/lit/ - Literature

>>20694267
>>20694272
>he thinks an anti-pope is the legitimate pope
imbecile

>>20668675
>>20668967
>>20670054
Imbeciles. The Pope is materially valid, but formally invalid. Therefore, he is an anti-pope. Scripture never said that there would never be a period where a valid-Pope is absent. IN FACT, Sedevacantism happens whenever a valid pope dies. It's literally basic shit how can you be so retarded.
Imbeciles.

>>20657417
>which unironically reduces God to an impersonal, deistic, and naturalistic entity if you follow his theology to the very end
this statement is suspect, therefore ignored.
> Aquinas has no answer for that except for faith
I've only read portions of the Summa (and Aquinas' works generally) so I don't know if you're lying or not. Given that Schismatic Ortodox are disposed to deception and lying in my experience, I will have to doubt this statement also and whether the specific question you mention was even addressed by Aquinas or not.
>embracing the dogma of a literal Protestant, a sedevacantist lol
sedevacantists are absolutely NOT Protestants you liar (again, with the Ortodox habit of lying). they view the defective Popes as materially valid, but formally illegitimate on account of manifest heresy, which is in accordance with the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law and Church History. See pic-related.
>try to see what Palamas is doing before you criticize him for being a "carnal polytheist"
Whatever Palamas was doing is manifestly heretical and polytheistic though. This is very difficult to deny if you've listened to the arguments presented in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g)) above.