5084
Comments (1003)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
9
Long_time_lurker 9 points ago +12 / -3

It's way more complicated than that. It's absolutely not the case that every random thing that he or any other pope said is gospel and statements made ex cathedra are very rare and quite unlikely to ever appear as Tweets -

"in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
10
astro_eng 10 points ago +11 / -1

Well the church is officially against abortion but hasnt excommunicated nancy or sleepy joe!

1
EpicPede 1 point ago +3 / -2

All the catholics I know are pro choice it drives me insane.

2
Long_time_lurker 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm absolutely against abortion. It's murder, pure and simple.

A lot of people have received a commie brainwashing that says something to the effect of how we can't impose our religion on others. But this isn't forcing people to be baptized or something, this preventing children from being murdered.

Moreover, that reading of "freedom of religion" is utterly perverse because it makes it such that religious people have no say in the laws they must live under. That is absolutely not how democracies are supposed to work, but it's another form of commie subversion that needs to be known and fought against directly.

They talk about privilege a lot, but if you notice, they've been studying how to privilege themselves. They don't want to end privilege as they claim, they want to exploit it to benefit themselves and they know that, but will never admit it. As with all commie arguments, it's deeply hypocritical and self-serving.

6
Long_time_lurker 6 points ago +7 / -1

It's hard to make a case that that's a matter of faith or morals and it'd be extra hard to square it with Bible verses like the one where Jesus told His followers to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they had to.

In short, don't hold your breath, they don't go around making pronouncements like that much. In terms of deliberate pronouncements ex cathedra, I think there have only ever been two? Basically, it just doesn't happen most doctrine is already well-decided and not going to change.

I mean, I get what he's saying--war is hell and you don't want to start one. I'm on board with that one.

The problem is that the method is entirely wrong from what I've seen in history. Peace through strength works, surrendering your weapons when people hate you has a long history of being a really bad idea. In particular, Cambodia's king tried to disarm the people. The commies there stole the shipments of weapons and then murdered the people with their own guns.

I don't want that to happen here. Also, I'm pretty sure the church leadership is being blackmailed by Epstein types. The pope's election was not normal. I imagine they indicated that they were going to blame all the pedo scandals on the former pope and he couldn't exactly hide in the Vatican and never leave without a lot of questions, or something like that. I don't claim to actually know anything here for sure, but it makes entirely too much sense after what we read in all the leaked emails and what we know about how Epstein's blackmail operations worked.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Long_time_lurker 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here's a thorough explanation of them:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

They were never a license to sin or anything like that, nor did they even apply to anything but already forgiven sin, but plenty of people misunderstood that.

3
LainDietrich 3 points ago +3 / -0

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

  • CCC 2265

Here in the states, we the people are recognized as holding legitimate authority to keep and bear arms, so such a position would be in contradiction with extant Church teaching.

Also, Papal infallibility isn't something the Pope can just "activate" whenever he wants. It's only recognized when the reigning pontiff is making explicit statements on faith or morals, and only in particular circumstances.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LainDietrich 1 point ago +1 / -0

The man posted a tweet. Chill.

-1
MaybeKari -1 points ago +2 / -3

So what happens if this Pope does come out and say "private firearms ownership is officially against Church doctrine"? What he invokes his "this time what I'm saying is infallible" clause and makes that the official Catholic stance?

Papal teaching cannot introduce utter novelties or contradict Scripture or Tradition. Popes cannot reverse past teachings or make up new doctrines out of whole cloth.

The Catechism (2265) specifically states defense is not only a right but a grave duty and unjust aggressors can be rendered unable to cause harm. Those who legitimately hold authority have the right to use arms to repel aggressors.

How is it you are so misinformed about Catholicism??