasis on the Pro-Life issue in regards to abortion, he is still pro-life and has said several things in regards to the Pro-Life issue that are supportive. He has also preached against pornography. I think he is also may be in favor of married clergy, but that's not a doctrine or dogma of the Church. That's a discipline of the Church and the church has always acknowledged that.
Fucktard Pope is a fucking douche, that is all.
the pope sided with the fascists instantly in italy. the pope does not represent faith nowadays, he is just a stooge like biden.
I'm thinking back to how the Pope handled WWII. Issued an essay expressing "burning sorrow" about the whole German situation, without naming any specific bad people or doing anything extreme like declaring a crusade. Could've told the largely Catholic people of southern Germany they'd go to Heaven if they died overthrowing their government, but didn't want to go that far.
The Pope was virtually a prisoner of the Vatican in the lead up to WWII because Mussolini had made it a crime for he Pope to leave. Exactly how was the Pope supposed to raise an army to lead a crusade while imprisoned in the Vatican? Most Catholics, including clergy had already succumbed to modernist heresies.
He somehow got that "burning sorrow" essay out there. Couldn't personally have led an army but simply getting the word out to German Catholics to overthrow their government by any means in the name of God, as a crusade, would've created a possible uprising. The Church had done it for the sake of slaughtering the Cathar heretics centuries before.
I suppose he did the safe, politically helpful thing as opposed to taking a moral stand at all costs in the name of God. He had a massive palace full of gold and fine art; could he not bribe anybody to get a letter out the door? Or was keeping all the shiny things more important?
What army was the Vatican supposed to raise? I think it's preposterous to supposed that in the mid 20th century the Pope could have called any crusade or raised any army. He couldn't even leave the Vatican and for the century prior, the papal states were overrun by Garibaldi, The French had been in a constant state of rebellion against the ancien regime since the French Revolution, America-Canada-UK - Australia were all Protestant nations, Portugal-Mexico-Latin America were going through very violent times of anti clericalism, Spain had just recovered from a brutally violent civil war that the Nazis aligned with Franco in, Australia-Hungary-Romania-Czech had been ripped by the WWI and the overwhelmed by hoardes streaming out of the USSR, Ukraine was starving, the Nordic Countries were Protestant, so exactly where would this Catholic Army/crusade come from?
It's not a matter of letter writing or bartering fine art trinkets, and btw, there were enough of them going around in that time period.....it's a matter that the Christendom was totally fractured and most of the powers that be were hardly Christian anymore.
Exactly how much do you think it would have profited the Pope to sell Michaelangelo's David in 1940 to raise an army? The answer is not enough.
My gosh, under Pius XI, the future Pope, Pius the XII, had a gun put to his head while in Cologne by commies and when he reported to the Bavarian authorities, they made fun of him for not being a Nazi. Exactly how much power do you think Pius XII had?
I'm just imagining a scenario where Jesus or any saint got told, "Submit or die!" and he said, "Yeah OK, I'll do the safe thing and come back to offer some really mild rebuke while other people suffer. Wouldn't want to risk being killed or anything."
Welp, there it is Frens! The Poop has hit the fan, it must be True...🙄🇺🇲
You spelled Pope wrong 😏
Ooopsy! My bad!
The pope is a child molesting, faggot globalist, piece of shit and can go fuck himself sideways with a cat food can lid.
Fake ass clown popes are a big reason why I left the catholic church. Smh, SAD.
I became catholic the year before covid. Because of this horrid Priest I have not returned.... he is awful.
the pedo pope was installed by satan
Who's pulling his strings?
S-t-n
Don't look at who pays for all his visits and gives him money...
(starts with an R and ends in an S...)
From the one who himself has ignored Church teaching in favor of pushing his own ideology.
Seems like the Pope's ideology is getting in the way of his own faith.
Go shit in your pointy little hat asshole.